Book Review: Divergent Trilogy Review

Divergent Trilogy

Divergent:  Four Stars out of Five

Insurgent: Three and Half Stars out of Five

Allegiant: Three Stars out of Five

Author: Virginia Roth

I recently reviewed Divergent the book and compared it to Divergent the movie. In this review, I continue the Divergent trilogy series book review. Divergent was published in 2011, with Insurgent following one year later in 2012, and the concluding book Allegiant in 2013. The three books describe a post-apocalyptic world that is centered on Chicago some seven or more generations after a catastrophic war. The primary protagonists are sixteen year old Beatrice/Tris and her eighteen year old boyfriend, Four/Tobias. They live in a society that has been split into five factions that emphasize a single personality trait: Abnegation (selflessness), Amity (kindness), Candor (honesty), Dauntless (bravery), and Erudite (intelligence).

In book one, we are introduced to the world Beatrice and Four live in. At sixteen, each member of a faction must choose the faction in which they will live out their lives. Beatrice and her brother Caleb separated by less than a year in age make a choice that takes them away from their birth faction of Abnegation. This very clever plot point by author Virginia Roth creates a situation where Beatrice’s and Caleb’s parents must demonstrate their love and understanding as regards their children’s choices; it is particularly astute writing as Roth later brings the Four character into the story and discusses his choice to move to a new faction wherein his choice was based on a stark contrast, his desire to flee an abusive father. Such clever uses of plot and character points are used by Roth throughout the three books to discuss behavioral traits that she appears to believe are important aspects of any society.

Divergent continues in a clever (if somewhat formulaic) manner by following Beatrice’s (now renamed Tris) initiation into the Dauntless faction. Here she learns firsthand their primary focus on bravery and meets her initiation instructor and boyfriend-to-be, Four (aka Tobias). Book one describes a pending plot by Erudite’s leader Jeanine against Abnegation that Four and Tris confound, but do not completely defeat. In book two, Insurgent, the plot by Jeanine continues and is ultimately thoroughly defeated by Tris, Four and their new colleagues, the Factionless; a group that is led by Four’s mother, Evelyn. Book three, Allegiant describes a rising resistance movement against the now oppressive Evelyn and the Factionless. The rebel army (the Allegiant) is led in part by Four’s other parent, his abusive father Marcus. Tris and Four leave Chicago as their part in the resistance movement requires them to seek information from those outside of Chicago. In their interactions with those outside of the city (The Bureau), they learn the true history of Chicago and its inhabitants. This history includes revelations that convince Tris and Four that further revolution is needed, this time against the Bureau and their concept of who is “genetically pure” and who is “gene-damaged”.

All three books are well crafted from several technical points of view. In particular, the plot pacing is great in book one, while the characters are so well described in books one and two that it is easy to become captivated or repulsed by several of the central characters. However, while the plot is well paced and logical in Divergent, the first book in the trilogy, it starts to suffer in books two and three. In book two, Insurgent, the plot becomes repetitious and the story-telling is damaged on several occasions with scene segues that seem like editorial miscues. However, my biggest complaint with the trilogy is with an absence of character development.

Consider the case of Tobias. The story alludes in the first book to his abuse as a child and then better defines his backstory in book three. Roth goes so far in book three to use the first person narrative with both Tris and Tobias (after using it only for Tris in books one and two); presumably to better focus on Tobias. I do not find this textual technique to be useful and, in fact, the use of Tobias as the narrator suffered from a poor delineation of his voice from that of Tris’ voice. I often had to re-read some sentences to verify who was speaking, their voices were so similar. But complaints about narrative voice aside, Tobias’ character could have provided a great opportunity for Roth to show Tobias’ evolution as he came to know himself in his new faction of Dauntless (after leaving his father in Abnegation): how his competition and differentiation from the rival Dauntless leader Eric drove him deeper into the Dauntless mindset,  and then again as his relationship with Tris and her driven personality began to interact. Instead, Four’s true personality, one developed in a household ruled by fear, is not even very well defined until very late in book three. Instead, his Dauntless-defined personality of fearless bravery is solely on display throughout books one, two and most of three. There is virtually no change observable in his character, merely a recitation of the events that would have defined a real person. A similar case could be made for Tris. She advances the plot throughout all three books, but her character remains virtually untouched by all the events she lives through. With the potential exception of Tobias' mother Evelyn, none of the characters ever seem affected by their circumstances such they seem to grow or change in any manner.

That a novel designed for the Young Adult audience follows many of the YA genre themes and plot conventions, and lacks characters that resemble actual people by having those characters growing with the plot’s influence on them, does not come as a great surprise. But in a novel series that showed such promise in the first book, it does come as a disappointment.

Footnote:  It seems like Roth recognized her missed opportunity with Tobias late in book three and started to better show the forces that shaped the youthful Tobias. In addition, Roth has since the publication of Allegiant published a fourth book that consists of short stories revolving around Tobias/Four.  I wonder if she too began to see him as a character with greater potential and an additional opportunity to better tell the Divergent tale.

Movie Review: The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Three and half Stars out of Five

PG13

Bilbo Baggins: Martin Freeman

Gandalf: Ian McKellen

Thorin: Richard Armitrage

Director: Peter Jackson

Writer: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro

Cinematography Director:  Andrew Lesnie

When J.R.R. Tolkien published “The Hobbit” in 1937 it was aimed at an audience made up children. Since “The Hobbit” was critically and commercially well received, one might presume Tolkien felt sufficiently confident in his craft to publish the much (much) longer trilogy, “The Lord of the Rings”.  The books, long and short share a number of things in common, but the one I want to focus on is corruption. In “The Hobbit” it was the corrupting influence of wealth, while in “The Lord of the Rings” it was the corrupting power of Power. These stories are highly entertaining, but with the exception of length or the inclusion of a flying dragon, are they really that much different? Having written “The Hobbit” first, it makes some sense for Tolkien to expand his stories into the long form employed in “The Lord of the Rings”. But can director/writer Peter Jackson devise some reason for filming “The Hobbit” after “Lord of the Rings”? Well maybe if you want to see a flying dragon, or make some money, but was there any compelling artistic reason?

From a technical or artistic (set design-wise) point of view The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies is truly amazing. As in his previous movies from the Hobbit genre, Jackson displays a beautiful cinematographic vision. His use of the New Zealand landscape as a stand-in for Middle Earth coupled with aerial photography creates a fantastic vision for the land of Orcs and Elves. And as in his earlier movies, Jackson and his art and set design teams create a world where no piece of architecture, weapon design, or costume is overlooked or done in slipshod fashion. The story though, left me expecting more; especially when so much went into designing the stage that the story is to be told upon.

Perhaps Jackson’s reason for filming The Hobbit was to create a cinematic prequel to the Lord of the Rings. (I can suggest a far more mundane reason that aligns well with Tolkien’s “Hobbit” theme referred to above). But why break a short story into a cinematic trilogy; a trilogy that takes longer to view than the book to read? One seems at least somewhat justified in wondering about the wisdom of creating a seven hour plus film version of The Hobbit; most especially when something is lost in such an endeavor; and something indeed was lost. What was lost was the quaintness of the original story, its sense of wonder, the camaraderie of the dwarf/hobbit/wizard team, and most importantly the simple honesty and honor of the central character, Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman). The primary themes of good versus evil and of wealth’s corrupting influence are retained in the movie, but the loyalty and the incorruptibility of the title character are swamped beneath a sea of violent warfare in this, the third part of Jackson’ Hobbit trilogy. By stretching the story into such a prolonged and multi-year affair, the use of the hobbit Bilbo as an exemplar of “humanity” at its best is badly diluted. What we are left with is an extraordinary exercise in CGI ingenuity; there is really almost no story to talk about in part three.

In the initial scenes of part three Jackson uses the fire-breathing Smaug’s attack on Lake Town to set the tone for the movie. I found these opening scenes the most useful for the story as it had its own mini-story arc plus it helped introduce the impetus for the ensuing war over the possession of Smaug’s lair and his cache of gold. The concept of the dragon’s hoard corrupting the dwarf king, Thorin (Richard Armitrage) is also believable and a good goad for the potential war between dwarves, Men and elves. The irony of this misbegotten war is clever as an example of the pettiness of Man (whether he be dwarf, elf or Man). It is also a clever plot point as it brings sufficient amounts of the forces of Good (for the wrong reason, of course) such that when the forces for evil arrive, Good is ready for them; almost ready, anyway. Of course, such a story requires a few setbacks for the good guys and at least one arrival of the “cavalry” from over the hill in order to turn the tide in favor of our heroes. The CGI used in these early scenes was done remarkably well. I especially liked the technical artistry of the flying dragon and the elvish ranks of archers.

But the story then descends into a confused collection of bad armies (orcs and goblins) fighting relentlessly and without any clarity to the viewer with the good armies of dwarves/Men/elves. Our hobbit hero is largely pushed to the side, and the wax and wane of the warring parties cannot be followed; indeed it does not seem to really be necessary to follow the battles. The viewer is treated to examples of the good guys acting heroically and of the bad guys being felled endlessly by opponents impossibly small and clearly incapable of felling such large evil doers. How many giants does Bilbo kill with his stones (really, with a stone?)? And while I’m on this topic, it quite frankly seemed easier to demolish any one of the giants or ogres or whatever monster than it is to cross a street. I can let these objections go, but for me, I cannot let go the lack of any coherent story message in this movie. It was largely a technical success, but by stretching the movie into such a long affair, the heart and soul of this story was ripped out.

Ultimately, I was disappointed in part three. So much time, brilliance and technical genius went into this movie, but rather than adding to the story, it suffered for it. Of the three parts to Jackson's Hobbit trilogy, I do recommend part 2, but remain unhappy with parts one and three.

Book and Movie Review: Divergent

Divergent (Book: 2011; Movie: 2014)

Book: Four Stars out of Five

Author: Virginia Roth

Movie: Three Stars out of Five

             Director: Neil Burger

             Screenplay: Evan Daugherty, Vanessa Taylor

It is always a pleasure for me to compare an author’s vision for her book to that of the director’s and screenwriters’ version in a movie. The easiest comparison is a case such as Cloud Atlas where both the movie and the book were brilliant. Even more enjoyable are those few cases where a dreadful book is turned into a work of genius; my favorite example of this is The Bridges of Madison County. Unfortunately the most common transition is from a very good book being turned into something quite mediocre. This is what has happened in the case of Virginia Roth’s Divergent.

Roth has created in her 2011 book, “Divergent” a compelling story that is well crafted technically and thematically. Following a current trend in Young Adult fiction, Roth has placed her story of sixteen year old Beatrice Prior in a post-apocalyptic vision of the future. By means only vaguely described, humanity has separated into five factions; the five factions represent five strengths found in Human nature: kindness (Amity faction), truthfulness (Candor), selflessness (Abnegation), intelligence (Erudite), and bravery (Dauntless). The unlikelihood that Humanity could so separate by either sociological or biological means following a devastating  war is somewhat beside the point in this novel as the separation provides Roth with opportunities to explore the strengths and weaknesses of each behavioral trait. One point she makes via a good use of foreshadowing is that each faction felt that the cause of the war was an insufficiency of their particular’s faction’s strength in those that waged the war. The seeds of factional distrust are there to be readily seen; so much so, one wonders how the separation into factions was ever thought to be a good idea.

The story follows Beatrice, now renamed Tris after she has left her childhood faction of Abnegation to join and train with Dauntless. That she finds and falls in love with a young man (known as Four) should come as no surprise to the reader; or that while she is initially the lowest ranked of the new initiates into the Dauntless ranks, that by training’s end, she is the highest ranked. Like so many YA stories, the familiar traits of bravery, intelligence, and selflessness help Tris to stand out in the face of her physical limitations and a small coterie of bullies. Another frequent theme in YA fiction is the value of a loving family or the corrosive effects of a dysfunctional one. While Tris finds special strengths in the memories of her family, Four’s upbringing provides a stark contrast as his memories of a controlling and abusive father always loom in his thoughts and actions.

Four’s problems from his childhood are cleverly revealed to Tris and the reader via a plot device. This device or McGuffin is a chemically induced simulation of one’s deepest fears.  McGuffin or no, I actually enjoyed its use in both the book and the movie (its use was actually the technical highlight of an otherwise flawed movie). The simulations allow the reader to much better understand who Four is and how he came to be; it also allows Tris an opportunity to grow as a person as she experiences Four’s fears and to help him overcome them. It is a plot device, but it really helps to propel the story along in terms of both the story’s primary arc as well as to also help describe the budding romance between the main characters.

Having developed into a highly capable new member of Dauntless and to have publicly displayed her affection for Four, the story starts what will presumably be the initial stages of the concluding parts to Roth’s Divergent trilogy. On the morning following her graduation into the member ranks of Dauntless, Tris discovers that her new comrades are all behaving in a highly robotic manner. She blends in with them as she searches for Four. They do indeed find one another as well as the destination and intent of their robotic mates. As they further search for an explanation of the other Dauntless members behavior they learn of the secret plot and methods now being employed by one of the rival factions against Tris’ childhood faction. She seeks out her parents and brother in an attempt to warn them and by the book’s end, we find Tris, Four and the various survivors on their way into the hinterlands and book two of the trilogy.

For a debut effort, Roth has in her first year out of college constructed a very good novel. It is aimed at the YA readership but adults can certainly read it with enjoyment as well. Roth has invented an unlikely scenario with the five faction idea and then employed an equally unlikely plot device in the form of the serum used to induce what are essentially controlled and monitored hallucinations. However, I think that such scene settings and plot devices can be acceptable if they are used to good effect. In the case of the book Divergent, Roth has indeed used them to good effect. She explores very effectively the idea of personality strengths and deficits, but also how some personality traits though named and presumed different can in fact be very similar. Her primary example of how bravery in defense of another is really just another name for selflessness is one such example; presumably there will be more such examples in the succeeding books. Roth has shown how such discussions on behavior and their sociological outcomes can be both entertaining and enlightening.

Having praised the book, I turn now to the movie. It was, in short, a disappointment. One could compare it to its cinematic cousin, Mockingjay, Part 1 or to its literary antecedent, the book just discussed. In either comparison, the movie Divergent fails to deliver. The book’s strengths lie in the exploration of human strengths, primarily bravery and selflessness. To illustrate these themes the books delves deeply into the characters, their fears, their strengths, and their weaknesses. The book is able to demonstrate how and what Tris took from her childhood experiences with her mom and dad. Both the movie and the book show the fears that Tris carries as a young adult, but in the movie unlike the book, there is virtually no character definition made. The reader has a clear and firm grasp on where Tris is strong, where she is weak and to whom she must turn for help. But movie viewer is exposed to these fears more as hurdles for Tris to face and conquer; their relationship to her actual nature or to how they have shaped her is completely non-existent.

The movie does utilize the simulations of Tris’ fears very well from a cinematic/technical view. The fear simulations are well executed and create a great set of visual images. But like so many CGI images, they just don’t provide much more than eye candy. The performances of Tris by Shailene Woodley and of Four by Theo James are quite frankly of the same nature; both actors are very attractive, and reasonably proficient in their roles, but there just doesn't seem to be much more than their surface appearance. The director’s control and construction of each scene is perfectly fine, but somewhere between the translation from the book or from the screenplay to the screen, too much of the heart and soul from the book is lost. What’s left is little more than an outline of the ideas that the book presents, and the movie fails to follow up on.

Book Review: The Accidental Universe by Alan Lightman

The Accidental Universe (2014)

Four Stars out of Five

Alan Lightman

159 pages

Alan Lightman is a theoretical physicist that has taught at Harvard and is the first professor to be hired by MIT with posts in both Physics and Humanities. He has six books to his credit, one other of which is a collection of essays. In The Accidental Universe, Lightman discusses over the course of six essays topics as varied as whether a belief in God is incompatible with science to whether or not the pervasive presence of cell phones and the modern connection to the internet is changing the nature of Man.

 In the first essay, “The Accidental Universe”, Lightman discusses the concept of the multi-verse; that is to say the idea that the totality of reality consists of an infinity of parallel universes. The concept derives in part over the vexing problem of whether our universe with its set of physical laws must be of such exact values or life (or indeed the universe itself) would not have formed. Are these values then the only values possible for an as yet undetermined physical reason, or are there other values out there in other unreachable universes? A sizable portion of modern physicists would greatly prefer the former scenario where there are fundamental reasons for Planck’s constant or the weak atomic force to have the values they have. They spend their lives searching for such a fundamental set of laws to explain these values and to prove why they are unique.

Another group growing in size and influence, the parallel universe group prefers (or has in frustration settled on) the anthropocentric view as first proposed by Brandon Carter in 1968. They state that had the universe we inhabit not have the values for these fundamental laws that it does indeed have; we would not be here to ask the question. Had there been a single universe with a single set of fundamental laws where the values were inconsistent with a stable universe or one where molecules such as water were not possible due to incompatible values for the weak atomic force, then the question would be beyond moot. Adding fuel to this point of view are some of the theoretical implications of the String theory and of the inflationary acceleration now confirmed to be the case for the expansion of the universe.

Now of course, the two contending groups of scientists outlined above are also joined by a third group; the group that sees the hand of God behind these fundamental laws and their life-giving values. This group ably represented by NIH director Francis Collins feels that the fine tuning needed for these laws can only be explained by some variation of the Intelligent Design proposition. Such a reach for a metaphysical explanation does not appeal to Lightman, or indeed to most scientists. But this currently unsolvable conundrum provides an interesting example of how highly intelligent and educated people have reached a point in the debate where there are insufficient facts/experiments/calculations to resolve the issue. So, what is the next step in this type of discussion? Should the discussion’s participants fall back to their religious convictions for answers to such questions, or should they continue to gather facts, ponder new hypotheses, plan new experiments?

This kind of dichotomy of belief systems is addressed from a different direction by Lightman in his third essay: “The Spiritual Universe”. Following his second essay on “The Temporary Universe”, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and whether a truly immortal being would have to be defined as God/Creating Force, Lightman begins a discussion in “The Spiritual Universe” where he tries to define what a scientist is and how he thinks by elucidating a central thesis to scientific thought. This point of view is one I share: “All properties and events in the physical universe are governed by laws, and those laws are true at every time and place in the universe”. Such a thesis does not mean that we currently know all these laws or that as we gather more data and experimental results that we won’t revise some or even all of these laws. It means that given sufficient time and energy, these laws are knowable. An implication from this thesis is a question; a question based not so much on whether God exists or not, but one on whether He plays a role in our Universe (the question of his existence is of course a sub-set of the latter question).

To be sure, the world and the world views on how God interacts with the Universe exist on a spectrum that ranges from Atheism to Deism to Immanentism to Interventionism. This spectrum describes whether God ever existed or acted to one where He acted in the beginning of time to one where He continues to act/intervene up to this day. The difference between deism and immanentism is a very interesting philosophical point and really germane the following discussion: deists believe that God acted originally but no longer, while immanentists believe he acts still, but uses the Universe’s laws to do so. Where do most scientists fall on this spectrum is question raised obliquely by Lightman but not really resolved. And while some scientists (see Francis Collins below) on occasion will essentially reject the central theme of the scientists’ belief system outlined in the previous paragraph by maintaining a belief that God does act in an interventionist manner occasionally, most scientists would seem to fall into one of the other categories.

Lightman moves onto the part of the book that I found the most enlightening: are all questions answerable? This question might on the surface seem the same as the previously central theses to a scientific point of view regarding the laws of the universe; but there is an important distinction. That distinction is whether or not in Lightman’s words, the problem can be stated as a “well-pose problem:  can the question be stated with sufficient enough clarity and precision that it is guaranteed an answer?”. For example, can the rate of a falling apple be measured; can the question of its acceleration rate be posed as a clear and repeatedly measurable answer? That it can be so, is pretty clear. But what about (say) the motivation of a fictional character in a movie or book: did Philip Seymour Hoffman as Father Flynn in 2008’s “Doubt” have an illicit relationship with an altar boy or not? A brilliant movie and performance by Hoffman, but can this question be phrased in such a manner that science can answer it? The answer is as clearly a “no”, as the answer to the apple’s acceleration rate question is an equally clear “yes”.

And so we come back to the actions of God. Until He acts in a manner that breaks the Laws of the Universe, He and his existence fall into a category of topics that cannot be addressed by science. Per Lightman, one can falsify the arguments based on Intelligent Design or morality for God’s existence, but this is not the same as falsifying the proposition of God’s existence. Lightman goes on to assert his atheism, his disappointment in some of the arguments made by one today’s most vocal atheists, Richard Dawkins. But he concludes by re-stating the whole point of the well-posed question. That is to say, that some questions are best addressed by scientists because they can be answered, and other questions best left to the artists, the poets, and the religious as they are best fit to explore such regions of thought.

In any event, in these essays and the three that follow, Lightman brings his expertise in physics and science to bear on topics of interest to both scientist and non-scientist alike. In all probability, his views will not align well with some members of both of these groups, but the strength of this book is that he brings an open mind to the question; that is, the hall mark of the scientist, an open mind. Despite some jarring segues in his writing, I enjoyed this book for the topics raised (the first three essays are the strongest) and I encourage any with an interest in the topic of the knowable, the unknowable, and how they can coexist in the mind of a scientist to read this book.

Book Review: The Hunger Games Trilogy

The Hunger Games Trilogy: The Hunger Games, Catching Fire, Mockingjay (2008, 2009, 2010)

Four Stars out of Five

Suzanne Collins

The Young Adult (YA) fiction genre has a long history, stretching from the 19^th Century (e.g. Swiss Family Robinson, Oliver Twist, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer) through the mid-20^th century (e.g. The Outsiders) to the influential and occasionally profound 70’s (The Bell Jar, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings), and up to the present day (e.g. The Harry Potter Series). YA fiction has through the years been primarily written by adults aimed for readers somewhere between the ages of thirteen and twenty-five. Their themes range over a wide variety of topics, but are generally thought to be topics of concern to this age group: romance, identity, family, and depression to name but a few. One of the key elements is that these stories are generally told from the first person point of view of the protagonist about whom the story is concerned. They are told in (usually) a spare textual style that helps propel the plot without much character definition or evolution. The Hunger Games trilogy written by Suzanne Collins and published in 2008 through 2010 captures many of these elements, but explores some of Man’s darkest traits in a largely believable and highly relatable manner.

The first novel, The Hunger Games introduces Katniss Everdeen. She lives in a post-apocalyptic North American country, Panem. Panem is comprised of twelve districts living and working in thrall to the Rocky Mountain-based “Capitol”. The districts had rebelled against the Capitol roughly seventy-four years in the past and had lost. As part of the armistice, the districts paid a heavy price: The Hunger Games. These games are held annually and require each district to send two adolescent tributes, one male and one female to the Capitol to compete in a contest that will result in one victor and twenty-three dead losers. The games clearly hearken to the Roman Empire and their gladiatorial contests, but they also allude in a sense to Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery. The theme of sacrificed children for the safety of society is one I had not expected to see in YA fiction.

Katniss’ story follows a predictable path but includes some features that might catch some readers by surprise and might also reveal some room for growth for author, Collins. Katniss hunts with her bow and arrow and a quasi-boyfriend, Gale in the nearby woods. As expected, her hunting trips help prepare Katniss for her inevitable entry into the games; she is, of course a superb archer capable of living on her own in the forest. By telling of her experiences in the forest, Collins informs the reader of Katniss’ family and of their influences (especially the father) on her character’s strengths and weaknesses. Here though is where I found fault with the textual style of these books. Katniss and the other characters are revealed solely through their actions. As noted, the writing is a very spare style, plot is everything. It is to my mind a style well suited to the young reader but frustrating in gaining a more intuitive understanding of the various characters. I found myself in the end disappointed that my understanding of the characters was as superficial as their “definition” in the book. Additionally, Collins utilizes another textual style that drives me to distraction: fragmentary sentences (e.g. Katniss is very good with bow and arrow. Very good.). Collins employs these techniques to keep the text simple and the plot moving; perhaps perfect for the adolescent YA reader, but maybe too simple for mature readers.

Move, the plot does. These three books capture the reader’s attention as the plot moves briskly along. Katniss does go into the arena several times and due to her successes finds herself the symbol for a nascent insurrection against the capitol. By the time of the third book, Collins has very cleverly introduced the reader to the cruelties of the Capitol, the entrenched cynicism of both the Capitol and the rebels via their use of propaganda, and most critically the willingness of both sides to use any means to attain their ends, no matter how depraved those means are.  In 1971, “The Who” released a song, Won’t Get Fooled Again, whose lyrics included the following lines: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. As I read the book or watched the movie, I kept hearing these words in my head. At first blush, this is not a new topic, but Collins uses it well. The tragedy of the massacre near the end of third book had me in tears, but also amazed.

Collins uses her trilogy to indeed discuss and examine many of the YA themes mentioned above, such as family and love. She uses science fiction as the sub-genre to convey her message. What I find amazing is her use of an over-arching theme I did not expect in a YA novel:  the corrupting influence of power. The desire to gain it and hold it, and the amorality of too many of those that seek such power are powerful story lines. They are easily understood and felt by those that have studied history, or even watch the evening news. That adolescents can read and learn from those lessons as depicted in this book is a good thing. I just hope they do learn from it, and somehow despite the centuries of failure before them, someday a new generation will come along that makes the changes needed for mankind to finally leave the violent and self-centered moral caves we still live in.

TV Review: Sons of Anarchy, Series Ending (Papa's Goods) Episode Review

Sons of Anarchy (2008 - 2014), Series Ending Episode (Papa’s Goods)

Three and half Stars out of Five

TV MA LSV (Language, Sexual situations, Violence)

Crime/Drama

Jackson Teller: Charlie Hunnam

Gemma Teller: Katey Sagal

Creator/Writer: Kurt Sutter

Most of the best stories being written and broadcast on television have for the past decade been violent, often to an extreme. In some cases such as Breaking Bad, Deadwood or The Walking Dead, the violence is as essential to the story line as the lead character. In other equally good stories (such as Homeland or The Wire), violence plays a role but is generally pushed into the background being used only when essential. The prominence with which violence is used in the recently concluded Sons of Anarchy series is as astonishing as its literal or metaphorical purpose is mysterious. To be sure, the outlaw biker life depicted in the program is likely a violent one, but the extreme level of it that is used by program creator Kurt Sutter begs to be explained. Is it merely seven seasons of gratuitous violence, or is Sutter seeking a deeper, more nuanced meaning? In the early seasons, I had hoped for subtlety, but with the concluding episode shown on FX this past Tuesday (9Dec2014), I have to conclude a gratuitous use of violence would have been preferable to the cloudy thinking that went into the frankly sacrilegious comparison of lead character Jackson Teller’s actions to those of Jesus Christ.

Season seven was cleverly (if with extreme and brutal violence) set up with the murder of Teller’s wife, Tara (Maggie Siff) by his mom Gemma (Katey Sagal). Gemma is saved from prosecution by Teller’s biker teammate, Juice (Theo Rossi). Throughout season seven, Gemma and Juice maintain their charade even as Jax starts multiple gangland wars based on his mother’s and Juice’s lies as to who was responsible for Tara’s murder. When the truth is finally revealed to Jax, he starts a program to wrap up various loose ends with his motorcycle club, friends and family. The audience is given an opportunity to witness just how ruthless and morally decrepit Jax has become. As in the previous six seasons, Jax employs his sociopathic genius to reach his goals; all but one that is. And that one is his own fate. He comes to the conclusion he is a danger to his two boys. He deposits them with the mother of the elder boy, Wendy (Drea de Matteo), and then he sets off to end his own life. Is this intended to be Jax’s redemption?

Sutter attempts to excuse Jax' depredations over the previous seven seasons in a less than artful manner via his suicide/self-sacrifice. Near the story’s end, Jax encounters a homeless woman that had been shown in previous episodes mystically appearing and disappearing without explanation. She leaves her bread and wine to give Jax her blanket and tells him it is time to end it. Having received this permission/guidance from this Mary-like character, Jax collects the lives (and presumably the souls) of the two thieves that will accompany him to the hereafter; one August Marks (Billy Brown) nods his acceptance of Jax, while the second thief, Charles Barosky (Peter Weller) is gunned down without comment. Jax fleeing the police he himself has set on his tail decides suicide-by-cop is taking too much time and as such, stretches his arms out crucifixion-style to run his motorcycle headlong into a truck, whose driver’s only words are “Jesus”. The final scene is a close up on two crows picking at a piece of wine-stained bread – just in case anyone missed the first allusion to bread and wine.

Has there ever been a weaker, more offensive attempt to excuse homicidal behavior than this awful attempt to write off a killer’s countless murders with a comparison of his suicide to the sacrifice made on the cross by Jesus? Consider also his mother’s self-delusional excuse for her murder of Tara: she was looking out for her family. Later, she tells Jax that she actually really loved Tara and gives him permission to kill/execute her; which, of course, he does. It would appear there is  never any other course of action in life; is murder the only path forward. One might presume Jax has inherited his mother’s flawed view of life (especially the lives of others) and her unbelievably feeble excuse, “it’s what we do”. Are these characters humans or animals, incapable of thought and reason? Seven seasons of endless and pointless death describe this series. If it had been merely the pointless, car chase with bad music kind of violence (featured so prominently in season four), one could write the series off as just another TV version of a b-movie or even more to the point, a video game. But really, Sutter clearly aspires to something higher; he tries to give some meaning to the endless death and violence in his series. To my mind, he tries but falls short. His violence has become in the end nothing more than an addictive drug; there is no meaning, only a seven year failed effort. And just like some desperate junkie with an outstretched arm begging for more of their drug of choice, and then dies in some nameless alley, this series will just fade away, forgotten, leaving not a trace of meaning.

Movie Review: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 (2014)

Three and half Stars out of Five

PG-13

Katniss Everdeen: Jennifer Lawrence

Peeta Mellark: Josh Hutcherson

Gale Hawthorne: Liam Hemsworth

Haymitch Abernathy: Woody Harrelson

President Snow: Donald Sutherland

Plutach Heavensbee: Philip Seymour Hoffman

President Alma Coin: Julianne Moore

Effie Trinket: Elizabeth Banks

Director: Francis Lawrence

Screenplay:  Peter Craig and Danny Strong

Adaptation: Suzanne Collins from the novel Mockingjay

“Mockingjay” was the concluding novel in a trilogy of Young Adult fiction by author Suzanne Collins published in 2010 (the first two novels, “The Hunger Games” and “Catching Fire” were published in 2008 and 2009, respectively). The owners of the movie franchise created from the Hunger Games trilogy have split Mockingjay into two parts in the same manner as “The Hobbit” or “Harry Potter” franchises. While it is easy to criticize the apparent greed that may well have motivated such a decision, I was very pleased with this Part 1 version of the Mockingjay. I have not read the novel and as such my view is based solely on the movie’s merits; and of those, it was a pleasing afternoon’s entertainment.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1 picks up right where The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) left off. Our heroine, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) has been plucked from certain death by members of the resistance. She is flown to the supposedly destroyed District 13 where she is met by the leaders of the resistance: President Coin (Julianne Moore), Plutarch (Philip Seymour Hoffman), and her boyfriend, Gale (Liam Hemsworth). The resistance wants to use her as a propaganda tool to encourage the other districts to rise up against the Capitol and its President (Donald Sutherland). Initially repulsed by the falseness of the play acting required of her for this role, Katniss is drawn in after she visits one of the recently attacked districts and sees for herself the devastation wrought by Snow and his army of masked soldiers. To be sure, Katniss has opportunities to display her courage and moral rectitude in the face of her opponents’ violence and the distracting requirements of her propaganda duties. She is as well distraught over the Capitol’s use of her former Hunger Games partner, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) as the Capitol’s propaganda tool. She worries for his safety and parlays his rescue into a deal with President Coin that bears for her some un-welcomed results.

The story line is generally one not uncommon in Young Adult fiction; that is to say, an adolescent is set against a morally bankrupt enemy and through their pluck and conviction, they win the day. This movie version has taken the opportunity to play with certain motifs from current events: the use of propaganda to recruit volunteers, the fight by guerrillas against a bigger, far more powerful foe, bombing to suppress the opposition, etc. The lighting and color choices used by director Francis Lawrence serve well to set a grim and dark tone to the film. Filming the bombers from ground level helps to emphasize the inequality of the power distribution between the two sets of combatants in this story.  The aftermath of a “fire bombing” paints in too vivid colors the grisly costs of war. These techniques help to push this movie into much darker regions that those usually inhabited by YA fiction; to give the movie a gritty feel of reality. Indeed, director Lawrence tries and to some extent succeeds in making this story fairly realistic in terms of the hellishness of war; while there is a fantasy element to Katniss’ successes, there is a stark reality to the misery and actual costs of war.

The acting by Jennifer Lawrence is per her usual standards set to a high mark. As noted, her character succeeds where most would fail, and this pulls the story out of a more reality-based genre and back into the Young Adult genre it originally inhabited. But on several occasions, the Katniss character is placed in situations (e.g. Peeta's imprisonment and her confused love for him vs. her faltering love for Gale) wherein Lawrence’s ability to emote can settle the story back into a realm to which anyone can relate. Some notable acting is brought forth by the ensemble of Moore as the rebel’s determined and emotionally wounded president, Hutcherson as the tortured Peeta, or even the de-wigged/jumpsuit-wearing Banks as Effie bringing a comic element to the movie. Additionally, how the scenes by Hoffman as Plutach complicated by his far too untimely death in the real world affected the production of this movie (dedicated to his memory) were accomplished is really impressive.

Bottom-line, this movie brings a young adult’s novel to life for adults of all ages. It touches at times too lightly and at other times with some effect on subjects that are of concern and germane to today’s world, and primarily with the deft acting skills of Jennifer Lawrence, it brings to life the emotional scars such a story might well lay on anyone, even a young adult heroine.