Film review: Insurgent
Mar. 23rd, 2015 10:49 amThank you to ghoti and B for taking Liv and me to the cinema, which we wouldn't have otherwise got round to do. And it was nice being with someone who could say what interesting things there were in the background that you only knew by reading the books.
I made a giant effort to be positive and not give in to the desire to nitpick, because there were lots of worldbuilding things that made NO SENSE (see rant below), and I do enjoy ranting about that, but I don't have anything more to say about that than I have in previous rants. Whereas it's easy to miss the good things in a flawed film, even if they're actually really interesting and exciting.
Brief summary
A post-apocalyptic world is divided into five factions: clever, brave, selfless, peaceful and honest (erudite, dauntless, abnegation, amity and candor). Except for people who don't fit who are taboo.
Things I liked
I liked that the middle book/film of the trilogy had the big climax, and the third is what's beyond that climax. (I loved the scouring of the shire at the end of LOTR.)
The protagonist had agency, and made decisions, and generally mattered.
I liked the characterisation of the factions, and the rest of the city, the visuals of each were very impressive.
The plot wasn't just a linear a-to-b, it goes through several iterations where different people's decisions matter.
There's a reasonable number of female characters, including amongst the soldiers and leaders. It passes the Bechdel test not as much as it might, but clearly.
Is this a VR sim? Is this still VR a sim? How about now?
Jack Kang (leader of candor, played by Daniel Dae Kim)'s face.
Things to think about
Is complete non-violence possible without a police force backing you up? (I'm leaning to no, that non-violence is an ideal which is attained by increasingly large proportion of society, but you always need to police people who don't agree somehow.)
When is it ok to make the decision to execute someone, if ever? (I'm leaning to, when they're clearly going to go on killing people if you don't.)
Divergent factions. Hogwarts houses. DnD alignments. Chalion gods. Myers-Briggs personalities. Real and fictional, which are the most interesting ways of categorising people? Which are useful? Are any a clear division rather than a spectrum? Are you more like onion-layers, or a mix, or a this-means and this-end?
Nitpick rants
Where is the train going from? Where to?
How can a post-apocalyptic society have 20% of people be solicitors and nobody work in factories? Where does all the high-tech come from? What proportion of people are faction-less and how do they live?
Why don't they use truth-serum in trials by default?
When people do unethical things for bullshit reasons, is that because the bullshit is bad worldbuilding true within the confines of the story, or because they're lying to themselves, or somewhere between?
Why does everyone expect evil power-grabbing woman to just stop when it's proved her reasons for power-grabbing were bullshit?
The whole thing feels like a small town level of population, but the propaganda and council politics don't seem to make sense on that level.
I think some of these make more sense in the book. But I'm trying not to dwell on them, most don't make a difference to the good bits.
I made a giant effort to be positive and not give in to the desire to nitpick, because there were lots of worldbuilding things that made NO SENSE (see rant below), and I do enjoy ranting about that, but I don't have anything more to say about that than I have in previous rants. Whereas it's easy to miss the good things in a flawed film, even if they're actually really interesting and exciting.
Brief summary
A post-apocalyptic world is divided into five factions: clever, brave, selfless, peaceful and honest (erudite, dauntless, abnegation, amity and candor). Except for people who don't fit who are taboo.
Things I liked
I liked that the middle book/film of the trilogy had the big climax, and the third is what's beyond that climax. (I loved the scouring of the shire at the end of LOTR.)
The protagonist had agency, and made decisions, and generally mattered.
I liked the characterisation of the factions, and the rest of the city, the visuals of each were very impressive.
The plot wasn't just a linear a-to-b, it goes through several iterations where different people's decisions matter.
There's a reasonable number of female characters, including amongst the soldiers and leaders. It passes the Bechdel test not as much as it might, but clearly.
Is this a VR sim? Is this still VR a sim? How about now?
Jack Kang (leader of candor, played by Daniel Dae Kim)'s face.
Things to think about
Is complete non-violence possible without a police force backing you up? (I'm leaning to no, that non-violence is an ideal which is attained by increasingly large proportion of society, but you always need to police people who don't agree somehow.)
When is it ok to make the decision to execute someone, if ever? (I'm leaning to, when they're clearly going to go on killing people if you don't.)
Divergent factions. Hogwarts houses. DnD alignments. Chalion gods. Myers-Briggs personalities. Real and fictional, which are the most interesting ways of categorising people? Which are useful? Are any a clear division rather than a spectrum? Are you more like onion-layers, or a mix, or a this-means and this-end?
Nitpick rants
Where is the train going from? Where to?
How can a post-apocalyptic society have 20% of people be solicitors and nobody work in factories? Where does all the high-tech come from? What proportion of people are faction-less and how do they live?
Why don't they use truth-serum in trials by default?
When people do unethical things for bullshit reasons, is that because the bullshit is bad worldbuilding true within the confines of the story, or because they're lying to themselves, or somewhere between?
Why does everyone expect evil power-grabbing woman to just stop when it's proved her reasons for power-grabbing were bullshit?
The whole thing feels like a small town level of population, but the propaganda and council politics don't seem to make sense on that level.
I think some of these make more sense in the book. But I'm trying not to dwell on them, most don't make a difference to the good bits.