JJ Abrams is the most overrated director in all of Hollywood and thats a big insult because Hollywood is very much like a gravity resistant iceberg with respect to talent. You know the icebergs career as an analogy prop used to show the larger portion of an item hidden beneath the water. Hollywoods iceberg is more buoyant, so the larger, shitty portion sits on top. A lot of people are reacting to the aesthetic and functional design faux pas that is a claymore-styled lightsaber which made an appearance in the new Star Wars Ep. VII teaser trailer. Most of the reactions are negative. Good. It pisses me off that someone as gimmick-dependent as Abrams strolled onto the scene to hogtie a deal to direct the films amid a backdrop of relative radio silence considering the stakes and how infamously low the franchise has sunk with the prequels. It pisses me off because it had to take something technically petty (this is not a get out of jail free ticket about the bullshit lightsaber btw) to stir some kind of outrage among fans. The man at the helm is a notorious hack and snake oil salesman. He excites people with the hint of an unexpected premise (which is not difficult) and then depends on cult-of-personality, lens flares (more on that later) and straight up lying to provide a psychological diversion such that viewers cannot readily ascertain that there simply is no center to the sandwich, not even air. Air would be both something and useful. Abrams is a terrible storyteller who takes great pleasure in humble-bragging about his storytelling prowess in essays, articles, books and in TED Talks. One of his primary gimmicks is to align himself with the theme of mystery. You see my complaint about Abrams is based on the fact that, due to a number of interviews and written pieces by him, Abrams seems fully cognizant of what wins people over, what woos them. Thats what makes his failure to provide substance such a crime. Ive studied his methods and will now list some of Mr. Abrams sins here: 1. What JJ Abrams calls mystery is often, within the context of much of the dialogue he writes, one character denying another character information after being asked a direct question. Did you get that? In the situation, both characters know that the asker doesnt have knowledge about a particular event or phenomenon. It is assumed that the other chracter, usually the person the viewer is not supposed to identify with of the two, knows the answer or at least something more than the asker, something substantial. From that point on (esp. in the TV show, Lost) the more knowing character essentially stalls and trolls the person asking the questions. The fact that the questioner doesnt know something and we are supposed to identify with that charcter, means mystery has occured, the way Abrams sees it. Sadly hes terribly wrong. The problem with his method is that it adds up to unbelievable conversations (go back and review blogs of the Lost era of TV to see how many critiques there are of characters stringing together actions which no person sees as normal or reasonable). Layering these unbelievable conversations and responses from commercial to commercial and episode to episode is a manner of signing seasons worth of TV contracts based on vacuous subterfuge. If i were seeking to remain diplomatic about Abrams, I suppose i could find sincere praise for his ability to get paid while doing everything I just mentioned. 2. You cant judge a film properly if you watched it whilst having a series of mini seizures. What do i mean by this? JJ Abrams further stacks his arsenal with sensory distractions such as lens flares aside from just the usual explosions and loud noises found in most Hollywood films. The effect it creates is to add to the viewers sense of exhaustion. When a person is exhausted its more difficult for them to think critically. This is why shitty music sounds awesome to people at raves and it works like champ in the movies as well. At this point you might think Im embellishing and just have it out for Abrams for personal reasons or ones of jealousy. Not the case. His offenses are egregious and very real. Take a look at Dylan Brownes sped up capture of total lens flares fired at your noggin by Mr. Abrams in his affront to the Star Trek model of content: youtu.be/wYgG9MhV5Q0 3. Abrams pet idea that mystery is better or more important than knowledge (he suggested such in a TED Talk) has made his content a form of nuance and thus advancement bolstering the cause of the dreaded, willful ignorance. I hope you like those quotation marks there. I thought it added a nice touch. If i were going for mystery perhaps it would have gone more like, ...bolstering the cause of the dreaded,... (this is the part where I refuse to tell you what I was going to say. Wheres my studio contract?). This disdain for knowledge was replete in Lost. Season 3 involved a sequence whereby Eloise Hawking (supposedly a scientist) is informing Jack (a medical doctor) of the rquirments imposed by seeking to travel back to the island. It sounded innocently sci-fi enough in the beginning when it appeared as though they were trying to recreate the materials and circumstances. The tomfoolery started to show when it was mentioned that the body of Jacks father would not be able to be present and she asked for SOMETHING THAT MEANT SOMETHING TO HIM as a substitute. Naturally and understandably, Jack recoiled in animated fashion about the ridiculousness or what she was suggesting. Nothing is wrong here at this moment. These differences between perspectives in people exist in real life. The difference being that real life doesnt concern itself with wishful thinking. What makes Abrams terrible is that that scene was the beginning of the shows lecturing that people who seek verification are mistaken about the value of that act. Abrams input awarded the altruism points to Eloises blind surrender to belief over Jacks inquiry and doubt. The attitude is further stamped in with a sequence involving Ben Linus: (Taken from Lostpedia) Ben looks at the painting positioned above the candles: The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Caravaggio. Ben tells Jack about Thomas the Apostle, noting Thomas’ claim to fame was not his bravery, but his doubt regarding the Resurrection of Christ. Jack asks if Thomas was ever convinced. Ben explains that Thomas needed to touch Christs wounds to be convinced and then says, Were all convinced sooner or later, Jack. There you have it. What is stated and the truth or lack thereof about it, matters painfully little in a JJ Abrams world where we all come around to being convinced anyway. Abrams devalues items like coherence and facts because they are annoying hindrances which stand in the way when youre trying to make an action movie that you want people to respect as a well crafted drama. The perception of Abrams as some kind of masterful storyteller likely has more to do with his aesthetic choice of coiffure and horn rimmed glasses. I suppose he figures, Well if I style myself to look like Ira Glass, maybe, just maybe... Nice try, but JJs Ira Glass copycatting is see-through and reveals none of Iras penchant for coherence and storytelling. Pure cult of personality is the only reason the public views JJ Abrams as distinguishable in any way from Michael Bay. Plenty internet denizens and serious sci-fi enthusiasts have disappointed me with their lack of scrutiny on this matter. And now we have to deal with illogically constructed light sabers. Thanks
Posted on: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 00:48:59 +0000