Ready Player One

(Warning : contains mild spoilers for Ready Player One)

Geek culture is something that has been relevant to the film industry for a long time and, in recent years, has undergone many different changes. No longer focused on one or two aspects of entertainment, it has become something fashionable, something to aim for and even, for some, a now acceptable part of life instead of something to hide.

So when a film is made based on a book that implied it was ‘celebrating’ the geek, you can imagine that this would either be seen as the best thing ever or the worst thing to walk this earth.

Ready Player One was published in 2011 and quickly received a great deal of praise for its world-building and 80s pop culture references that made up the plot. However, in more recent years, especially after the highly public events of Gamergate, the book has undergone a lot of criticism, with some calling the language and depictions in the book as evidence of gatekeeping and misogyny, particularly in the gaming world.

I personally was recommended this book before hearing any of these criticisms and when I read it, I enjoyed it. I didn’t get all the references but I liked the story. And it seemed obvious that it would eventually be made into a film. I certainly understand and recognise the criticisms surrounding it. There are many issues with the plot and characters but I’ll leave other, more competent, individuals to discuss those areas and focus on the film alone.

Today's poster is brought to you by the colour blue.

The story centres on Wade Watts, a teenager who lives in an area known as ‘The Stacks’. Life isn’t great for him or the world in general and he, like many others, finds solace in ‘The OASIS’, a massively multiplayer online role-playing virtual reality. Think World of Warcraft, but requiring more physical activity. This virtual reality was created by James Halliday who, upon his death, announced that he had hidden an Easter Egg within the OASIS that would allow one person to inherit his entire fortune. Winning requires three keys which can be found using an in-depth knowledge of his life and interests. Playing as his avatar ‘Parzival’, Wade becomes the first Egg Hunter (or Gunter) to locate the first key after five years of searching. But a corporation known as IOI, run by the ruthless Nolan Sorrento, also seek the Egg in order to take over the OASIS and change it from the escapist haven it’s been, to a profit-driven device that only a few would be able to afford. It’s up to Wade and his friends in the OASIS to get there first.

I’ll start off with the good points for this film. It has a competent cast. Every single character is well played by their actors, both in terms of their avatars and their ‘real-life’ selves. Mark Rylance as Halliday in particular deserves a mention here, slipping between the socially awkward Halliday and his more confident avatar Anorak. Tye Sheridan as Wade and Olivia Cooke as Art3mis also do good jobs at making you understand the worlds they inhabit without making the exposition dumps too frustrating. My only regret is that there are some very talented individuals involved who do not get as much focus as I think they should have.

There are a number of exposition dumps in the film, particularly surrounding Halliday himself, but the large ones are shared via a clip show stored in the OASIS that Parzival and co. can view and replay to find clues about the Egg, a unique and refreshing change for the shift in medium. However, that shift does come at the expense of character. In order for the clips to make sense to us as the viewer, they need to be contextualised and this is usually handled by having characters explain pieces of Halliday’s life to each other which, considering how much the clues rely on that knowledge in order to be solved, seems a little confusing.

The OASIS itself is great to look at and the textures on the avatars provide them with a unique look that fits in with the fantastical aspects of the OASIS. The exception to this would be the Sixers whose ulitarian look and synched actions, both in-world and outside it, is definitely intimidating against the brighter colours of the other avatars. Sadly, we don’t get to interact a great deal with this online world or the people playing beyond our main characters. The majority of the avatars are in the background or are jumped past so quickly that we don’t really get to see them or the world they inhabit. Beyond the introductory scene we don’t even get to see that many new avatars, which is a real pity.

Regarding the OASIS as whole, I liked the idea of it but not so much the execution. We are given a bit of information about how it is an escape and how many people use it daily at the expense of Real Life, but we are never really given a reason for why this game is so immersing. The film constantly reminds us that the OASIS is a game, moving from a shot of Parzival doing something to showing us Wade in his gear which can often reduce big moments to ridiculous actions. There’s several quiet or serious moments in the OASIS, which are interrupted by cutaways like this and take away from the impact of the scene. Even the characters don’t seem to be immersed in this world, constantly flipping up their visors up and generally breaking the illusion.

Ready Player One very much tries to push the message that, in a world full of distractions and methods of entertainment, we need to engage with Reality. There’s a particular scene where Art3mis tells Wade that his interactions with her have been calculated so that he only sees and hears what she chooses to tell him. An important point as both Wade and the audience live in a world where relationships can be made without people ever being in the same room and where we can struggle to balance meaningful interactions with healthy caution. But the film then cheapens this by hurrying to place the characters together in Reality, while never allowing time to process the consequences of this meeting or who we’ve now met.

Choose your protagonist...

All in all, the film itself is nice to look at and generally fun though underutilised in parts and the overall message is muddled. Fans of the book should also be aware that this is a very different product to the original story, although it is debatable how much of that was a deliberate choice and how much was down to rights issues.

Overall, you might enjoy it but I doubt you’d remember it for long.

Some additional points, comments and questions:

• For a film based around the concept of a computer game, I question some of the mechanics involved. Someone explain the bike repair scene to me!
• Why are there people on the street wearing visors? That can’t be safe.
• I know we needed some additional scenes to counterbalance the loss of first person perspective but why does I-R0k exist in this film?
•  How does Sorrento’s gaming rig work? Or Aech’s?
• Does no one on the marketing staff of this film understand the concept of Plot Twists?

The Post

(Warning: contains spoilers for The Post)

It's been a strange year, hasn't it?  I don't think I'm going out on too much of a limb to say that the world in the Trump-era feels a lot more uncertain, and that most of us can't believe that Trump's been president for a year.  Only a year?  Haven't we all aged so much more than that?

It's often interesting to see how current events then shape the artistic, and what we're seeing now can usually be traced back to previous events.  That said, this years awards films feel a little on the "safe" side (with the exception of Get Out which is a surprise nomination).  There's many uncontroversial messages being told well - people overcoming seemingly insurmountable adversity, people seeking redemption, people finding love.  That's all pretty standard fare.   The Post stands out as timely and topical as it draws pointed comparisons between the presidencies of Nixon and Trump - Republican administrations at war with the press.  I'm happy to be corrected, but I think this might be the first (of many) responses to a Trump presidency. 

Postman Pat: the sequel?

The Post tells the story of how a military analyst in Vietnam leaks his classified reports to the papers, and the papers (specifically the Washington Post) decisions about whether or not to publish the findings of those reports.  The reports date back over four Presidential administrations, and are very clear on the following - American politicians knew that they could not win the Vietnam War.  Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were all briefed as such.  They continued to send troops to Vietnam to save face, and tell the American public that America is winning and making great progress.
In "present day" (Nixon administration), Katharine Graham (Meryl Streep) has inherited the Washington Post and is trying to make it financially stable by floating it on the Stock Market.  She is close friends with various politicians and other people of public significance.  She and chief editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks) find themselves in receipt of the leaked papers and must weigh up the consequences of what they decide to do with them.  Moral dilemmas ensue.

In some ways, it seems like Steven Spielberg has specifically stopped everything that he was doing in order to make this film.  Right now.  He's said as much.  In other ways, it's the latest in a line of Spielberg films which point out that the U.S. has a Constitution that was put in place for a reason and should be followed as such (Lincoln, Bridge of Spies).  There is a real sense of urgency and consequence throughout, heightened by the trappings of the time (Journalist Ben Bagdikian - Bob Odenkirk - goes to get a tip off on a payphone, but drops the quarters that he needs to keep the call going; decisions need to be made in order to hit the deadlines for the day - newspapers being created by typesetting; Daniel Ellsberg - Matthew Rhys - stealing actual cumbersome physical files, rather than the memory stick and digital file equivalents of the Snowden era).   
There has been some criticism that the writing is a little too on-the-nose in places, and that the audience are spoonfed a little too much, rather than being allowed to actively come to their own conclusions.  Comparisons are made to 1976's All the President's Men (a film I haven't seen yet, but I understand that it credits the audience with a little more discernment and intelligence) but I would argue that in 2018, audiences need something sharp and on point to cut through the endless cacophony and vagaries.  There will be time for allegory and metaphor later.  For now, there is definitely a need for being deliberately reminded of things like "free press serves the governed, not the governing".  There is also a need for these things to be said by some of America's most trusted people (Hanks, Streep, Spielberg).

I have an idea...

Let's turn our attention to that cast.  In real life, Meryl Streep has already been called "highly overrated" by the current President following her criticism of him last year.  In The Post, she is on top form as Katharine Graham and has been Oscar nominated as such.  Her story is a concise portrayal of the issues of gender inequality - constantly being undermined and devalued in a sea of men (pointed out by Sarah Paulson as Tony Bradlee).  There's some sneaky direction throughout her transformation from hesitant to confident.  The first half of the film is shot from above, with Streep looking tiny and subservient.  She's made more vulnerable in a series of meetings where someone (usually Hanks) arrives unexpectedly at her house while she's in a nightdress (and uncomfortably trying to pay attention while hiding bare flesh behind throw cushions).  By the end, she is shot from below in white and gold (albeit, bizarre looking) garments which make her look like a goddess and not to be trifled with.

What *is* this garment?

"This is MY paper" she eventually squeaks out.  "Not my father's and not my ex-husband's.  It's mine [and I'm in charge]".  It's a reminder that the decisions of history are not arrived at easily.
Tom Hanks, in the meantime, has not publically suffered the wrath of Trump, but has been quietly critical in a more subtle way.  His verbal sparring with Streep throughout is enjoyable, and it's strange to think that these two actors have not been in any previous films before.  While Streep's Graham shows uncertainty in herself and her decisions, Hanks's Bradlee constantly lays down all the pertinent facts needed to come to a decision.  It's difficult to see why Hanks (and Spielberg for that matter) have not been equally nominated alongside Streep - perhaps the Academy are confused by a role in which Hanks smokes like a chimney and drops a lot of f-bombs.

No Tom!  Stop swearing.

Actually, to take this a step further, this film doesn't seem to be getting a lot of love and I'm unsure why.  The combination of Streep, Hanks and Spielberg fighting for truth, justice and the American way is magnificent, and yet I've struggled to see it at the local cinemas around here.  I'm clearly not in the minority, if the monologue for this years Golden Globes is anything to go by (from 5:03).

That is not to say that this film is perfect.  It takes a while to get going, and in places there's some details which are specific to American audiences (an issue, I imagine, which is the same in reverse in films like Darkest Hour).  The New York Times have also been critical that they are essentially side lined in a story that could have been theirs.  The film also, I think, could benefit from spending a bit more time with Ellsberg - this starts off by being his story, but he is forgotten about quite quickly.  This is a real shame, because he is never considered in the decisions to print (or not to print).  At one point, he was facing a prison sentence of 115 years as a result of his actions - surely a fact worth noting?  But I can also see the rationale behind these decisions - this story itself is not about the people involved, it's about the freedom of the press and upholding of the Constitution.    

    

For my money, The Post is the film that should win Best Picture at this year's Oscars (well, actually, it should be Blade Runner 2049, and it's frankly ridiculous that it's not even nominated).  If the Academy want to make a point to the increasingly fascist Donald Trump, then this should win.  His adulation of Hollywood, and desire to be popular are both sore points and worth poking.  And surely he should approve?  I hear he's very much against "fake news"?

Additional comments, thoughts, questions:

• Apparently the film was originally called "The Papers".  In hindsight, a much better title.  Sorry Steven.

• This marks John Williams' 28th collaboration with Steven Spielberg.  He's 86 and still composing great music.  I have trouble walking and chewing gum.

• Ben Bagdikian isn't credited much in this film, but should be.  He is famously quoted as telling students at Berkeley University "Never forget that your obligation is to the people. It is not, at heart, to those who pay you, or to your editor, or to your sources, or to your friends, or to the advancement of your career. It is to the public." - that's the throughstory of this film.  Turns out that Ben Bagdikian should have his own film.  Google him.