100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

August 03, 2017 - Image 6

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Charlize Theron (“The Fate

of the Furious”) proved herself
to be one of Hollywood’s biggest
badasses after her performance
as Imperator Furiosa in George
Miller’s
recent
masterpiece

“Mad Max: Fury Road.” In an
industry where men dominate
both on and off-screen, Furiosa
was a much needed change
after years of watching super
masculine, pumped-up dudes
fight bad guys. “Atomic Blonde”
shows
Theron
and
all
her

badassery, though this time
playing
Lorraine
Broughton,

a secret agent in 1989 Berlin.
Despite many of the movie’s
shortcomings,
Theron
solidifies

her
status
as

Hollywood’s go-to
action star capable
of snapping necks
and fighting with
nothing but a shoe.

“Atomic Blonde”

takes
place

during the final
days of the Berlin Wall, but
describing the movie’s plot is as
complicated and stressful as the
Cold War itself. Broughton is a
secret agent sent to recover a
confidential list of every Soviet
field agent following the death
of an English MI6 agent. From
here on, the movie becomes
increasingly confusing and hard
to follow. The entire premise is
built around trying to figure
out which spy is allegiant to
which country, which is a
weak foundation and “Atomic
Blonde”’s ultimate downfall.

Distracting
from
this

mayhem are the many brilliantly
choreographed
action

sequences. Theron, who tested
her fighting chops briefly in
“Mad Max,” is the centerpiece
to every on-screen brawl. Her
moves are timed to perfection
and feature ample creativity,
like using an enemy’s feet to
knock someone out. Simply put,
I haven’t seen a fight scene more
entertaining than the one in the
long-take spiral staircase — this
sequence will be the role model
for all future action movies.
It’s
believably
unbelievable;

its pacing isn’t lightning fast
and characters actually appear
fatigued. By the time the scene

ends, it’s worthy of a standing
ovation.

Theron is joined by James

McAvoy (“Split”), who plays a
fellow spy, and John Goodman
(“10
Cloverfield
Lane”),
an

MI6 agent. No other characters
display the same energy and
stamina as Theron, and “Atomic
Blonde” is entirely dependant
on her performance. Her stoic
and
confident
swagger
are

well-suited for a secret agent
— she perfectly fits into the
boy’s club of James Bond types
— but in many ways, the script
didn’t give her much to work
with. A lot of the dialogue is
predictable and forgettable; it’s
neither cheesy nor witty. We
don’t necessarily watch action
movies for the dialogue, but it

helps to have at least
a few memorable lines
people can walk out of
the theater quoting.

“Atomic
Blonde”’s

screenplay, written by
Kurt Johnstad (“300”),
is adapted from Antony
Johnston’s
graphic

novel
“The
Coldest

City,” which almost

excuses
the
underwhelming

dialogue. “The Coldest City”
laid out the groundwork for
director David Leitch’s (“John
Wick”)
glossy
visual
style,

combining
grit
with
neon-

lit
glamor.
Leitch’s
former

career as a stuntman explains
the perfect action sequences:
No one is more qualified to
direct these kinds of fights
than a stuntman himself. He
was hired to direct “Deadpool
2,” and assuming it will be
as successful as the first,
his directing career is very
promising.

At times, “Atomic Blonde”

feels like a messier, more
action-driven version of “The
Americans.” Broughton bears
resemblance
to
Elizabeth

Jennings,
and
the
show’s

bleak,
cold
atmosphere

likely
influenced
Leitch.

And
considering
that
“The

Americans”’s side plots rarely
become
incomprehensible,

“Atomic Blonde” is like one
ongoing untidy, unnecessary
side
plot.
Though
with
a

modest budget of $30 million —
this is cheap compared to other
movies of its kind — “Atomic
Blonde” offers everything we
want to see in an action movie.

6

Thursday, August 3, 2017
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
ARTS

Imagine this scene for a minute:
You’re sitting on the couch

of a nice Brooklyn apartment,
preferably
in
Williamsburg.

There’s a speaker in the corner
attached to a record player. It’s
shiny and large and resembles a
children’s toy. You’ve never heard
of the company which produced
the speaker but the man sitting
across from you will certainly
assure you that, while you probably
haven’t heard of it, it’s top of the
line. Then he’ll make fun of people
who say things like, “You probably
haven’t heard of it,” because he’s
aware that it’s easy to make fun
of those kinds of people, and in
acknowledging and getting in front
of the stereotype he believes he has
precluded himself from it, in a way.

Inevitably, after enough drinks,

maybe two or three, he’ll make a
vague reference to you about the ills
of capitalism, and maybe religion
too. “It’s the opioid of the masses,”
but he can’t remember whether
the quote refers to capitalism or
religion. Doesn’t matter. It fits for
both. But then, you have to wonder,
how does he afford this apartment,
and that speaker system?

You ask him, and he snaps back

that you’re missing the point. That
you didn’t hear what he actually
had to say.

This is about the situational

equivalent
of
listening
to

Everything Now, the fifth studio
album by Canadian band Arcade
Fire.

It’s not that the social and

economic critiques are illegitimate;
it’s that they’re vague, messy and
reach only the thinnest level of
self-awareness. It’s not that we
should feel badly listening to
the band because they’ve made
it and they’re wealthy; it’s that
we should question why these
factors haven’t led to nuanced soul
searching and genuine concern
about contributing to the very
problems which they haughtily
deride. Everything Now is the band
at their least aware, least sonically
interesting and most violently
grating yet.

Ironically perhaps, we can track

where things went wrong for the
band right back to their marketing
strategies. Much was made about
the enormous campaign for their
last
proper
release,
Reflektor,

which landed in 2013. Buildings
in Brooklyn were covered in huge,
cryptic posters which advertised
the upcoming album, and the band
performed some secretive shows
(publicized enough, though, so that
the very existence of the shows was
in itself a form of marketing). It
was excessive, and it worked.

Already there was an odd

contradiction
here:
aggressive,

social media-based marketing for
an album that was largely critical
of social media and marketing.
The band mostly got away with
it because the album still felt like
a legitimate effort. Laborious,
actually. The themes stretched
over two discs, centering around
the idea of the “reflexive age,”
taken from a 19th century Søren
Kirkegaard essay, while applying
it to modern day social issues.
“We Exist,” for example, took on

the parental and societal rejection
that a gay person might deal with.
Stand out “Here Comes the Night
Time” discusses missionaries in
Haiti over a sharp disco-rock beat
laden with clever fake-outs. They
took ambitious risks, pushing the
album to 85 minutes. It fell short at
times, and pushed too long at others,
but their energy was still undeniably
present. And though the marketing
was over the top, it spoke to the scope
that the album intended. It was huge,
and so were the band’s ideas.

Leading
up
to
Everything

Now, Arcade Fire launched a
parody
Twitter
account
(@

EverythingNowCo) which mainly
retweets
cringe-inducing
posts

by corporate accounts like Olive
Garden, as well as fan images of
their own marketing efforts on
Target store TVs and grimy subway
cars. They also wrote a “Premature
Premature Evaluation” of their own
album, poking fun at Stereogum’s
slightly
sensationalized
article

“Remember When Arcade Fire
Were Good?” which criticized their
singles, particularly “Everything
Now.” In their own Premature
Premature Evaluation, they call
themselves, among others things,
“a goofier, less cool, extremely self-
serious, and less danceable Daft
Punk,” referencing the influence of
Thomas Bangalter on this record,

later estimating that Everything Now
will likely fall “probably somewhere
between number 8 and number 14”
on the year-end lists.

Apparently Arcade Fire want us

to know that they get it. By infusing
intense irony and metacritiques
into their marketing campaign they
assume we’ll distance them in our
minds from the forces they poke fun
at.

That’s not the case.
It reminds me of a problem laid

out in David Foster Wallace’s essay
“e unibus pluram,” referring to a
movement of irony heavy “post-
postmodernist” fiction writers who
attempt to give social criticism by
entirely inhabiting the world in
which they criticize. The result,
Wallace explains, is “Instead, it most
often degenerates into a kind of jeery,
surfacy look ‘behind the scenes’
of the very televisual front people
already jeer at, and can get behind
the scenes of via Entertainment
Tonight and Remote Control.” I
think the same applies with Arcade
Fire’s marketing strategy.

Essentially, we already see and

understand the absurdity of these
corporate accounts attempting to
seem “hip” by being on Twitter.
When
we
see
Olive
Garden

appropriate a Brandon Warrell
meme about blow jobs, we don’t need
Arcade Fire’s fake Twitter account
to show us how odd it is. We already
get it. It’s not cutting edge social
commentary for the band to say,
“Look! Corporations! Money!”
And it’s certainly not cutting
edge for that commentary to
come in the form of a retweet.
There is behind that veil of irony
no legitimate, serious critique
here, and the only effect that
their pseudo-meta marketing
produces is that more attention
is placed on their hypocrisy
as they continue to employ
rather typical and unexciting
marketing
techniques.
No

matter how much they attempt
to make fun of it and separate
themselves, they are deeply
engrained in that corporate
system which they want you to
believe they’re so against.

Their new album, like their

marketing for it, is neither clever
nor exciting. It too is surface-
level at best. At worst, it’s poorly
constructed unintentional self-
parody.

Arcade Fire burns out

MATT GALLATIN

Daily Music Writer

MUSIC REVIEW

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

‘Atomic’ invigorates

WILL STEWART

Summer Managing Arts Editor

“Atomic
Blonde”

Rave Cinemas,

Quality 16

Focus Features

Everything Now

Arcade Fire

Columbia Records

MOVIE REVIEW

Back to Top

© 2025 Regents of the University of Michigan