« "When they're already vibrating, they only want full-text" | Main | Bloglines spricht Deutsches »
December 06, 2004
Review of The Librarian
So, I posted about The Librarian a few days ago, and watched it last night, expecting very little and therefore not being disappointed. Here begins my review:
NO MLS
Let me say first what any other librarian watching this movie was sure to notice. Out of the 22 degrees that this chap held, not a single one was a Masters in Library Science (at least it was not mentioned, which you think they would have).
SCHOLAR VS. LIBRARIAN
As someone who was watching the movie with me said, "They should have called this movie The Scholar, not The Librarian." Flynn the Librarian was not, in any sense, a librarian. He knew a lot of stuff (the movie emphasized linguistics, sociology, and world history), but "knowing stuff" does not a librarian make. It perpetuates the myth that librarians actually know everything. We can find just about everything, but no, we don't know everything. But then again, this guy wasn't a real librarian anyway, so perhaps the point is moot.
TECH HITS & MISSES
Hits: During Flynn's interview, he is asked what makes him qualified to be The Librarian. In his answer he mentions his web searching skills & being able to set up an RSS feed.
Misses: Not once, not a single solitary time, do we see a computer in The Library. Sheesh. We do see a wall of what I assume were supposed to be card catalog drawers, but they are a foot wide, so who knows.
GENDER BIAS
In my original post about the movie, I lamented that the main character was not female. I stand by that. I do appreciate the fact that The Librarian's security guard was a super-tough chick, but still. There was still a heavy-male gender bias in who The Librarians were: Eldred (male), Edward Wilde (male), Flynn (male), and Judson (male). Two "helper" characters were female--Nicole (the security guard) and Charlene (Jane Curtin's interviewer/helper character). Huh.
THE LIBRARY JOB MARKET
The line of applicants for the Librarian position is extremely long (also diverse as to gender & heritage) which shows how tough the library job market is right now.
BAD EFFECTS
The blue screen and other special effects (like the one with all the butterflies flying off the tree) were simply horrible. I know it's a "for TV" movie, but one would think they could invest another couple grand to make it look decent.
ERRORS IN LOGIC
- Flynn & Nicole literally waltz through booby traps. Right.
- They jump off a cliff (100 feet or so) and subsequently fall down a waterfall (200 feet or so) and emerge unscathed. Oh yes, and the book that was in Flynn's bag during all of this is also unscathed and undamaged by water.
- The mysterious "name of god" in the Shangri-la temple is the word "me" -- in English. And yet the panels he presses are in Tibetan, while he says out loud "M...E."
- At the end of the movie, Flynn asks "What's up with these bad guys and their insect names?" The two bands of bad guys were named "Serpent" (umm, not an insect) and Scorpion (also not an insect, but an arachnid).
TWO SMALL GOOD THINGS
- Kyle MacLachlan :)
- The showing of libraries as repositories for more than just books (in this case, artifacts).
TO SUM UP
The Librarian was a typical cheesy action film, with poorly done special effects, errors in logic, a weak story line, and some pretty horrible acting. Oh yes, and it really wasn't about a librarian, either. 80% of the movie had absolutely nothing to do with The Library, much less being a librarian. It was a typical poorly-done hapless adventurer movie. It would have been a horrible, horrible movie--even if it hadn't had the added insult of innacurately portraying librarians.
December 6, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/12541/1500284
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Review of The Librarian:
Comments
I loved your review. You missed one of the "good things", though: Bob Newhart as Marine Action Hero. It (almost) made the previous 1:48 worth it.
Posted by: Lazygal | December 6, 2004
I agree completely 100% with everything you put in your review and am grateful for you putting it out there.
One thing: I too thought he said "what is up with their insect names," but I think he really said SECT names and so, it may not be as bad as we all fear! ;-)
Thanks!
Posted by: Amy | December 6, 2004
I was watching the last few minutes of the thing muted so I could answer a call & the close-captioning interpreted it as 'insect' - and since all the other words seemed accurate (unlike with newscasts), I'd guess 'insect' was correct. Maybe it was meant to show there were gaps in his knowledge... no degrees in etymology?
Posted by: Nancy | December 6, 2004
i saw jane curtin as a circ desk supervisor...a bit of a stereotype, but i don't mind because i loved her character. for some reason, even though nicole was being "the librarian"'s bodyguard, i pegged her as tech services from the minute i first saw her...
Posted by: kitten | December 6, 2004
Elsewhere you've complained that making the lead a male suggests "that only guys can have adventures--that the female librarians simply couldn't handle such a monumental task." But maybe you ought to have observed that it suggests that only men can be valued for their brains -- women are valuede for their bodies. "You have the brains," his female body-guard says, "I have the brawn."
Paul
Posted by: Paul Cooper | December 6, 2004
If The Librarian had been more realistic and the Noah Wylie had an MLS degree, he would have spent the movie whinging about how inaccarately librarians are portrayed and obsessing over his professional image. Bad as the actual movie was, this more realistic version would be truly unbearable. Ugh.
Posted by: annoyed in library school | December 6, 2004
I also was struck by the lack of MLS. While The Librarian did have 22 degrees I think it is safe to assume that none of those was a library degree or it would have been mentioned, and he never talked about his interest in libraries, beyond as a patron and a student, until the job ad fell in his lap. Knowing Dewey and Library of Congress does not a librarian make. Furthermore, his adventure started the first day on the job and barely spent any time in an actual library. I know the writers had to make it interesting, but they really stretched it. Where were the real librarians giving guidance to the writers?
Posted by: Dr. Odin Jurkowski | December 7, 2004
Best scene in the movie: when Flynn puts the book in his bag and a moment later, it's back in his hand! Whoopsie!
I loved watching Bob Hope kick butt, though.
Posted by: Meg | December 7, 2004
I am a male High School Librarian with an MLS. Although everything previously said is correct, I am just happy that, one there is a show about a librarian action figure, and two, that the publicity, no matter how far off base, might actually bring us some admirers and future librarians.
Posted by: John Dale | December 7, 2004
Whoops -- I called Bob Newhart Bob Hope!
I'm fired!
Posted by: Meg | December 7, 2004
I liked it more than you -- it seemed like a cheap-o version of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" -- but parts of it were fun. And yes, parts of it were incredibly stupid and cheesy. Bob Newhart was a hoot, though. I can think of worse things to watch than Noah Wyle for a couple of hours, too... it was hard not to think "hey, I want to be *that* kind of librarian when I graduate!"
BTW, I always thought the whole point of librarianship was that you don't have to know it all, you just have to know where or how to find it...
~Amy
Posted by: Amy Proni | December 7, 2004
I took it for what it was, a light hearted spoof. I liked that the librarian was male because it's a field where the assumption is that we are all female. And I liked Newhart in the fight scene as the action hero at the end. Defying Hollywood Ageism. It was funny. And Jane Curtin was doing the interviewing, so I think we can assume that she was a librarian. (I've never been to a librian interview that had anyone else.) And I would guess his sidekick was too. Again, defying stereotype, the female librarian action hero.
How do you know he doesn't have an MLIS? They didn't say one way or the other.
It was a chance to laugh a bit and take it for what it was. I think it did a good job of defying some stereotypes.
Posted by: Judy | December 7, 2004
I have to agree with your review and say the only good thing was Bob Newhart kicking butt. As I have had time to mull on this, I am even more disappointed. There were how many urban types wandering through the jungle and not getting more than a mosquito bite? Where are the parasites?
But hey, our conservation lab would love to know how that book was made: through water, dirt and bad handling, it came out looking new.
I wonder if all the Librarians were male because all the Librarians of Congress have been male so far. I would love to see James Billington pull of some of this stuff!
Posted by: Colleen | December 8, 2004
"The mysterious "name of god" in the Shangri-la temple is the word "me" -- in English. And yet the panels he presses are in Tibetan, while he says out loud "M...E.""
I knew it! I knew it! Everyone else in my family insisted that it was "L.E." which made no sense. It was one of those "god is in all of us" comments, as evidenced by the knowing smile from the monk.
I was surprised that dug Kyle McLaughlin. I thought he was the weakest. To me, Kyle McLaughlin is Mr. Twin Peaks. I just don't want to think of him any other way.
rochelle
Posted by: rochelle | December 8, 2004
Alas, the film hasn't been shown yet in Austria, but I'm currently reading the novelization, published recently with ibooks. It's hilarious to read. In the book, it is definitely mentioned that Flynn has no MLIS among his 22 degrees. I also think that "The Library" is more like "The Museum" and maybe "The Librarian" should be called e.g. "The Curator" instead. But I think the librarian is nicely portrayed: intelligent, erudite, knowledgeable, likeable...
Posted by: library_mistress | December28, 2004
Please look at this film for what it is intended before you judge. You seem to be comparing apples against the criteria of a good orange. This was not intended to be a Discovery Channel feature. It is light fiction and should be regarded that way. I am a 40 year old, well-educated male, hold a BS in Astrophysics, a math minor and am a physician and minister and can agree with your observations of truthful content, however, this film is exactly what it was advertised to be. Nothing in its marketing or advertising even remotely suggests that it is an accurate, historical account. Also, do you have children? I have two boys, eight and ten who are both gifted. They can diagram both the male and female reproductive systems, have an educated conversation debating evolution vs creation, black holes, etc. The ten year old picked up on the "insect" comment immediately but also recognized that it didn't matter in this situation. They both love comedy/action/adventure and I can tell you that it is a struggle to find movies that will engage and entertain them without inappropriate language, violence, nudity, etc. My wife (who is also a well educated professional) and I also thoroughly enjoyed this film for what it was designed to be - light entertainment. From your comments I get the feeling that you are more interested in facts than pure entertainment. Perhaps avoid fiction in the future and you will enjoy your films and not come off sounding quite so egotistical or haughty.
Posted by: Rich | May20, 2005
I simply liked it.
Regards,
Anand Dodamani
Posted by: Anand Dodamani | October 1, 2005
The name of God is not that big of a mystery. As covered in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade when asked the same question, Indy came up with the correct answer "Jehovah". Flynn's answer of Me is laughable.
Posted by: Rory | December 6, 2006
