Extended Movie Weekend.

In an attempt to catch with all the movies I have missed so far this year and last year and as a way to get my mind off my current job situation, expect a whole plethora of reviews. The following films will be included in this barage. 21, This is England, Stop-Loss, The Fall (can't wait), Baby Mama (lol..well it's only fair), The Great Debaters, Recount (I know not technically) and Grace is Gone. Other films may include Starting Out in Evening, 2 Days in Paris and Fall From Grace. And maybe I should watch a another comedy. Maybe also Kung Fu Panda. And I need another comedy. So maybe another comedy.

Review: Gray Matters

.....When you watch enough films a majority of them fall into the category of just okay. I sort of expected the 2006 film Gray Matters to fall into this category. Unfortunately it falls even lower. Into the category dangerously close to loathing, but not quite. Actually the best word to describe it is probably annoying. Annoying as hell.
......The story is of a young women, named Gray (Heather Graham) and her surgeon brother, Sam (Thomas Cavanaugh). Sam and Gray are as close as they can be to one another. They dance to old movies together, live together and as the film’s central plot, fall in love with the same women together. That woman’s name is Charlie (Bridget Moynahan.) Does the superfluous use of gender neutral names bother anybody else?
Ultimately Gray’s coming to terms with her sexual identity is one of the dumbest, most naive representations of the “coming out” story I have ever seen. It is as if writer/director Sue Kramer has never met a gay or lesbian person in her life. To her sexuality is something that just happens one day on the way to work. And I suppose because sexuality is different for different people this is possible. But the feelings she struggles with are so artificial and disingenuous to what “coming out” is really like for most people, that the film is almost insulting to this important struggle.
.......Of course the film’s worse sin is not its ideology, but its basic attempt to call itself a comedy. Comedies are by rule supposed to have in them at least one joke or comical experience. The movie is as devoid of humour as it is of life.
........I could go on. The script is so damn after school special I could hardly take it. The camera work was shoddy. The acting was lame and wholly unconvincing. And frankly the majority of the time I watched the film I kept thinking about one sad reality. And that, dear friends, is that cinema geared to toward gay and lesbian audiences generally sucks. I know that sounds cold and there are many wonderful expectations. But films like this fuel the stereotype that self deemed “gay cinema” is really awful. I think you could argue that the film is more user friendly than other gay fare and may fit more firmly in the “quirky indie” world, but still it helps naysayers prove their point. And while it is not in the job description of the film’s artists to fight naysayers, Sue Kramer and this stupid little film sure are helping their cause.
.........Wow, sorry Sue. I promise I will watch your next film and wish you the best of luck.

Review: Sex and the City: The Movie

Jack Smith is an avant-garde filmmaker best known for his short film “Scorpio Rising.” We discussed the film in a class once in relation to a variety of concepts within the avant-garde filmmaking process. One the most crucial concepts was called “camp.” Most of us are familiar with this concept from a variety of sources. However what made Jack Smith different was his theory on why camp exists. His theory is that the artificiality of camp is a comment on the artificiality of heteronormative society. And perhaps you may accuse me of being an apologist, but to me Sex and the City: The Movie celebrates this artificiality and materialism to in some way note the artificiality and the “labels” of expected polite societal constructs. In other words in the places where Sex and the City is somewhat shallow it is being no more shallow then society as a whole. Yes every scene of the film was an advertisement for some product, everything from cars and water to of course the fancy shoes and dresses, but it does this without irony and without apology and in some crazy and decidedly capitalist sense of the word embraces its own nature admirably.

Now that that serious part of the review is over, let’s wallow like a pig in the entertainment that this glorious film truly is. I am a fan of the show and if you are not a fan of the show two things are likely to happen. One, you fall in love with these amazing women and their men and you are forced to run out and buy the seasons. Or, two you’re confused, scratch your head and wonder if that Hancock flick will be any good.

The story is simple and cliché. Carrie Bradshaw, our love writer, hero superwomen is about to write a book about what happens after you find the person that is supposed to be the love of your life. And that theme, of looking beyond the fairy tale endings is a prominent feature in all of the story lines. For Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) it is about reconciling between expectations and reality. For Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) it’s about dealing with a loss of trust with your fairy tale prince, Steve (David Eigenberg.) For Samantha (Kim Catrall) it is about embracing her “inner princess” and deciding to live honestly. And for Charlotte, well she doesn’t do much, but live the dream and suffer one embarrassing moment in Mexico. Of course I will let you discover that scene for yourself.

Ultimately the film breaks no cinematic ground, says nothing new about society or in fact serves any purpose other than to entertain us. And ultimately is that not what we fans kind of wanted anyway? Perhaps we can lament the fact the television show did break ground, where the movie does not. The show was a groundbreaking, frank depiction of sex and the single women, but the movie is something we have seen before. This fact and the fact that Anthony (Mario Catone) is in the film are the only negatives that come to mind.

Before I leave this review I want to make mention of one more thing. The idea that your gender or sexuality should be responsible for deciding whether or not you are allowed to enjoy a film is stupid. I know it makes for a good joke, but there are most assuredly straight men everywhere who will find something to enjoy in this film, even if it is only boobs.

Oh and one more thing. I freaking’ love Jennifer Hudson’s performance. I know there are many people who did not, but I quite liked it and look forward to whatever else she may have planned in her acting or singing future.

Review: Lars and the Real Girl

Lars and the Real Girl is a fine film. It really is. The screenplay by Nancy Oliver is top notch. Ryan Gosling’s performance as Lars, a man who has fallen in love with a doll used for less than savory purposes, is fantastic, as is the exquisite and refined supporting cast. So I guess the only thing keeping this “fine” film from advancing to the level of “genius” is its style.

On one level there is something compelling about making any film directed in cinema verite style. In the beginning its visual minimalism denotes Lars loneliness. And as the film progresses this style fades away with the use bright colours and other things which denote Lars’ increased happiness, yet artificiality. And while I understand and like this all very much, there is something about this style that seems too on the nose for me. It’s as if the director, Craig Gillespie, is trying to trick us all into feeling one way or another. All directors do this, but there something indefinably underhanded about this move. Lars and the Real Girl is completely believable and utterly, devastatingly honest, yet the director insists on emotional manipulation, which is unnecessary and wholly superfluous. The performance and the screenplay are strong enough that cinema verite style throughout the whole film would seem, to me at least, a more organic approach to the subject matter.

To the film’s credit and to my unexpected delight, it is funny, without being stupid. It is funny more in the way that when something is so awkward you have to laugh than beat you over the head with a joke kind of funny. With the potential to be turned into some soulless, heartless dribble all credit goes to those involved who saved this story from being turned into a star vehicle for Ben Stiller or Will Ferrell.

In conclusion, Lars and the Real Girl is a fine admirable film, but I would never wish to see it again and I am no better off or worse off for having seen the film. The praise it garnered last year is certainly understandable, but I am sort of glad it didn’t win any Oscars.

Speed Racher versus Indiana Jones

Somehow or other the critical lambasting of Speed Racer continues, as the bulk of the critical community comes to praise last week’s number one film Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. Speed Racer is an imaginative and fun romp that utilizes CGI to its maximum potential, while remaining faithful to its source material and creating one of the most purely enjoyable and creative films I have seen in some time. Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull is the opposite of this. It is merely nostalgia for three much better films. Its use of CGI is not only out of place, but plain stupid. Ending one of the coolest fight scenes I can recall from recent history with a Donkey Kong like sequence is one of the more stupid scenes I can recall from the film. But it doesn’t end there. There is not a part of this film that is really all that fun or interesting; with the noted exception of a fight scene that involves a sword fight from trucks. It may be pretty absurd, like the rest of the movie, but at least it’s still “cool.”

Steven Spielberg is a great filmmaker. A filmmaker who has in the past directed some of the highlights of American cinema, (e.g. E.T.) but who now can’t seem direct anything that doesn’t annoy me. Worry not, the film is fun and superior to Spielberg’s War of the Worlds and of course a million times more compelling than the insipid The Color Purple, but it’s simply not that damn good, and really really not as fun Speed Racer.

I hope that when the dust clears critics and fans will come to realize what a gem Speed Racer really is. So far, and I am pretty positive that this will change soon as more films fill our cinemas, Speed Racer is my hands down favorite film of the year. But, then again Cloverfield and Iron Man are both still on that list. I need to be seeing more films. I am full of excuses for why this is the case, but I spare you all. Sorry once more for the delay in posting.

Review: Margot at the Wedding

Nicole Kidman could make any movie she wanted to. She could make a film about the inner world of a paint mold and we would all probably watch it and admire her performance. Admire it not so much for its worth, but because Kidman could chose to make anything she wants and she continues to make films which are passion projects, instead of blockbusters. Perhaps The Golden Compass is a recent exception to this rule, but even that film wasn’t without controversy and her performance was pretty spectacular.

One of the films I failed to see last year (yes I am ashamed) is Margot at the Wedding. The sixth feature of one the best American directors alive, Noah Baumbach. His previous film The Squid and the Whale was a fantastic, comical and very real film about a family dealing with the effects of a divorce. Margot at The Wedding is also about family, but unlike The Squid and the Whale, it is less appealing, decidedly darker, but, to me at least, way more funny.

Margot at the Wedding tells the story of Margot (Nicole Kidman) and her son Claude (Zane Pais) as they attend Margot’s sister, Pauline’s (Jennifer Jason Leigh) wedding to the unemployed artist Malcolm (Jack Black.) Margot is over simply described as a heinous witch. With a different actress she may well have been just that, but Kidman gives her a bit of humanity, where even if we don’t like her, we still care what happens to her. The rest of the cast gives pretty solid performances as well, even Jack Black, who usually just annoys me to death. There are too many subplots to mention them all here. In fact there may just be too many subplots.

Perhaps the most compelling component of this film was the relationship between Claude and Margot. In fact the film spends more time on this relationship than the relationship between Margot and her sister. I can simply describe it as one the most intriguingly creepy relationship dynamics I have seen it quite awhile. And, for this reason alone, the film is worth a look.

I am going to cut this review short as the joy of Margot at the Wedding is discovering its idiosyncratic nature. However, I will say the film is not your normal run-of-the-mill comedy and it also not the Wes Anderson copy that some have called it. Wes Anderson is a fine director, sometimes, but Baumbach is in another more compelling league. Anderson if the flashy, silly side of family relations and Baumbach is the soul of them.

Also on purely technically note the sound mixing in the film annoyed me. However, the rest of the film was good enough that this very small, very particular issue is best left ignored.

Coming Up Next: Speed Racer Review, Trials of Darryl Hunt Review and Overated films.

Thoughts on Speed Racer

Film is without a doubt an art form. However at its most basic level film is tricks with light. Like the vaudevillians of old, film was, first and foremost, a means of entertaining the masses. And more than any other film I have seen recently, Speed Racer is an unabashed celebration of the eye popping power of tricked up light schemes. Many of the complaints against the film seem to be from a feeling that the film is all style and no substance. But with this film style is substance and the Wachowski Brothers have crafted not exactly a profound piece of art, but a testament to the power of movies and to why most of us love movies in the first place. Speed Racer may not move us tears, it may not make profound social statements (though it does make a few), it may not change the course of film history, but it does something more simple that. It gives a wink and a nod to pure gee golly gosh entertainment and for that it ranks high my book. It feels good to be nine again. Full review of Speed Racer and Margot at the Wedding coming soon.

Guillermo Del Toro and Magical Realism

Something that has always annoyed me a little bit is the free wheeling use of the term "magical realism" to define certain movements within film and literature that originate from Latin America. I thought of this again upon seeing a preview for Hellboy 2 and someone mentioning it as magical realist. I wrote this in MLA format as it is adapted from a much longer essay I wrote about the subject a few years ago. Bear with me, it is still in its smaller version a bit long. Also I will presume that you have either seen the films or are not afraid of those nefarious spoilers.

Talking Goats and Revolution: Magical Realism in the Films of Guillermo Del Toro

In the painting Torre de Pisa (Tower of Pisa), by Magical Realist Christian Schad, a women stares on at the viewer as if posing for a photograph. She is a stunning beauty, with penetrating eyes. All of our attention rests with her realness. We know her and we know her desperation. The classic 80’s film The Goonies is about a group of young kids searching for a pirate’s treasure, while being chased by a team of professional criminals. What these pieces of art share in common is that they both have been referred to as pieces of “Magical Realist” art. As is obvious, the term “Magical Realism” is a fairly fluid term with several definitions. However, there are basically two main ways to look at magical realism. The magical realism in its original state and the modern version of magical realism. One Latin American film director who seems to understand and exemplify both traditions is Guillermo Del Toro. This exemplification can be seen in his two critically acclaimed films Pan’s Labyrinth and The Devil’s Backbone.

Some literary and art historians have spent their whole lives attempting to craft a prefect, all encompassing definition of the term “Magical Realism.” However, the original meaning of the definition is actually quite simple. In 1925 Franz Roh published a book in which he compared expressionist painting to a new form of painting. However, he failed to find a descriptive word to fit the painting form. So, perhaps on a whim, he called this new artistic phenomenon “Magical Realism.” To Roh this new kind of painting was a response to the harsh realities of an improvised 1920’s Germany. The popular art at the time was expressionist, but to Roh, this art seemed to betray the harshness of the realities of waiting in food lines and hoping against hope that you would be eating that night. However, realism would not work simply because reality was something unspeakable. So in simpler terms, Roh meant for Magical Realism to be a middle ground between the art forms. These paintings then were somewhat cold and calculated but also with a bit of “magic.” To Roh there was no inherent magic in reality and in life, but the “magic” he referred to was in the eyes of the spectator. That reality could be recreated was the magic of the art, not that the art was inherently magical. Roh saw this phenomenon as a uniquely European idea. In his opinion only the Europeans, in their sophisticated understanding of reality could be so bold as to make this sort of new art. This elitist idea is another idea that separates his use of Magical Realism with the magical realism of Latin American art. In later years the term New Objectivity, would be formed to describe this phenomenon. However, New Objectivity would later fall into two parts. One part would be taken over by a group of Nazis and turned into a catch phrase to describe various sources of propaganda art. The other would be like Roh’s, but with increased understanding of political realities. The idea of leaders with absolute power, like Adolph Hitler, causing the evil found in magical realist art came as a result. (Reeds)

To Guillermo Del Toro this New Objectivity definition seems to have an important place in his films. Perhaps the most striking way is the visual nature of Guillermo Del Toro’s films. In The Devils Backbone we see a world torn apart by the civil war in Spain. Like in many other films, and in life, this depiction is dark and dank. There is a great deal of violence and several bits of grotesque imagery, most notably we see the character Dr. Casares drink from a jar which contains a fetus. In this we see a familiar reality, but one filled with the sort of “magic” apparent in Roh’s writing. Realism here would be a dull repeat of many films and other artistic expressions. Expressionism might serve as too abstract a forum to evoke our emotions. The most striking image of the film is simply the image of the crucifix. It is quite common to see crucifixes in almost every aspect of western society, from the crucifixes that adorn churches and graveyards to many famous pieces of art. However the crucifix of the film is an image that represents Franco’s tyranny. The children in the film are the children of leftist in Spain. Those in charge of the school place the crucifix outside to disguise the school as Catholic. As in Roh’s definition, we take an ordinary crucifix, seen in ordinary daily realism and add to it the weight of oppression and foreboding to form both a unique image and a harsh political reality. (Dalton)

Pan’s Labyrinth, like The Devil’s Backbone, is set in Spain in the time the civil war. It is curious that a Mexican director would chose to set his two most critically acclaimed films away from the country where he grew up. To Roh the idea of “magical realism” was uniquely European and here again Del Toro conforms to the idea of New Objectivity. In an interview Del Toro mentions that he originally intended to set up The Devil’s Backbone during the Mexican revolution, but upon a chance encounter with Pedro Almodovar, he changed his mind. However, because the films are set in Europe, it allows for the villain to be European and thus conform to another aspect common in New Objectivity. Franco can be quite easily, albeit perhaps too simply, compared to Hitler, the enemy of many artists that made up the magical realist half of the “New Objectivity” movement. The ghosts and mystical creatures of Pan’s Labyrinth and The Devil’s Backbone are the byproducts of the Latin American part of magical realism, but the real villains of his films are the power drunk fascists of the a specifically European variety. (Chun)

Capitan Vidal, the villain of Pan’s Labyrinth is finally destroyed in the end by the true revolutionaries, the opposing party. Capitan Vidal represents the tyranny of Franco’s rule and of the rule of all nations who give away their freedom. However, before his demise another character, a symbol of resistance, a fighter of liberty, otherwise known as the good guy, cuts open his face. The scene is extremely brutal. We as the audience watch the grotesque scene of the Captain sewing his mouth back together, without any anesthetic, save the alcohol in which he drinks throughout the majority of film. The celluloid is covered in red blood. Here not only does the villain suffer a major setback, but also we see a scene constructed that represents a major setback for fascism itself. Fascism thrives on the rhetoric of the mouth and we see a symbol of this fascism without the ability to help fascism spread. However, instead of asking us to feel the vindictive joy of revenge we are instead left with the distinct and surprising feeling of sympathy. Sympathy for a man who earlier in the film beat an innocent man to death with a glass bottle. Sympathy for a man who treats an innocent child, the hero protagonist Ophelia, in the same manner as a fruit fly. Sympathy for a man who has absolutely no concern for his dying wife save her ability to bear him a son. We feel for him because the image is just so brutal and so overwhelming violent. In other words the image is cold. It shows us a reality constructed anew. A new reality that is not the expected call to arms. New Objectivity simply presents the world as in a raw symbolic form. This doesn’t insight our need for revenge and is merely an observation. (Montagne)

There are entire books dedicated to the evolution of Magical Realism in its New Objectivity form to the “lo real maravilloso” that exists in the Latin American perspective. In fact in 1973 a group of scholars met at the Crongreso de Literatura Iberoamericana in Michigan State University to figure out what exactly magical realism was and whether or not the art or literature of Latin American could rightfully be called: Magical Realism. However, instead of clarifying things the meeting forwarded the confusion. Here is what is known. The term “lo real maravilloso” was coined by the scholar Alejandro Carpentier, who like Roh noticed an artistic movement and decided it needed a name. Whether it was misinterpretation of Roh’s German or just a misunderstanding of his original intentions is a matter of great scholarly debate. The basic difference between Roh and Carpentier is that to Roh Magical Realism is the middle ground between the extremes of expressionism and realism, but to Carpentier Magic Realism is a an issue of extreme ideology. Carpentier believes that in the everyday and mundane realities there is actual magic. A magic that requires a belief its own existence to exist at all. To Roh Magical Realism is a representation of reality where as with Carpentier Magical Realism is the magic that exists in reality. Other distinctive characteristics of “lo real maravilloso” are a change in geography, a less elitist attitude and the insertion of the traditional fable and myths. New Objectivity is best described as an observation of reality in a unique and sometimes political form. “Lo real maravilloso” on the other hand is more often a call to arms in both a political and spiritual sense. New Objectivity simply exists but “lo real maravilloso” demands our faith. Some scholars note that Carpentier merely used the term Magical Realism as way to grab attention for what he believed to be an overlooked but important literary tradition that sprung not from the influence of Europeans but from the minds of creative native people. While there is something decidedly elitist about this notion, there is also something rather poignant. (Reeds)

In an interview Guillermo Del Toro talks about The Devil’s Backbone with the following:

“I think there's an urgent need to know, an urgent need to believe that there's something beyond your monthly paycheck and the traffic jam. I think that in this era where being cool almost becomes synonymous with being cynical, and people who debunk are far more hip than people who believe, I think these movies are a refuge for people who want to believe.” (Chun)

With this quote we see Del Toro’s belief in the power of faith in the magic of everyday life. (Chun) In Pan’s Labyrinth, a child’s innocence stands out as the opposition to war. This is common, but a very large metaphysical sort of idea. It is seen in many ways in all forms of literature from all over the world. However in the world of the Guillermo Del Toro and “lo real maravilloso” this is shown in quite a literally fantastical form. In order to escape war, Ophelia from Pan’s Labyrinth does not just imagine a world where she is queen of mystical creatures, but instead she actually is. With New Objectivity the world can be seen as more real, but “lo real maravilloso” shows us such a hyper-reality that realness is altered. However, in order for us to fully comprehend and fully believe in the world of Pan’s Labyrinth we must have a child like faith in the possible existence of an altered reality. Not just the reality of existence, but reality of that which exists beyond existence. In The Devil’s Backbone and Pan’s Labyrinth the main protagonist are always the children. Perhaps this is not only to show the idea of innocence lost in times of war, but also that the faith required to fully believe is the same faith as that of a child. Also the message is so universal and so genially powerful, that it serves as a call for peace. Both The Devil’s Backbone and Pan’s Labyrinth are “anti-war films.” If the films were found entirely beneath the heading of New Objectivity they would merely note this with a cold calculated observation, but the films call us to find peace instead. (Katje)

One the most distinctive parts of Latin American Magical Realism can be found with the inclusion of myths and legends within the artwork. Some critics have seen this addition as a negative thing. Some audiences have seen the art of Latin American Magical Realism as perhaps inaccessible or plain juvenile. For Roh the idea of these myths and legends and sharing with them the name of great paintings would probably seem absurd. Here magical realism looses its elitism and becomes a genre of the people. However there is something very distinctly different about the legends and myths of the Latin American world. While there are millions of strange and interesting creatures, there are some that are distinctly Latin American. With the mythology of anywhere in the world, these creatures are not just things to fear. In The Devil’s Backbone the ghost is not something to run in fear of or to spend sleepless nights in worry over. Instead the “lo real maravilloso” manner the ghosts are sadness, they are consequence, they are entities that exist like emotion, sometimes invisible to the human eye and sometimes dead, but still living in our subconscious. The creatures of Pan’s Labyrinth are not just there as filler, they are symbols of power struggles, innocence and belief. It would be wrong to suggest that horror films of other places do not also show this sort of thing, it is correct to state that Guillermo Del Toro does this with great aplomb and in a particularly “lo real maravilloso” sort of way. When Carpentier invented the term “lo real maravilloso” he saw a worthy genre which was in need of a name. Without the influence of “lo real maravilloso” The Devil’s Backbone would probably be little more than a bad “B-movie” and Pan’s Labyrinth probably wouldn’t exist at all. (Atkins)

With the closing of Pan’s Labyrinth we see an extreme example of exactly what “lo real maravilloso” is all about. The scene exists in two ways. The literal level is pure tragedy. Ophelia, our hero perishes. She is killed by the representatives of fascism. The imagery is dark and tragic. At last our hero has fallen. However, if we have given in to the magic of the story, if we have the faith mandatory in understanding Magical Realism then we know she did not die, but did in fact take her place on the throne to govern the strange and intriguing creatures of the labyrinth. Here we see death as merely a stopping point. It is impossible not to feel emotion for Ophelia, but unlike with Capitan Vidal’s death we feel something else. A call to action. A call to cease participating in wars. Also we see myth and fable as the saviors and escapes from reality. We see the concept of afterlife, so important within many religious ceremonies but subverted away from the shinny golden gates of heaven and replaced with something more prominent in the mind of a child. Guillermo Del Toro says he wants us to believe in something beyond this world, something that can be “cool”, but not hopeless, with the power of “magical realism.” (Katje)

From the talking dead people of HBO’s critically acclaimed “Six Feet Under” to the complicated Japanese anime world of “Pokemon” the definition of “magical realism” has become a fad in labeling art forms which uses different approaches to the understanding of the world we share. Guillermo Del Toro however truly understands the world from a unique perspective. He sees the complicated New Objectivity as striking a balance in life. However, he also understands and strives for the magic inherit in real life itself. The film of Guillermo Del Toro use both forms of Magical Realism to construct amazing masterpieces of the human condition and shows us a world of magic that exists just beyond the horizon. Often in our jaded minds we overlook the stunning beauty that sits before us, and through his sometimes violent epics we see the sometimes tragic sometimes beautiful reality of a life with hope.

Works Cited

Atkinson, Michael. “Moral Horrors in Guillermo Del Toro’s Pan’s Labyrinth, The Supernatural Realm Mirrors Man’s Inhumanity to Man” Film Comment, Jan/Feb2007, Vol. 43 Issue 1, p50-53.

Chun, Kimberly “What is a Ghost? An Interview with Guillermo del Toro” Cineaste, Spring 2002, Vol. 27, Issue 2

Dalton, Stephens. “When the Monster are Human.” The Times April 11 2006. (newspaper.)

Montagne, Rene. “Pan's Labyrinth' is Realer than Reality Itself.” Morning Edition (NPR), DEC 29, 2006

Reeds, Kenneth. “Magical Realism: A Problem of Definition.” Neophilologus, April 2006, Vol. 90 Issue: Number 2 p175-196.

Richstatter, Katje. “Two Dystopian Movies…and their Visions of Hope.” Tikkun, Mar/Apr2007, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p78-79.

Review: Iron Man

I hope you all missed me during my temporary exile from the blog world. But I have returned, armed with more time and a brand new review of the blockbuster hit Iron Man.

Let’s be honest. Who is cooler? Han Solo or Luke Skywalker? Who is more awesome? Superman or Wolverine? Most of us, with a few notable exceptions, would say Han Solo and Wolverine. Why? Because Skywalker and Superman are goody-two-shoes and Han Solo and Wolverine are bad asses. Both rogues, both anti-heroes who fight for good, but not from some eternal cause of greatness from within, but because they had to. That is what makes Iron Man so awesome, that and a stellar cast, a grade A director and one of the best uses of CGI I can recall from recent memory.

The story, if you haven’t seen it yet, is of Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) a weapons dealing, womanizing, super intelligent, good looking millionaire. On a trip to Afghanistan to sell his new ware, a particularly lethal missile, he is kidnapped by terrorists and forced to build his first model of the Iron Man in order to escape. There is the buddy character (Terrence Howard) and the loyal servant Virginia “Pepper” Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow.)

Let’s recap for a second. Robert Downey Jr., one the greatest actors of our time, Terrence Howard and Gwyneth Paltrow. Let’s add to that the always interesting Jeff Bridges. And then let’s use this almost always perfect cast of actors in a superhero movie. The result is, as expected, a triumph of the highest order.

Beyond being fun the film does something else too. It refuses to shy away from its political messages, yet never allows these messages to take the center stage. X-Men and Spiderman both have a political agenda, this is certainly true, but in Iron Man the message is not nearly so hidden in the world of fantasy. Yes of course Iron Man is a superhero fantasy adventure, but it is also, above all else, grounded in reality. Thus the political implications of weapons dealings, of making wars and the like, become more apparent. You could argue with the validity of political discourse within most superhero flicks, but Iron Man wears its bleeding liberal heart on its metallic sleeves.

Another way the film is better than your average superhero flick is its utter defiance of all the rules of a good superhero movie. It breaks two of these in the last fifteen minutes so I will spare you this. But, in breaking these rules the film elevates itself to a level beyond most superhero movies.

Ultimately a good popcorn superhero movie should be about having fun and watching things go boom, but while Iron Man does all of the above, in the closing frames it does something else. Something I have read in other blogs and reviews that is a let down to some, but to me, it was the opposite. It becomes about more than explosions and fun and makes one of the simplest statements any film can make. That CGI and action sequences may enthrall our senses, but they will never trump the power of simple, trick-free, quality film making. So if you have some time to spare and promise not to chew your popcorn too loudly, your in for a good night at the movies. And, seriously, does it get better than that?

For The Bible Tells Me So... Part One

I apologize for the delay. My computer decided to show me its famous "blue screen of death." I wrote this last week. So when it says yesterday I mean last Wednesday.

Yesterday I witnessed something amazing. Something like Jesus, awaking Lazarus from his eternal sleep or feeding the multitudes with a bit of bread and a bit of fish. I saw a man stand up and proclaim from a place of deep faith and power that the film we just watched has changed his perspective. He then apologized to the entire GLBT community and confessed, almost in the way one might do at a religious ceremony, that he was guilty, like everyone I suppose, of being prejudice. His God, Christ in his case, was a God of love. And that, above all else, was the film's primary goal. To remind us that religion is not meant to promote intolerance and bigotry. The film, For the Bible Tell Me So examines , both positively and negatively, the way the families of a variety of people in the gay and lesbian community are affected by their children's "coming out" and how that fits into their religion.

Daniel Karslake, the film's director, stayed after the film to answer some question . This was both an insightful and moving experience. But, first let's examine the film.

The primary makeup of the film is a group of families affected by the the impact of discovering the one of their own is, in fact, a homosexual. The film shows some famous people like Senator Richard Gephart, his wife Jane and their openly lesbian daughter Chrissy. Also, in the section of the film I found most riveting, the story of the first openly gay bishop of the American Episcopalian church, Gene Robertson. Perhaps the most brave part of the film comes from Mary Lou Wallner, who blames herself for his daughters' tragic suicide. Daniel told us afterwards that she wrote a book called The Slow Miracle of Transformation. It is currently out of print, but I hope to find it soon and give it a read. The other families, the Poteats and the Reitans, are both truly interesting to get to know. In fact the most powerful scene in the film comes when the Reitan's take a stand on a particular issue. I won't give it away. See the film, available on DVD now, to uncover this part of the story.

One of the film's most compelling features was the addition of several theologians and scholars who both passionately and objectivity examined the true intentions behind the infamous bible verses that are said to condemn the practice of homosexuality. Nothing about their observations are entirely new ideas, but I imagine to the film's target audience this could be seen as somewhat of a revelation.

Another extremely intriguing aspect of the film was an animated section about what it is that makes people gay and the science behind it. The animated section works in two distinct ways. One, it allows the film to take a break away from the weighty subject material and two, it saves the viewers from what may have been a boring section of "talking head" scientist.

That's the film. But in part two we will get to the touching part. Including a story that Daniel told that made me almost cry.

Also, because we are in the middle of final papers season this blog may not be too active until school ends. However, if I don't get a chance to tell you here are few things you should know.

1) This Thursday for those of you in the Wilmington area there will be an avant-garde (experimental film night.) Afterwards there will be something called a "Live Cinema Explosion" Trust me, as someone working to bring this film festival to Wilmington, it should be a truly memorable night.

2) Also on Friday night is the Reel Teal Festival. A collection of student films will be shown and those in the audience get to vote to for their top picks. If you attend wear something a little nicer.

3) On Saturday, and this only for my UNCW readers, there will be a 24 hour move lock-in where a whole plethora of exciting and classic films will be playing. I went last year and had a blast. There is free food and time to relax before exam study sessions. If you attend wear the opposite of what you wore to the Reel Festival. Like sweat pants maybe?

I should mention that 1-3 are all taking place at Lumina Theatre on the UNCw campus. All of these events are free to the public.

4) If I don't have time to formally write a review I wanted to mention Forgetting Sarah Marshall. I was able to attend a preview screening of the film last week and let me tell you it is a truly funny film. Nothing too new, but funny enough to make up for that.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Film Review: Rocket Science

I am not anti-Juno. I liked Juno. I liked it quite a bit. And when it came time for people to debate its intrinsic value I kept my mouth shut on the subject. I honestly didn’t feel strongly about it either way. To me it was just okay, and not worthy of its numerous Oscar noms but not bad enough to really complain. Today I saw the film that should have filled its place. The little indie drama/comedy which should have taken all of Juno’s accolades away no questions asked. A film which, had I seen it before the creation of last year’s top ten list, the place of Paris Je Taime would have been called into question. This film is Rocket Science and while it is not about teen pregnancy its character could just as easily have inhabited the same world as Juno, except, of course, only better. And more importantly than that, it is a million times funnier.

The story is of Hal Hefner (Reece Thomas), a young man with a suturing problem, whom through the influence of a certain young beauty, Ginny Ryerson (Anna Kendrick,) decides to join the debate team and take the place of a the fallen hero of the debate team. The fallen hero’s name is Ben Weskelbaum (Nichols D’Agosto) and after one crucial screw up he gives up and does something very dramatic. He completely drops out of school.

Hal’s home life is not much better as his parents have recently separated and his mom is seeing someone new. Many people make mention of the fact that the new boyfriend is a Korean-American and that the characterizations of him and his dim witted son are somewhat negative. They attribute this to racism. These people have no life and are in some ways helping to make the race fight continue and that is simply fuel for the fires of racism. The characters are simply not prefect, like all the other flawed characters in this film. It would be the same as showing a black or gay villain and automatically presuming racism or homophobia on the part of the film maker. Sometimes films are racist or homophobic. This one simply isn’t.

Now that that little defense thing is over allow me to continue to praise this film. Diablo Cody may now be the proud owner of a bright little golden man, but the talent that oozes from the screenplay, written by Jeffery Blitz (also the director of the film,) is something Diablo Cody, talented as she may be, could never come close to, at least not yet. Forgive the run-on sentence there.

Also let’s talk about the acting. In fact the acting on the part of Kendrick won her an Independent Spirit Award nomination. I have no doubt of why. Her character is neither evil nor good, and I mean that in the best way possible. She has many layers and with each scene you see her in you learn something new. The main actor, Reece Thomas is quite good too. However, I must submit the majority of my praise to the young actor who plays Ben. He has film presence that is both devilishly charismatic and also painfully shallow. He, I predict, will one day be a bona fide movie star.

And then there’s the direction of the film by Jeffery Blitz. Blitz before directed the Oscar nominated documentary Spellbound. Spellbound, like Rocket Science, is about children attempting to live up to impossible ideals and the disappointment that this ideology will ultimately yield. Both of the films are mini-masterpieces in their own way and deserve to be seen. What I like most about Rocket Science is how it is funny without sacrificing emotion and how honest it is, without sacrificing on style. That previous sentence describes the antithesis of what Juno turned out to be.

Allow me to reiterate upon closing that I don’t wish to join the Juno wars. In fact those wars have been fought and now, I presume, we are talking of history. However, I mention Juno because so many others did. Of course Roger Ebert compared the film to Election and Clueless and decided that this film belonged beside those films as zeniths of the teen “coming of age” film genre. And while this is not an original concept I agree with him. Of course he did go on to crown Juno the best film of 2007, proving that even great critics like Ebert get it wrong from time to time.

If you don’t mind, forgive any grammatical errors or word omissions from this entry. I have written the first 15 pages of a paper and by now words are all just running together. However, just so that I could spread the word about this film I just had to go ahead and write this blog entry. So go rent this film and think about how, even though I was sleepy and weary I wrote this blog just for you. Unless of course you hate the movie. In which case, blame Ebert. He liked it before me you know.

Film Review: Kite Runner

I don’t tend to watch many films that make their home on Lifetime Movie network. I can only take so much weepy drama, mediocre acting and scripts written in two hours flat without the slightest bit of subtlety or grace. So that is why I am forced to give The Kite Runner, a film based on the beloved book of the same name, a negative review, as it feels exactly like a Lifetime Film, a Lifetime film with a really great production value.

I have read the book and while it is fundamentally wrong to judge films based on their book versions, the film doesn’t hold up to the amazing power of the book. In fact the movie is like reading the cliff notes of some great novel and expecting to be as fully enriched as reading the actual novel. This is not say that movies can’t be better than their book version (Clockwork Orange for instance,) but this film is seriously like watching a collection of filmed highlights from the novel infused with weepy falsehoods that negate the power of its source subject. And, that my friends, is a shame.

The movie tells the story of Amir and his friend of lower class, Hassan. The story begins in Afghanistan and spans countries and time periods. It is a story of a life, of redemption, of finding a “way to be good again.” But, the real power of the story comes from the relationships Amir has with his Hasan and his father (or Baba.) I am not going to go over to many plots points here as the film is nothing but plot points and most of you have probably already read the book.

Marc Forster, the film’s director has always been hit or miss with me. I loved his films Monster’s Ball and Finding Neverland, but I have to say another of his films Stranger than Fiction was a miss for me. Stranger than Fiction is not a bad film, but it does not live up to its excessive praise and don’t get me started about the horrible cop-out ending of that film.

But, let’s avoid that tangent and move to a different one. A friend of mine actually mentioned this too, immediately after seeing the film, the visual style in The Kite Runner is so boring and cliché. The camera work is too Hollywood and something is lost in it. Something about the camera’s determined focus and the musical score as well seems to negate the power of the film. Unlike the book nothing in the film can be a surprise since the score insists on playing the role of physic.

I want to avoid sounding sexist and being one of those people that divides film or other art into specific genders. However, with that being said, I have to confess to me the book story was a story of men and boys, and fathers and sons. The movie wasn’t about that. It seemed more feminine, not that is always a negative thing. Some of the power of book is lost on the film, because of an insistence upon weeping sentimentalism and not enough about how Amir learns, even after he has a wife, to become a man and to make his father proud. The film does make mention of these themes, but makes them more Gilmore Girls (a show I admit to enjoying) than something else. That is not to say women are more likely weepy sentimentalist, but in fact the stereotypical women that inhabit the worlds of Lifetime Films are perhaps the women that I am referring to.

Also I can’t help but note, with a bit of irony, how much this film should have allowed us to see more of the violence of Taliban. I know that sounds weird. Especially from someone like me who has in the past argued against excessive violence. But in the scene which I can imagine to be truly brutal of a stoning we are shown very little. Sometimes this is good. Sometimes not showing too much violence is a good stylistic choice. But, this is a film with a goal of showing the real harsh, hellishness of the Afghanistan of the Taliban and realness and perhaps something that would warrant a R-rating would seem necessary here. I imagine there is some studio pressure in this regard and perhaps the good ladies at book club that went to see the film projected up on the big screen are not interested in seeing this reality.

Perhaps I am being too cynical. This film does have some good features and may encourage some people to seek out the book. In fact that is my suggestion with this film. Read the book first and if you have time and worse options for movies, give this one a look. It’s not awful, just extremely disappointing.

RIP Charlton Heston

We knew him as Moses, as an astronaut lost in a world of apes, as a detective fighting against an evil Orson Welles, Ben-Hur and most recently as a real life villain in Micheal Moore's Blowing For Columbine. If we forget the latter characterization for a minute we can not fault Heston for his acting skills, which while not stunningly good, held with with us a real and memorable presence. Rest in Peace Mr. Heston.

Film Review: In The Valley of Elah

Will cinema survive the horror that is Paul Haggis? Yes, of course. But why, oh why, do his works garner such adulation? Crash, the first film he directed, won him a best picture Oscar. In 2004 he wrote Million Dollar Baby and as we all know it too won for best picture. Let’s add to that list a horrible remake of an Italian film with The Last Kiss and Letters from Iwo Jima, a film which was just okay. We all know how much I loathe Crash, but Million Dollar Baby lines up right behind it with films which I really don’t like. His works have the combined subtlety of something like using an elephant to crack open a peanut.

And yet I watched In the Valley of Elah, Haggis’ second time as director. Once again we are presented with an issue movie. This time the war in Iraq. However, unlike the rest of his usual dribble this film works, sort of. The story begins as Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones) receives word that his son has returned home from Iraq, but is missing. And thus a typical crime solving drama begins. Hank, a retired military serviceman, attempts to enlist help from various unhelpful agencies. In fact one particularly telling scene involves the local police arguing over whose jurisdiction the case falls under. In spite of all these unhelpful folks, Detective Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron) a single mother in a man’s world, helps Hank on his quest. Susan Sarandon plays as the missing boy’s mother and even though she is only in a few scenes, she is quite an intriguing character.

One of the film's great triumphs is the amazing performance on the part of Tommy Lee Jones. In a so-so film, his performance really stands out. Like in No Country for Old Men, Jones is best when he is in pursuit of something. And watching a master of his craft like Jones act is an actual pleasure. Although I would argue that his performance in No Country for Old Men is slightly better and I imagine the Academy chose to nominate his performance in this film as more a recognition of his entire year’s work.

However, the film’s fatal flaw, like all of Haggis’ films is enduring the endless barrage of sermons that Haggis’ hopes to preach to us. In this film “war is hell.” Wow, Haggis that is an insightful as this little ditty “racism is wrong” from Crash. With restraint, In the Valley of Elah could make a profound statement, even if that statement were as simple as the aforementioned one, but Haggis decides to trade in story and style for message. Yes, it is less a problem in this film as with Crash, but still it is a real shame. A shame, because somewhere within this mess of this film is a really, really great film. A film which could have struck some important chords, changed some minds and never once have sacrificed its value as a film for the previous things.

Could Haggis be a good director? Yes, of course. And with some restraint and maybe with the help of a more subtle screenwriter he will write and direct some great stuff. I’m waiting.

Film Review: Southland Tales

So I realize this is not a review of In the Valley of Elah, but PROBABLY next time.

With the stories surrounding Southland Tales’ release, the reviews which generally place the film into the pantheon of gloriously bad movies and the numerous amounts of confusion surrounding the plot I simply didn’t know what to expect. Richard Kelly, the film’s infamous director, has acquired himself a rabid fan base. His first film, Donnie Darko, was interesting enough the first fifteen times someone insisted I watched it, but it never impressed me in any way. It was merely cool. So with all that being said I was pleasantly surprised by Southland Tales. Yes, it is a pretty lousy film, but it is a fun lousy film.

While I think I can count myself amongst those critics that actually understands the majority of the plot, revealing too much of plot would take from some of the fun away from watching it. Dwayne Johnson “The Rock” stars as a famous actor with political ties. In fact, he is married to the vice president’s daughter played by Mandy Moore. Ex-Buffy star Sarah Michelle Gellar plays a porn star that gets herself stuck in the middle of the situation. Those last three sentences alone may have caused some of you to run for cover, but I assure you their performances are all, to some degree, competent, or at least competent enough for this movie. There are numerous other characters and stories, some about the end of the world, time travel and the effects of The Patriot Act. It is, I must confess, a truly glorious mess of film.

Richard Kelly has some good ideas here, but there are way too many ideas. I was lucky enough to see the trimmed down version of the film. I honestly don’t think I could have dealt with any more length from the film. Actually, even with this new cut it does feel a bit too long.

I don’t really have much to say about the film. It is simply not nearly as horrific as some have claimed and certainly no misunderstood masterpiece. It is just a fun, at times funny, film that will in time win itself a fan base of people looking for a modern film to play at midnight showings. I could never suggest the film to anyone and I know more than one person that would probably loathe the film. However, if let your mind enter the world of the film, and ignore the lame attempts on the director’s part to make “profound” points about American politics, the film can be fun in that way Independence Day is fun.

There is a scene somewhere in the middle of the film where Justin Timberlake, who plays an Iraq war veteran, has a musical number with the song “Things I’ve Done” by The Killers. The absurdity of this scene and the look of seriousness on Timberlake’s face make this film worth watching. If you watch this scene from within the confines of the film and don’t at least chuckle, I would advise you to check your pulse.

Into the Wild Questions and Answers Part One

Well, I will spare you the long and exaggerated essay that my first attempt to write this blog entry was. Instead I want to answer a few questions I was asked by some friends about Into the Wild. Some of these questions are entirely subjective and I do not and would not expect you to agree with all of my presumptions. Also I should warn you these answer do contain spoilers. However, I think this is one of those films where facts about plot or certain visuals don’t so much have an affect on you as the actual watching of the film. After all, everyone probably already knows the end as it appears in every review of the film and is an adaptation of a well known book. It the future I hope to write more answers to certain question that may come up. If you have ideas or question regarding any film, just let me know. If I have no answer for you I will most certainly find one for you.

Question One: Is Christopher McCandless a hero or a depressed, spoiled, tenderfoot with no business trying to live in the wilds of Alaska?

This is of course an opinion question, as I said before, but I have to say the answer to this question seems obvious to me. I cannot in good conscience having never met the real person behind the character say whether or not he was in real life, a hero. However, I can say that without a doubt the character found Sean Penn’s film is neither hero nor “spoiled brat.” I will speak more of this in a second. But to me he is a tragic hero, but also a spoiled, unprepared hero, whose tragic death is both poetic and very very stupid.

Question Two: Does Sean Penn’s adaptation of the book make Christopher into too much of hero? In other words, does Sean Penn’s portrait of Christopher come from a fair and balanced perspective?

While I find much of the criticism of the film to be suspect in regards to Sean Penn’s direction, a valid point could be made that Penn paints too rosy a picture of Christopher. Like me, Penn sees him as a hero. However, I think while on surface it may appear to be sheer admiration I think Penn makes some convincing points against Christopher as well.

Let’s start with a scene very early in the film. Christopher drives past a sign warning of flood areas. He recklessly parks his car and in the morning, even though he no longer wishes to own a car, it is destroyed. From the very beginning we see Christopher as some one who is reckless and unconcerned with how his actions might affect other people in his life.

Christopher is opposed to money. He believes that man should live the out fashioned way hunting and gathering. Money, according to him, makes people cautious. Yet more than once Christopher seeks out jobs in order to make money. While I understand this all in his attempt to find and fund his way into finding his dream, his dependence is somewhat contradictory to his ideology. As is the fact, that Christopher, more than once attempts to leave. He always intended to not return to society. So, in essence, Christopher wanted to only temporarily to live the ideal, but never permanently. If this is best way to live, then why would he only wish to live this way for a short period of time?

The third, and perhaps most compelling, part of Penn’s portrait of Christopher is showing, through the narration of his sister, Christopher’s family history. Christopher’s dislikes of money and material wealth comes from this. In some ways he sees the material world as part of the reason why his parents spent the majority of their time fighting one another. Christopher has unbelievable anger at his parents. More than once when he talks about the effects of society he slips his parents into conversation. In a conversation with Wayne, the man who hires Christopher to work at the grain elevator Christopher, drunk, tells Wayne quite clearly that his parents are the reason he is leaving society. So as Hall Holbrook’s amazingly well acted character knows, like himself, Christopher is not just trying to escape the confines of society but more specifically his family. I think Jane says it best when she asks Christopher where his parents are. He replies “somewhere out there, living their lives.” She responds back, with a bit of reserved remorse and also bit of righteous anger. She tells him he looks well loved and that he is not being fair to his parents. While I can understand and to emphasize with Christopher, it is true that Christopher is not seeking to be enlightened, but merely to run away. And not run away just to find bliss, but to in some way punish his parents. There is something cruel and brutal about that. That Penn more than once attempts to prove what I just mentioned tells me that, yes, Penn does approach Christopher from a balanced perspective. But, as I said, I do understand why one could argue, if they were not looking close enough, how Penn paints too innocent a picture of Christopher.

Question Three: Does Christopher (the character in the film, not the real life guy) truly not believe in love?

I found this to be one of the odder questions I was asked about the film. I think the answer is pretty simple. Yes. In the beginning I think love has let Christopher down. The people that were supposed to provide him with the emotional support could only give him material wealth as a substitute for love. He says, in paraphrasing the novel Walden, that truth is a greater goal than love. Yet I think through his numerous encounters with people he develops a family and discovers the value of love. I don’t know why, but when I had just finished watching the film the first time, the crying women that sat behind me asked me this question. I remember her look of relief when I told her, yes, I did. I am not sure why but she hugged me. What an odd moment that was. So I thought I would answer it here, just in case.

Question Four: Does Christopher learn to forgive his parents?

Penn, quite intelligently never comes out and says whether or not his parents are forgiven. He makes a big deal of the scene in which Hal Holbrook delivers his line about “the light of God” shinning down on him when he realizes the importance of forgiveness. I guess we can make our own decision. I think the fact that the sun shines on Christopher during this scene is the film’s subtle way of, yes, that Christopher was forgiven and that also the demons that haunted the life of Hal Holbrook’s character where also defeated. I think he does forgive them, but I don’t know that, even is he had survived, that they would every have become friends.

Question Five: Would Christopher enjoy a movie about his own life?

This is pure speculation of course. I would say YES. Absolutely. He loves to document his life and said more than once that he would write a book about his journey when he got back. Also the real life person behind the character Wayne, who knew Christopher personally, has said in interviews that he thinks Christopher would love a film about himself.

Actually I have a lot more to say and some of it is more interesting even. I will write some more answers and questions about Into the Wild soon. I hope you enjoyed. By the way if you have any questions, disagreements or general comments, by all means let me know.

A review of In The Valley of Elah is next.

Time for some improvements around here.

Often it seems, upon reading older entries of this blog, I am sad to notice what in some cases seem like lifeless and unprofessional attempts on my part to win favor, or something altogether too pedestrian. I don't want this blog to just be something any old fan boy or movie buff could string together.
For example, what is great about There Will Be Blood is not just how it spoke to me or what it spoke of, but also it's images, the interplay between light and shadow and the subtle, yet profound way, it's music fills you with a surge of emotion. These are things I understand. The words to describe film are a part of my lexicon, but for some reason I have chosen to ignore things like lighting design and camera angles. Film is art, but it is a technical art.
Also on an earlier blog entry I decided to post one blog everyday. This turned out to be one of those ideas that never came into happy fruition.
So, here then, with these two truths in mind, is my new pledge. I promise, in fact I more than promise, that from here on out the quality of this blog will be improved tenfold. With this I hope for an increase in readership. I know that I am capable of such things. I recognize the unprofessional nature of this particular blog entry, but I want to make you, my faithful readers, aware of these changes that I plan to implement.
I adore film as both a form of art and testament to who and what we are as human beings. I only hope that, with what remains of this blog, that I can pay film its rightful due.
Right now, upon a second viewing of Into the Wild, I am staring at 78 pages of notes about the film, trying to turn it into a workable blog entry. I hope to have it posted by Sunday, but I won't promise this. I am writing this Into the Wild entry, based on an intriguing question posed to me by a good friend. It will perhaps be more personal than I had originally intended. However, something this blog has taught me, or more accurately reminded me of, is just how personal the experience of viewing and engaging with film can truly be.

Film Review: Rendition

On March 8^th 2007, last Saturday, the president of the United States of America vetoed a law that would ban the use of waterboarding, a gruesome practice of emulating drowning in those you wish to interrogate. It’s a practice that dates back to the Spanish Inquisition (see above.) His reasoning is that attacks have actually been prevented using this method. To Bush the ends justify the means.

Another of the long list of films I missed last year is Rendition, a film about an innocent victim of the type of torture our president just condoned Anwar El-Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally), who has the misfortune timing of being a scientist and Muslim, at the same time, in the “post 9/11 world,” is captured by the government. His wife, Isabella (Resse Witherspoon,) is pregnant and desperate to find her beloved. Douglas Freeman (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a government agent torn between doing what is expected of him and what is, forgive the over simplification, right. There are a whole host of other characters including a young couple in love in the Middle East and Corrine Williams, a vicious beast of a character in charge of torture who believes in what she is doing. Corrine is played to near perfection by Meryl Strep (shocking, no?)

What is compelling about the story is Isabella’s fighting against the yellow tape to save her husband. What is not compelling about this story is the out of place love story between the two young lovers in the Middle East. It seemed to be a pleasant story and it does lead to a powerful conclusion. Actually on second thought I loved their story, but what I don’t like is the way it is actually written. And frankly I don’t like the way much of the film is written.

I like the ideas of the film. I like the directing in the film and I liked incredible acting on the parts of basically the entire cast. I think my only fault is with the screenplay. There are plot holes and there are too many stories at play here. What is compelling about this film is not so much the political implications of the film but instead their emotional draw. Though it would and should be impossible to ignore the political implications.

I think that most of all the film serves what would seem to be its basic purpose, calling attention to the atrocities that are committed in the name of our “safety.” I don’t care what political persuasion you may have, this film will make you stop and make you consider your government and your role in what your government does. I think the single most important argument the film makes against torture is that torturing people leads to a perception about our society that we are violent (well even more so) that also provokes violence. Therefore by condoning torturing we do less to fight terrorism than we do to promote it. Holding people as political prisoners for years without every once allowing them to have their day in court. Taking innocent people from within every part of our society because they happen to meet a certain profile. And then having the gall to support torture and then do all this stuff in MY NAME. That is what this film calls attention to. And while the film itself is not really so great, it does deserve credit as a necessary wake-up call. The sad truth is that the film is probably preaching to the choir. If you consider yourself to be among the crowd of political apathetics this films deserves your attention.

The Last Harry Potter Films

So it was announced today the last book of the Harry Potter film series will be filmed in two parts. Still no word yet as to who will be the director. I have my fingers crossed for the return of Alfonso Cuaron.

Here is a link to the little blurb about it. http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/20080313/120541260000.html

Daniel Radcliffe mentions that the next film in the series will be the funniest one. Intersting. that could be good or that could be quite bad.For some reason I can't seem to post a picture. Sorry to those people who like to look Daniel Radcliffe

The Backlash Against Martin Scorsese

Last night was going to be movie night with my parents. We were all set to watch Mean Streets, one of Martin Scorsese's early films. I put the disk in and within the first few moments was pulled directly into the world of small time criminals. Not his best film, for sure, but a truly great film and very important in the history of the gangster genre. So at around the thirty minute mark my Dad paused the movie and asked me "would you mind if we stopped here, this is the worst movie I have ever seen." I have to say I was bit flabbergasted. My dad and I don't have very common taste, but the genre flicks of the mob have always been our common ground. My mom then pipped up that she just couldn't understand how anyone could possibly enjoy such a boring and snobby film. Snobby? Really? A movie about small time criminals with the social sophistication of a can of tuna?

This got me thinking about a few other friends of mine who mentioned not being able to sit through another of Scorsese's films, the more recent best picture recipient The Departed. They simply found it boring. I found this one even harder to believe. It is, after all, one of his more approachable films. And let me tell I do ever so love The Departed. I love it in that purely blockbuster, edge of my seat kind of way. Boring? Really?

And then there was the famous and similar scene with Goodfellas. But I think you get the idea. So I got to thinking about all the people in my life, who like me, see Scorsese as one the greats of modern American cinema. All of them are either film makers or students of film. I don't know anyone else if my life who actually likes Scorsese. Except my grandfather. He loves them. He even loves Gangs of New York, Scorsese's hands down worst picture. So what makes my grandfather, students of film, filmmakers and yours truly so in love with him? I think I will take some time to answer that question. I have a long answer in my head. Things about suspense, realism, verisimilitude and that stuff. But here is my question to you? If you count yourself among those who find Scorsese not so great, why?

Oh yes and to all my female readers, Happy International Women's Day. I was planning on writing a post about women directors and I promise that will be coming along shortly. Once again thanks to everyone for reading.

What is your favorite movie?

I wrote three fresh shiny new reviews and all of them where left on my Grandmother’s computer. So I will probably display them in a few months when I see her again. Sorry about that one.

Also to entice you to continue checking this blog I have decided to post a little something every day. Even if it’s just a question. Hold me to it people.

What is your favorite movie? I love to ask that question. I have heard answers ranging from The Triumph of the Wills (scary answer there) to The Notebook (not terrible, but seriously?) However, it’s never right to judge somebody by their favorite movie. You can make particular judgments about people’s general movie taste, but your favorite movie is very often based in no small part on life experiences. I don’t understand the appeal of The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth, but The Goonies and The Never-ending Story are to me like being a child again. Of course at the same time for some people favorite films are seen for the first time when you see a truly great cinematic masterpiece. For a good friend of mine it was 2001: A Space Odyssey and for another friend Godard’s Breathless. Well this question leads to no easy answer and I tend to spout off long lists. However all film criticism put aside, all knowledge of film on hold, all knowledge of screenplay on hold my favorite film is, and only slightly more so than Almost Famous, Say Anything. When Lloyd Dobbler raises that radio over his head and with his last life romantic bone in his body demands the love of his beloved, I can hear angels (channeling through Peter Gabriel of course.) So I pose this question to you, my lovely readers, all like three or four of you, what is yoru favorite movie and why? There are no wrong answers except in the case of Crash. See you tomorrow.

Review: Art School Confidential

What begins as a delightful coming of age story turns into a smarmy pit of unfulfilled dreams and artificiality. The film, Art School Confidential, is neither a good movie, nor a bad one. It is something else. Something ironic and therefore, in its own twisted logic, failed. The director, Terry Twigoff, has in the past directed some really great stuff. His best work so far has to be the humorous and very honest film Ghost World. This film does not live up to that high standard. However, you can’t help but admire its boldness, its attempt at honesty and its ultimate statement about not only the art world, but also the artificiality of the world at large.

Jerome, played sufficiently by unknown Max Minghella, is the art nerd. The kid who got beat up on the playground for being too arty. The poor child who you can’t help but cheer for in a movie that starts like almost all coming of age stories do, with annoying conversations about losing your virginity. However, unlike lesser films that spend their time focused solely on this question, Art School Confidential is something way more interesting. However it’s impossible to say what that is. Jerome wants to be a great artist. He says this often and with great vigor. We believe him. His fellow freshman make works of art that any five year old could make, while he draws a picture of the beautiful girl with great realism. This girl is of course the object of his affection. Her name is Audrey (Sophia Myles), played like almost all desired women of cinema, as sweet but unaware. A feminist reading of her character would yield quite negative results. Also there is the best friend, the gay roommate, the boorish film major, the jaded art professor and so on and so forth. Oh and I should mention, but only in passing as most the film isn’t so much about it, there is a serial killer.

So the film opens as glorious roasting of all these clichés. Its self awareness is extremely funny, but very sharp around the edges. It is incredibly honest in its depiction of the young artist trying to find a voice in a crowded room of derivative other voices. Slowly the film deteriorates as our hero falls deeper in love with the girl, Audrey, and becomes more intent on a becoming a great artist. Jerome forgets somewhere, like all the walking clichés around him, that instead of wanting to make great art, he instead wants to be a great artist. In the slimy, grimy world of art he begins to realize that it’s not so about the quality of work, but the gimmick behind it. Let me tell you friends, his gimmick is classic. I want to say more than on that, but I will say just say in a film where I always knew what was going to happen, I still loved the ending. I read a few reviews that said it was too dark. To me, its not some tragedy, it’s just really honestly funny.

So where is this failure I mentioned early? If we are to take the film as its own piece of art, then we must follow the logic of the film in its criticisms of art. And, to say it more simply, the film is everything the film hates. It is pretentious, it is cliché, it is showy and ultimately in the end, it’s really just too self-aware, too empty, too annoying.

I would say the film is worth a watch. It makes a great conversation starter and does have some really great moments for anyone who’s worked or studied art in great detail. It won’t change your life or make you cry, but one day when one of your friends makes some lame, shallow comment on art, you can roll you eyes a bit to yourself and know your not alone.