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.

Top Ten Films of 2007

Yes. I know. Its now March, but I really want to share with you all this list. My top ten films of 2007. In reverse order for dramatic effect.

10. Paris Je'Taime: A group of short film about the city of lights. A truly innovative and creative project.

9. Superbad: The funniest movie of the all great comedies of the year and frankly if you are male growing up in the last ten years, one of the more profound.

8. Eastern Promises: It's a dark tale about the Russian mafia set in the grimy part of London. But, its more than that really. Its a poignant exploration of what it means to be, forgive the cliche, human.

7. Zodiac: An amazingly profound look at the mystery behind San Francisco's most famous serial killer. In my opinion the best performance of the year comes from this movie in the part played by Robert Downy Jr.

6. Ratatouille: No surprise here. I love love love this movie. It's creative, lively and fantastic. Come on a cooking rat. Can you beat that?

5. Once: Ah the profound little indie flick that the critical community took under its wings. The first time I watched I was amazed by the idea that a movie as simple as boy meets girl and together the make a CD of excellent pop ballads, worked so well. The second time I was even more swept away by classic style and an ending that rings more profound on a second viewing.

4. No Country For Old Men: I have said it before and I will say it again. This is one of the most perfectly crafted films I have ever seen. It is stunning in its scope, yet deceptively simple in its storytelling. The second best ending of the year too, that is unless you hate the ending.

3. Across the Universe: Every time I see it it gets better. A musical set to the Beatles it may be, but its something more than that. Its about a time and place and belief that people could actually effect change in the big board world. It plays like a favorite CD, that you could listen to again and again and find something new every time. Actually the top three choices are almost equal in my adoration for them. The other two are only slightly better in my mind.

2. Into the Wild: I LOVE THIS MOVIE! It took my heart, broke it and made me believe in the spirit of adventure that drove its main character into the wilds of the wilderness. It is based on the true story Christopher "Supertramp" McHandless. A boy who had a bright future in the material world, but choose to live more honestly. Some call him a hero, some call him a moron. You can make your own decision. In my humble opinion I choose to use to word "hero." I actually had dreams about this film for weeks afterward.

1. There Will be Blood: It's not just about oil. It's not just about greed. It's about American. Its about who we are and what we believe in. But specifically the grimy dirty part of what we are. The dirt under our fingernails, the sweat of brows in the name of industry. But, at the cost of what the film asks? It's answer, for lack of a better word, is madness. I promise it is damn near perfect. SEE IT! As soon as possible. I promise!


Honourable Mention: 3:10 to Yuma, Waitress, El Orfenato, Gone Baby Gone, Micheal Clayton and I'm Not There