Deadpan

"The Return of the Deadpan"...sort of.

2010-05-05T06:43:00.000-07:00

It's been awhile. I have missed you all. Yes, you Fletch, and the 3 other people who were faithful followers. I have been so busy writing for other things that the blog had to take a break. This summer I am returning to blogging, and maybe after the summer, but throughout the summer I will be blogging, for sure.

To kick off the summer, I am going to do a huge decade list. Yeah, I know, it's halfway through the first year of a new decade, but this stuff takes time. I am trying to do a little catch up on the plethora of films I have missed, as well as finish the school year in one piece.

I will be joined on this task by my wife, Tasha and my good friend Ryan Hibbett, who is now a film student at North Carolina School of the Arts(who's alumni include: Danny McBride, David Gordon Green, Paul Schneider, and Jody Hill, among many others).

We are going to try and make it as big as possible, top 20 films of the decade, top 10 actors/actresses, top 10 scenes, top 10 lines of dialogue, etc. If you have any ideas, and I know Fletch is great at making ideas for lists, comment and let me know.

Anyway, thanks guys. See you soon.

"When the truth is found to be lies, and all the joy within you dies..." A SERIOUS MAN REVIEW

2009-11-18T08:17:00.000-08:00

A Serious Man-2009-Joel and Ethan Coen

.................

"But I didn't do anything!" We hear Larry Gopnick scream as mishap after mishap occurs. He is certainly right, he didn't do anything. These words are uttered with perfect comic timing as well as with a tragic overtone. And in this phrase we find the Coen's, at their best, pushing forward the humor and tragedy simultaneously. Something Woody Allen often attempts to do, even explicitly in a film made in 2005 called Melinda and Melinda. Where Allen announces what he is doing in the beginning and allows for two separate stories to unfold, one a comedy, the other a drama. The problem is, because of its structure, the film is disjointed and messy. A Serious Man, and many of the Coen's previous efforts, however, are quite the opposite, because they manage to mix the humor and pain perfectly.

In A Serious Man, Larry Gopnick is a Job character. It has been said in basically everything written about it, and is blatantly obvious. He is a good man. He does everything by the book. But yet he is still punished. And he doesn't understand why his wife is leaving him, the job he wanted he may not get, he may be sick, his kids are morons, etc.

All in all, A Serious Man is a very strong outing showing obvious, existential flare. Is there a God? If so, is He listening? Does he enjoy the pain of his creation like a kid with a magnifying glass burning ants? I think the strength in the Coens and this film in particular is their ability to bring you into this situation, not really offer any solution, but still leave you satisfied by film's end. Not satisfied in the sense that every character got what they wanted, or that there was a happy ending. But to go anywhere else than where A Serious Man leads us in the end, would go against the rest of the movie.

Perhaps there are no answers. Or perhaps, we all make our own. Maybe, in the end, it's best to live our lives, no matter how perplexed we become, ultimately, we will never be satisfied with any answers, because they only ever lead to more questions. But does this mean we shouldn't ask questions? In a circle we go.

At times, the Joel and Ethan seem to get so wrapped up in this characters misery and the needs to have him asking these questions, that as an audience member, it becomes tiresome. There are parallels to Larry and Sy Ableman, his neighbor whom his wife decides to leave him for. There is a running parallel between Larry and his son, Danny. And these things keep the mind running and we get answers and then ten more questions arise. It's frustrating, but in a good way.

In this way, the film is more like Barton Fink than any previous Coen film. In both, the lead character face hell in different ways. It seems Larry's hell is a rural suburb, while Barton's is Hollywood. They both are rather innocent men who are punished for doing "nothing". But drawing the comparison to Barton Fink, brings us to a film Fink takes a lot from and that's David Lynch's Eraserhead. A very polarizing, odd film that does little to answer the questions it raises. The similarities lie in the main characters dilemmas, and how they react to them. All of them quietly accepting their fate while asking questions constantly. If you look at the three leads, they have a similar look, especially in the hair.

Anyway, A Serious Man is a claustrophobic, messy yet to the point existential study of the question; why do we suffer? And while the Coen's do little to offer an answer, I found that, to me, the film's meaning is derived solely in two points. A story told by a rabbi and the ending, where we find out th...............................................

"Keep a good head, and always carry a light bulb" DON'T LOOK BACK REVIEW DOCUMENTARY MARATHON

2009-10-25T10:10:00.001-07:00

Don't Look Back-1967-D.A. Pennebaker

*Excuse me while I make a claim beforehand. I love Bob Dylan, and watching this documentary, to me, was such a great experience seeing him just interacting with people. Pardon my affection for the man throughout this review of Pennebaker's wonderful documentary. It is worthy of more discussion then I'm sure I will give it. Also, it has been a few months since I saw this film, so forgive me if my facts are just a little off. Please? Okay, fine, don't, but just read the review. Or not. God. Do whatever you want. I don't care.

...................

Cinema Verite filmmaking is a fascinating way to capture a figure such as Bob Dylan. Dylan is definitely one of the most enigmatic artists of our time, and D.A. Pennebaker's portrait of him in Don't Look Back, is so very intriguing for that reason. We know so little about the man. The events of Pennebaker's documentary follow Dylan and Joan Baez on a tour of England in 1965. This is such a transitional period for Dylan, as he is in the middle of switching from acoustic folk songs to a more electric rock and roll style. Which is what makes the documenting of the time so fascinating.

Is this the real Bob Dylan? Certainly not, we get a few different Dylan's throughout the documentaries duration. We get the confident Dylan who pleasantly listens to up and comer Donovan's sweet little pop song, and tells him how much he enjoys it before he destroys it with his own song, proving that Dylan is a transcendental figure. No matter how good a song may be, it will never be a Dylan song.

Sometimes, I wonder, how self aware Dylan truly is. When we see his interactions with reporters and his lashing out at a reporter who called him a folk musician. He much preferred the term artist, or was this an act? Maybe I am slightly misguided about Dylan, but I feel as if he's always playing with people. Never giving anyone his true self. This explains him and Baez's slight arguments about social issues we see in the film and Dylan's lack of interest in them. Which also leads to Dylan's ultimate leap from folk to rock and roll music. A decision which cost him a lot at the time, but to Dylan it was about his art, not about some movement, or some cause.

A perfect representation of this would be when Dylan is performing for a massive crowd and his mic isn't working. He continues to play, and we hear his guitar, but no one can he what he is singing. This doesn't stop Dylan. In Dylan's art, he was always misinterpreted. In fact, I don't really know at all what Dylan meant with most of his songs. I simply cling to what they mean to me, but I'm sure they are totally different to any number of people. The audience wasn't hearing what Dylan was really saying with his poetic lyrics that they all sang along to. Perhaps no one really does.

A scene that really stands out is Dylan's argument over the broken glass. He is so angry about some broken glass, wondering who threw it, that we actually see Dylan showing some passion that seems genuine. What does this mean for Dylan? Is he really that angry that someone might have gotten hurt, or is this representative of his entire art form? He is moving on, he is shattering the glass of his folk music icon image, and trying to move forward. Was Donovan going to beat him to the punch? Dylan was clearly, although he attempted to hide it, jealous of Donovan in a sense. He was sort of the British version of Bob Dylan, and Dylan simply wanted to stand alone.

Ultimately, the opening sequence tells all. With Subterranean Homesick Alien playing, Dylan holds poster boards with the lyrics written on them. Sometimes misspelled and sometimes totally different words than the ones sang. It's a very humorous, yet, meaningful scene. It is Dylan's moving forward from his old style. He is simply tossing those words onto the ground, as if they never meant anything to him in the first place.

In the film's final sequence we see Dylan in the back of his limo, with Albert Grossman reading aloud an article about Dylan in which he is regarded as an anarchist for showing people societal problems but never offering any sort of solution. To which Dylan replies, "It can't be good to be an anarchist..."

Could this be Dylan's telling moment of moving forward with his art and not looking back as the title suggests?

"I took my lucky break and I broke it in two..." WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE

2009-10-21T16:38:00.000-07:00

Where The Wild Things Are-2009-Spike Jonze

.................................

Without pandering to any sort of audience, Maurice Sendak wrote a beautifully transcendent children's book about imagination, loneliness, and love. He did so in a mere 10 sentences, with some splendid illustration, and for 46 years it has been captivating children and adults alike.

In the early 90's, Spike Jonze started directing short films and music videos, eventually gaining notoriety for his imaginatively creative narratives in such short pieces of filmmaking. His work with The Beastie Boys, Weezer, and Fatboy Slim comprise some of the best music videos made during the last decade of the 20th century. In 1999, he made his feature film debut with a dark, cynical comedy called Being John Malkovich, written by the illustrious Charlie Kaufman. He followed that up with another Kaufman collaboration, and one of my favorite films of all time, Adaptation.

Fast forward to October 2009, both of these men; creative, genius, masterful at their art, have converged. Jonze, with the help of co-writer Dave Eggers, has adapted Sendak's classic into a dark piece of cinema. After 3 years of battling with the studio over the vision of the project, and spending all of 2009 to hype it with the help of Arcade Fire, it has finally graced us with its presence.

The story, if you are totally oblivious, follows a young boy named Max. He is vulnerable, lonely, but an incredibly caring individual. After having a terrible day Max wants the attention of the only person who really seems to love him, his mother. When he doesn't understand why she won't constantly listen to him, he lashes out in a fit of anger; "I'll eat you up!" He screams to his mother while energetically dodging her every attempt at stopping him from destroying anything. After biting his mom, he runs out of the house, and into his imagination, where he takes a small boat out into the ocean, to the island of the Wild Things.

Upon reaching the island, Jonze had a lot of room for interpretation, as in the book, there is very little said on the island. Each Wild Thing has a personality of their own. And they are all incredibly in need of therapy. With childlike interplay, Max is able to keep them all from eating him. He proclaims he has a sadness shield and is a king, they make him their king.

What Jonze is able to do on the island is something few people would have been able to accomplish. He allows for each Wild Thing to have their own specific personality, but each one's personality can be traced back to a piece of Max's sadness. Carol, voiced wonderfully by James Gandolfini, deals with his pain with anger. He lashes out by destroying things, or yelling at people. Max and Carol bond more than any of the others.

Carol: It's going to be a place where only the things you want to happen, would happen.

Max: We could totally build a place like that!

When Max becomes King, he is forced to confront all of the Wild Things in ways he never expected. When they complain about still being sad, after he promised them happiness, he gets angry. The self proclaimed downer of the group, Judith(Catherine O'Hara), even berates Max, exclaiming; "Happiness isn't always the best way to be happy."

What we see here is the idea, made famous by Thomas Moore, of a Utopian vision. A place where there would be no more sadness or pain, no more suffering or loss. Jonze and Eggers show that there is no such thing as a Utopia. It is part of maturing or growing up to realize that life will never be perfect. Perfection just isn't something that is of our world, even if that world is wholly imagined, it is impossible to attain.

With Carol's insecurities about one of the Wild Things, KW, leaving, because she found new friends, when he is seemingly in love with her, we find the conflict that has caused all of the Wild Things to be in such a sad state. Max's conflict was caused, in part, because of his mothers new boyfriend, and him losing the attention he craved from her. He simply didn't understand. Here we find Max's parallel.

In a scene, involving Max and KW, in which some viewers might find gross or weird, Max is reborn, in a sense, and finally understands that his mother also is in need of love. Not just from him.

If there are any problems with the film, it lies near the end. There is a dramatic build when Max is going back to reality that, while heart stirring , yes, seems somewhat manipulative compared to the rest of the film. The music builds and crescendos and it felt somewhat forced, but I can't say I didn't fall for it hook, line and sinker, and would gladly do so again. It got a little misty in the theater, I will say.

Criticisms that have stemmed about this being a children's/family film, and having such dark material, must be from those who have obviously not read the book in awhile. While Sendak's illustrations are a bit more brightly colored than the Wild Things are in the film, the few sentences they say certainly lean towards less than childlike appearances. Especially when Max first arrives and the book states he was greeted by the Wild Things gnashing their teeth and roaring their roars and so on. And while king, Max feels lonely.

Jonze has captured that in a unsanitized way. He seems to have made an honest and meaningful piece of art that draws parallels to Wizard Of Oz, Alice In Wonderland and even that 1989 Fred Savage/Howie Mandel classic Little Monsters. It is definitely a kid's film, because it deals with the feelings kids so often have, that most children's "art" is afraid to deal with in our culture of Santa Clauses and Easter Bunnies, we can't fathom our kids finding truth and meaning from something scary. Real life is scary and while I wouldn't condone forcing a kid to sit through it out of torture, if the kid truly was scared, I wouldn't hide it from them either.

As mentioned in those previous family films, Dorothy is caught in a tornado and almost killed by a witch. Alice must deal with some creepy things, as well as be threatened by the queen to have her head cut off! How are these things child friendly, but not loneliness?

In this day and age, artists like Spike Jonze are important, because they use their art as a mirror for us to see ourselves in. Where The Wild Things Are is about so much more than all the words I wrote before it, it is foremost about love, and how we deal with the feelings that love causes. In the end, without using any words, Jonze offers us the answer that unconditional love is the most beautiful and hopeful thing we could ask for, remember; "and it was still hot."

"Which Side Are You On?" HARLAN COUNTY USA DOCUMENTARY MARATHON

2009-10-20T11:15:00.000-07:00

Harlan County USA-1976-Barbara Kopple

...............

Hazel Dickens turns out to be the star of Barbara Kopple's 1976 masterpiece Harlan County USA. "They'll Never Keep Us Down" is the perfect song to encapsulate everything Kopple's documentary delves into. It's such a beautiful thing, because it is rare to think of southern, more conservative folk fighting for social rights. Dickens is right up there with them.

"The power wheel is rolling, rolling right along,
The government is keep it going, going strong,
So working people get your help from your own kind,
Your welfare on the rich man's mind"

This group of people in Harlan County represent something beautiful that we, as a human race, so often fore go, but we all have within us. When we are united in hope, we will fight no matter the cost, for our freedom. That is why Kopple's film is a masterpiece in documentary filmmaking. Obviously influenced by the Maysles brothers and D.A. Pennebaker, she uses a cinema-verite style to capture this mostly unheard of movement.

I love that Kopple decided to title the film; Harlan County USA, not Harlan County, Kentucky. She is getting at something. These people are the us' of this world. We are the underdogs, and we all have something unjust in our lives that we can win over with sheer will, truth and justice. It is an underdog story if there ever was one. Seeing how these mining families live, it is heartbreaking. The workers put their lives on the line for pay and housing that shouldn't be offered to anyone, let alone someone risking their lives for their job.

"When we win the contract, daddy is gonna have hot running water, and a big ol' bathtub."

Harlan County has a passionate energy to it that bleeds through every frame. There is so much heart here, be it from the director behind the camera, or the people fighting in front of the camera. What one might expect to find within the confines of the film is more of a glimpse at what it's like to work in the midst of the earth, total darkness. And while we are shown brief excerpts of the men working, they most certainly aren't in any way the crux of the narrative at all. This is a film that is about struggle.

Kopple never tries to glamorize any of this, or make it aesthetically pleasing in anyway, she simply documents her surroundings. She isn't following these people because she finds Appalachian folk fascinating, just to learn more about them, as some have criticized the likes of fashion photographer Richard Avedon of doing during his photographic study of the west.

Harlan County takes a lot of its focus and places it onto the women, the wives of the coal miners, as they stand up, in a very feminist fashion, and fight. While these women may not work in the mines, they are ferocious, and it's truly a beautiful thing that Kopple is able to capture all of this on film. It should be required viewing in many American history classes, for the ways in which in captures history in the making. Much like the civil rights movement, albeit nowhere near as important, and on a much smaller scale, these women take a stand and it's beautiful. It gets to a point that even Norman Yarborough, the president of Eastover(the company that owns the mines), had to say about the women's role in the strike.

“I would hate to think that my wife would play that kind of role. There’s been some conduct that I would hope that U.S. women wouldn't have to resort to.”

Just the phrasing he uses allows for him to seem despicable. Why only U.S. women? Are other countries women lowlier than ours? And why is it that men can fight and spit and cuss, but women shouldn't have to resort to it, especially when it's all they can do to help?

Tense doesn't even begin to describe when the woman decide to block the roads in a revolt to block the scabs(people who work in the mines while the actual workers are on strike). They have to face down the state troopers, which in this case, being such a small town, happens to be someone they know personally. Billy G. Williams, the sheriff, is faced with a tough decision because he is experiencing this strike first hand with his friends, but he has an obligation to get them off that road. It is a tragic moment that Kopple captures with grace and precision.

There are times Kopple herself was in danger of death, we hear guns fired in the darkness, and in an interview with Roger Ebert, she says she heard they were planning on killing her and her crew that night.

Kopple's film is messy, beautiful, simple and profound, just like a human being. It is a living, breathing organism.

"If a man smiles all the time he's probably selling something that doesn't work. " SALESMAN DOCUMENTARY MARATHON

2009-10-20T10:45:00.000-07:00

*the title is a quote from George Carlin

Salesman-1968-Albert and David Maysles

....................................

The sound of wipers and turn signals are like the rhythms of these men’s lives. Salesman, directed by the Maysles brothers in a great, authentic cinema-verite style, follows four Bible salesmen on the road as they struggle living the life of a dying profession. The Maysles brother’s use of style creates an arena for higher believability in the drama and interactions as we follow, in a fly on the wall fashion, these salesmen into the homes of their clients, into their hotel rooms and their cars.

The striking thing about Salesman is the fact that these men are not only door to door salesman, but Bible salesmen. The idea of selling the Bible is an interesting one, as I remember it, in Christ’s words; he always spoke about giving to people, not taking from people their money. It’s an interesting juxtaposition that adds a hint more to the subtext of the narrative.

Door to door selling already has one foot in the grave, its integration with religion and the local churches brings us into a whole other realm. Not only are we seeing men desperately trying to sell to live, but we see the integration of religion and business and those who are believers thinking nothing of their priest giving these salesmen their names and addresses because of their trust in their church. It’s obviously a brilliant endorsement when the man of God himself is recommending these salesmen.

However, through an interview on the DVD special features I came to find out the Maysles brothers lack of interest in the religion/business subtext. Their focus was solely on the lives of four men as they struggle to stay afloat in their troubled job choice. We have Paul Brennan, “The Badger”; Charles McDevitt, “The Gipper”; James Baker, “The Rabbit”; and Raymond Martes, “The Bull”, all traveling together and getting along like a dysfunctional family. They all know the job is going downhill but they feel like they can each make it through. The Maysles do an outstanding job of fleshing out these characters, especially Paul Brennan. Brennan is the oldest of the group, and seems to be having the hardest time making sales.

There is a certain desperation in each sale. Not only on part of the salesman, but also on the customer being sold to. They both seem to want to get everything over with, generally with two totally different agendas. We see clients talk about money problems, while the salesman is obviously trying to be understanding without blatantly saying that they too have money problems when people aren’t buying their product. That desperation causes a great tension when we see each salesman in the home using their best lines to try and win over each family. Seeing the salesmen in the heat of the action, while also seeing them rehearse their sales pitches together, reminds the viewer of how each salesman is basically an actor. They rehearse as if they are performing improv, and thinking, what might the audience throw at me next?

Brennan’s constant struggle to find the streets where his clients are to be found is a representation of the way of the salesman, trying to find their place in a changing world. It’s a sad sight, but Brennan is so compelling. He tries to keep a smile on his face for others and the camera, constantly doing an Irish accent and joking around. It is only when he doesn’t know the camera is watching that the Maysles are able to capture his fear of the future simply by the look on his face as he stares blankly off into nowhere. This happens twice in the film and one can’t help but wonder what the man is thinking. These brief moments say so much with so little time taken. They are the film’s greatest moments.

Salesman doesn’t seem to be all dreary. It’s not hard to get a kick out of the Bible salesman conventions. Seeing a bunch of men dressed alike listening to men speak, using religious language, about business, bringing back the duality of religion and business.

“There are many people who know the Bible. There are many people who can quote from the Bible, but somewhat different, you know the business.”

The abnormality of comparing the Bible salesman to a priestly figure struck me as quite hilarious at times. Is there really admiration to be found in the profession of door to door salesman? They are akin to modern day telemarketers, and everyone seems to find them utterly disgusting (not gonna lie, I used to be one, there is good money in it).

When one man literally quotes the Bible saying “Knowest ye not that I am about my fathers business” in reference to Bible selling, I couldn’t help but chuckle. This film represents the death of the 1950’s way of life. We want our capitalism and we want our religion. Let’s not reference Christ’s contempt for the rich and adoration for the meek and lowly, let’s try and make as much money as possible but still be very upright and moral in our ways. In 1968, the year of this film’s release, America had already changed greatly. But there were those on the fringes still wearing their business framed religious glasses. The sad thing is where are we at today? Stuck in the same spot.

"Some people just don't like to celebrate human tragedy while on vacation." ROGER AND ME DOCUMENTARY MARATHON

2009-10-20T10:30:00.000-07:00

Roger And Me-1989-Michael Moore

..............................

When given the opportunity to speak his mind, Michael Moore will be there to say what he believes needs to be said. I greatly respect the man for this, and although I have some problems with his techniques and overall opinions about some subjects, I find the man absolutely fascinating. With that being said I found Michael Moore’s first critical and cultural success, Roger and Me, to be an attempt at getting things right, while never reaching any sort of transcendent moment that I feel Moore could be capable of capturing with such material.

In Bowling for Columbine, while Moore uses tragedy as a device of sympathy to get his ultimate point across, he uses it in such a way that it works to the movie’s advantage. He uses similar, if not exact, tactics in Roger and Me that seemingly allow the film to fall flat on its face.

Moore happens to find tragedy fascinating. Be it in the lives of his neighbors or fellow Americans, he jumps at the chance to make a movie about a tragic event through his eyes. That is simply all we are ever shown in a Michael Moore documentary. A glimpse at the man’s thoughts about said tragedy. In Roger and Me, it seems Moore’s thoughts aren’t with those who lost their jobs but are simply focused on making people out to look like jerks. From Roger Smith to Pat Boone, he goes from one to another “just wanting answers” but obviously going about it all the wrong way to cause a scene.

While this type of thing is all he really does in Bowling For Columbine as well, it seems he disguises it a bit better and drops in hints of hope and truth. Here, Michael Moore seems to think that logic, truth and justice are best served by trying the same stunt twice, constantly on “the search” for the man who is responsible for all that is wrong in the world, Roger Smith.

I think Moore’s films live or die on the villain he creates. While Roger Smith seems to be a good choice, a capitalistic pig who could care less about the little man working for him and more about saving himself a few pennies. He never allows Smith to have a character that embodies evil. Compare this to Moore’s best film to date, Bowling For Columbine, where so many people think our bad guy is Charlton Heston, no, he is simply a minion to the ultimate evil: The Fear Mongering Media. This approach works because we see all of these things working together to harm us, and it’s something that is tangible in our own lives and we relate to. Roger Smith is a creation in Moore’s head. I find his ways despicable but not because of anything I saw him do in the film.

Ultimately, Moore’s chops didn’t seem to be there as a director. His beloved juxtapositions seemed less well constructed than in later films, and those are the center pieces that create in the viewer a sense of anger at what has transgressed before us.

"If I don't make it to the NBA, don't you forget about me" HOOP DREAMS DOCUMENTARY MARATHON

2009-10-19T18:55:00.000-07:00

Hoop Dreams-1994-Steve James

...................

When Steve James’ epic, nearly three hour, documentary about the dreams of two inner city black kids to become the next Isaiah Thomas was released in 1994, it was to wild critical and popular acclaim, so much so that it’s lack of an Oscar nomination for Best Documentary wound up causing such a ruckus, the rules were changed. The piece, originally intended to be a 30 minute episode on PBS, turned into a 5 year journey following the hopes, dreams, fears, anxieties and aspirations of two boys and their families.

If Hoop Dreams is anything, it is entertaining. While looking at the average running time of a Hollywood epic period piece, groaning can be heard, but once given the chance, the film is an engrossing piece of work that not only gets you to care about the lives of these families but pulls you in with a sense of urgency and heart that few documentaries are able to reach. Oftentimes we are held at arms length by a narrator constantly trying to butt his way in to the story, here, while there is a needless narration, it isn’t intrusive or uninviting, it simply relays to the viewer, like a sports commentator, what is going on at the moment.

While James does happen to do an outstanding job of pacing such a long movie, there happen to be long stretches without one of our beloved main characters making an appearance. While it’s still played out with excellent attention to detail and never a loss of attention, one cannot help but feel something is missing when going for extended amounts of time without one of these two boys.

Upon meeting the boys, we get a slight juxtaposition in their upbringing and overall attitude. William Gates is a shining star. He is charismatic yet shy, but always one step ahead of everyone else. Arthur Agee is scrawny and scrappy, lacking a sense of direction, but with buckets of passion to make up for it. Along the way we get to see the differences in their lives and how they play out to a similar end.

The documentaries most charming aspect is its attention to the characters, be it our main characters, or our supporting cast. We not only get to explore the lives of these young boys hoping for a fulfillment of their dreams, we get a glimpse at how these kids can be taken advantage of, and small but subtle commentaries on religion.

From the coach at St. Joseph, Pingatore, to Arthur’s very eclectic parents; we are given small hints at the deep impacts that not only these people have on Arthur’s and William’s lives but how Arthur and William have changed their lives as well.

Hoop Dreams was named by Roger Ebert as the best film of the 90’s just ahead of Pulp Fiction. While I wouldn’t go so far as to say it was the best of the decade, I can say that Ebert isn’t wrong. Hoop Dreams could very well be the decades shining star, but just like the boys who we meet in the film, it doesn’t seem it will ever be given the chance to meet its fullest potential.

Wow...

2009-10-14T00:08:00.000-07:00

Hmmm...4 months with no update from me. I guess all I can wonder is...did you miss me?

Not to worry, I have slowly but surely been watching documentaries, many more than I have listed on the side and am working on getting the reviews up here soon. It was an incredibly busy summer, as well as a busy start to the school year, but I am finally able to finish off this documentary marathon and actually start updating this thing regularly again.

My only question I have left would be; is anyone actually reading this?

Some delays....

2009-06-12T16:26:00.001-07:00

There will be a few day delay on the marathon as some things are hindering my ability to update as regularly. I will have everything back on track with my previous schedule by the time Salesman is to be posted. Sorry to the two people that might be following this marathon, I wanted to make sure I did the films justice and not rush through these reviews.

I may be adding another 5 or 6 doc's that I feel I have missed out on and are important to a study on the genre of documentary film.

Keep checking back, updates will be posted soon.

"That's our trailer, right there! " LOST IN LA MANCHA DOCUMENTARY MARATHON

2009-06-09T07:00:00.000-07:00

Lost In La Mancha-2002- Keith Fulton and Louis Pepe

.......................

Lost in La Mancha follows Terry Gilliam during the trials of attaining his dream of adapting Don Quixote for the screen. The entire production seems failed from the start, but they forge ahead and find themselves at their wits end after all that could go wrong does.

After watching Hearts of Darkness, Lost in La Mancha seems so incredibly tame. It's interesting to me as a fan of Gilliam and as a fan of the filmmaking process, but should that be enough to make it a compelling film? Must you have these preconceived feelings towards Gilliam to be able to enjoy the film? I don't think that you should. Anyone could watch Hearts of Darkness and get something out of it, but the film's directors, Keith Fulton and Louis Pepe, seem to want to replicate that type of success without adding any passion of their own.

Gilliam is an interesting character. He IS Don Quixote. This makes Lost in La Mancha a reimagining of the Don Quixote story, with his First AD Phil Patterson becoming his Sancho Panza. This also worked for Hearts of Darkness, and if used with a bit more subtlety it could really work here as well. The problem is, there are constantly shots of Gilliam looking at windmills or just allusions to Gilliam's Quixote-esque nature, and it becomes overwhelming.

Knowing that this was originally intended to simply be a behind the scenes documentary for the DVD makes so much sense, because it's obvious that the filmmakers had little intention at making a truly interesting narrative, or fleshing out these characters as we see them on screen.

Oftentimes I just feel sorry for Gilliam, not that he doesn't bring a lot of this onto himself, but the man is a truly great filmmaker, and this documentary almost makes him out to be unprofessional and selfish. This may be the case, and I am happy they gave us an honest portrait of a famous director, much like in Hearts of Darkness, but in the end Gilliam just seems like a sad sack. I feel sorry for him because I can relate to his want to fulfill his dream of getting this film made, but I can't quite go all the way to the point of grief with him because the filmmaking simply doesn't allow for it. They draw nothing out of the viewer.

Many cinephiles have an intense fascination with failed productions and this is another in that long list. I found the idea to be more compelling than what the documentary came to be. With no heart for their own filmmaking Fulton and Pepe would do best to continue with 'making of' documentaries for extras on DVD's.

"My movie is not about Vietnam, my movie is Vietnam" HEARTS OF DARKNESS DOCUMENTARY MARATHON

2009-06-08T10:48:00.000-07:00

Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse-1991- Fax Bahr and George Hickenlooper

..............................

Making of documentaries are usually meaningless little additions added on to a DVD package to give the consumers a little more for their buck. Rarely do you find within the confines of one of these films a narrative so deeply reaching at the reasoning behind making such a film. In Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse, we are given the behind the scenes story of Francis Ford Coppola's struggle to get Apocalypse Now made.

Eleanor Coppola, Francis' wife, kept a diary about the on set struggles of not only Francis and the crew, but of herself and their family. She also documented behind the scenes footage for Francis, and unknowingly to him, recorded private conversations between the two of them that shows a vulnerable, scared side that is rarely heard of from a director of his caliber.

Hearts of Darkness works because it almost becomes a remake of Apocalypse Now. It is a film about obsession, it is shown through a war(filmmaking), we watch our lead character slip deeper and deeper into his obsession until it completely engulfs him. The only difference is Coppola isn't forced to deal with "the horror, the horror", as all of his fears cause him to make a film that opens to widespread universal acclaim. This is, unless you account for Coppola's sudden decline as a filmmaker after Apocalypse Now, which is interesting to note. Not that he never made another good movie, but that he never made another masterpiece.

"My greatest fear is to make a really shitty, embarrassing, pompous film on an important subject, and I am doing it. And I confront it. I acknowledge, I will tell you right straight from the most sincere depths of my heart, the film will not be good"

The documentary is both scary in it's presentations of obsession and doubt mixed with the fear of an unfulfilled dream, and uplifting in Coppola's perseverance at any cost. In the end, that's what makes it so compelling. Oftentimes it's hard to decide to cry out of grief or elation, you just have to look away. It's almost like a horror film because everything happening to Coppola, be it physical, emotional or mental, truly is horrific. Coppola himself seems to become a monster.

Ultimately, Hearts of Darkness reminds me of one of Nietzsche's famous quotes, " If you stare into the abyss long enough, the abyss stares back at you." It is that kind of thing that the artist must so often face, and Coppola does head on, for the good of his art at the time, but possibly to the detriment of the artist.

"No one has ever, ever paid admission to see an excuse." American Movie DOCUMENTARY MARATHON

2009-06-01T11:07:00.000-07:00

American Movie-1999-Chris Smith

..........................

In a perfect world we would all accomplish our dreams. But in our world, oftentimes we fall short of what we originally intended. The American Dream isn't an easy thing to grasp, proof of this can be found in Chris Smith's telling documentary American Movie.

Following fledgling independent filmmaker Mark Borchardt as he makes his low budget short Coven, we see a man who has seemingly already lost everything but is still fighting for his dream. American Movie is at once hilarious, heartbreaking and infuriating. Mark isn't given a sympathetic pass due to his unrelenting and ultimately sad way of reaching his dream. He is shown for who he is. He still lives with his parents, working dead end jobs, and must constantly convince his Uncle Bill to finance his films.

With a hero like Mark to follow, it can sometimes be hard to jump on board, but when seeing his passion for filmmaking and everything he has gone through to make this movie, it's hard not to at least cheer for the film's completion. In Mark we see everything that is the "American Dream". If you try hard and persevere anything is possible is what we're always taught, and here on display is a man who is trying to do just that. This is where American Movie is able to take a basic premise and make it something tangible.

Is Mark a sad, loser or is he a down on his luck filmmaker in need of a break? We always see in American movies that hard work pays off, all of our dreams will come true as long as we try try try, but is there ever a cut off point? With four kids, an ex wife, and piles and piles of debt most people would say the logical thing is to at least put your dream on hold and take care of those things first. But is that really what the American Dream is? Something that can be paused at any moment to take care of other things and then brought back with the same amount of passion.

American Movie's success is found in it's honest portrayal of the American Dream. Dream's aren't always fully realized, but in the end Mark accomplishes a little part of that dream, and it makes a difference.

Mark's friend Mike Schank is another joy. He is a former heavy drug user who seems to barely have the capability for abstract thought, but his innocent conversation and dedication to helping his friend reflects these men's serious case of arrested development as well as their beautiful friendship.

At various points throughout the documentary Mark shows vulnerability and grows scared of the possibility of not realizing his dream. As Mike shows up, Mark sees him smiling and feels that everything will be alright. It doesn't take much to make Mike smile, he wins 50 bucks on a lottery ticket and looks like the happiest guy alive.

Mark Borchardt: I'm gonna wake up to hell tomorrow, man. Those credit cards ain't gonna look nice, man. But I'm always a man for my word. Mike Schank, you happy?
Mike Schank: Yeah, I'm happy.
Mark Borchardt: How happy are you, man?
Mike Schank: I'm very happy.
Mark Borchardt: Well good, man, cause don't drink. You're gonna set the world's record. OK, man? I'm cooled down, but... Hey I'm serious, man. If I missed somebody or anything, man, thanks a million for, uh, for helping out, man. Cause I... I couldn't of, whatever, done it

It's in little conversations like these that we get the heart of the film. Even though these guys make terrible decisions in their lives, and really don't seem to be bettering themselves too much, their friendship is a replication of what the American Dream really is:

Finding the people you love and spending time with them.

Truth Is Subjective - Documentary Marathon

2009-05-27T08:40:00.000-07:00

The search for truth seems to be inherently placed within our hearts. Every generation has searched for some sort of answer to why we are here, and how things got to be the way they are. It has taken art to give us a way to express that ultimate question without ever really answering it. From philosophers, to painters, to poets, they all questioned our existence in thoughtful new ways.

When film came along, we simply wanted to capture, and that we did. Some of the earliest recorded footage of all time are documentaries. These include a man sneezing, a train coming straight towards the camera, or any other number of mundane activities. What captivated the audience is the sheer idea of a moving picture.

Fast forward one hundred years and we have so many styles and forms of filmmaking that it's hard to imagine such a simplistic view of cinema. Nowadays our truth seekers are documentarians. They are out there on the front lines fighting for injustice, examining the human condition, and reporting back to us in subtle, nuanced and stylistic ways.

It's interesting that I begin these genre studies with documentaries because to many doc's are the lesser of the art form of cinema. They are the red headed step child, if you will. They are often thought of this way because many wonder how a director can truly put their stamp on a film when all you are doing is filming people talking. What they fail to realize is a documentary can be just as manipulative, if not more, than a narrative film. This can be both good and bad.

The documentary medium prides itself on realism. These are real people in real situations doing real things that we just so happened to catch on camera. This is the allure of such a genre. But whether or not it is intentional, the director cannot help but manipulate his audience. Each shot is a manipulation because they are telling us where to look. What is important here? They show us. What am I supposed to pick up from this scene? Oh wait, there's a close up on that guys hand and what it's touching, that must be something important.

This is why the documentary genre of filmmaking is so interesting. While it does capture truth, that truth is very subjective. It is at once the truth of what is happening in front of the lens, and how that lens is affecting those in front of it, whether they want it to or not. It is also the truth of the director. Take a recent film, Fahrenheit 9/11, and examine the truth and "truth" in it. Michael Moore comes out swinging with many, many accusations, some of which are undeniably true, others not so much. What is interesting isn't that everything placed into the film is one hundred percent accurate, but that everything there is one hundred percent Michael Moore.

The director chooses where to cut, what conversations to show the audience and even how relevant they are. This makes the documentary the most director driven form of filmmaking. Guised under the umbrella of truth seeking they get away with much more than the average director, and this is one of the many things that makes documentaries so fascinating.

While I examine this genre of films, I want to try and keep these aspects in mind while also not letting them affect my thoughts on what I have seen.

It's Alive! It's Alive!

2009-05-20T09:41:00.000-07:00

As previously noted in last months blog post, I have been a busy man. I recently had another article published in CityBeat and should be having more in the near future.

This article is about a great local group called Okay Lindon.

Check it out here.

In regards to this here blog, I am excited to say I have found a little time to start movie watching again. I am organizing my Documentary film study as we speak and will start posting those in June. I am going to attempt to make it a monthly thing with each genre, but as far as documentaries are going I have so many I want to see that it will probably spill over into July.

Here is a current list of the Doc's I plan on studying, I have separated these into different topics I wish to cover them under:

Filmmaking:
Hearts Of Darkness
American Movie
Lost In La Mancha

The American Dream:
Hoop Dreams
Salesman
Harlan County, USA
Roger and Me

Under a Microscope:
Bob Dylan: Don't Look Back
Little Dieter Needs To Fly
Crumb
The Times of Harvey Milk

Quirky is the New Normal:
Capturing The Friedman's
Vernon, Florida
Gates Of Heaven

Injustice:
Born Into Brothels
Hearts and Minds
The Thin Blue Line

So stay tuned because in the coming weeks I will have my schedule up for this thing.

Anyone and Everyone

2009-04-15T10:00:00.000-07:00

I am aware that probably everyone who reads this here blog is already taking park in Ibetolis' wonderful 2000's series. I wanted to do a little advertising. so go here and read how it's all going over there. Sometime soon you may see a piece by me to disregard and continue reading all the great write ups on some of 2000's best films.

In news with my blog, I am still keeping it pretty slow as I am writing a little more for CityBeat, which I will continue updating you guys on whenever something new is published. I am also working on finishing up with school and will be writing some essays on films, so I will probably post those on here as well. And whatever I write for Ibetolis will eventually be up here after everyone floods his page with traffic.

My plan to do some more film studies will be resuming once I get a chance. I am going to be studying documentaries first. I plan on doing that as soon as possible but it might be June before I get to do so with any regularity.

Lastly, I recently saw Adventureland and because I'm not sure I will get a chance to actually review it, I must say, it is worth a ticket. It's sad that it's getting nowhere financially, but I hope it finds a life on DVD because Greg Mottola seemingly poured his heart into making this film and you can see it on the screen.

It's me! It's me!

2009-04-10T11:14:00.000-07:00

So, in a fit of shameless self promotion I bring you my official published DVD review in CityBeat.

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-17576-the-boy-in-the-striped-pajamas-(miramax).html

This is really nothing at all. I was just excited, and thought I would share it with you all.

Update Shmupdate....

2009-03-27T16:13:00.000-07:00

So it has been nearly 2 months since I have updated this here blog. Honestly, I miss it, and will have some updates in the near near future, but for now, can I please have the floor to give you all a laundry list of possible excuses? Thank you.

Well---these aren't so much excuses as much as they are a way to let you all know what I have been up to recently.

I started working for a local film company set in Columbus, Ohio called Cut Throat Entertainment. We are set to start filming our first project in May, with hopes of completion by July. Along with that we have a number of other short films we are working on, including one I am a sort of honorary co-writer on due to a friends kindness, because he constantly asked my opinion on every aspect of his screenplay. So there is that excuse...

I also am gearing to finally get a one year certificate in Media Criticism and Journalism from the University of Cincinnati, too bad it only took me three years to attain it. Now the decision of whether or not to continue going in the journalistic direction I have started needs to be made.

I have also been interning for a local alt-weekly newspaper set in downtown Cincy called CityBeat and will actually have some writing published in there next week. It is a DVD review of The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. And I will be continuing my writing and internship there for at least the duration of the school year.

This along with being a pizza delivery guy, married man, and all around just plain lazy, does not make a good blogmaster. Truth be told, I have seen a few movies this year, mostly lackluster. I would categorize them as good/decent(Watchmen, I Love You, Man), watchable(Taken) and just plain Godawful (Underworld 3). While I have felt compelled to jot down some words about these films and call it a review, every time I get the chance I decide to watch some unwatched episodes of The Office or Freaks and Geeks, or pull out some newly bought DVDs like Synecdoche, New York or Role Models and watch them and their special features, or even finally start reading Death of a Salesman.

Wow, I just typed a whole lot just to say that I cannot believe I haven't updated this thing in nearly two months. Please tell me you haven't forgotten about me?

"The only place I get hurt is out there." REVIEW

2009-02-05T21:37:00.000-08:00

The Wrestler-2008-Darren Aronofsky

........................................

I have always been a person who becomes obsessed about one particular thing, and goes with it for awhile and then grows bored and moves onto something else. In high school I loved to play music and constantly wrote songs and played shows, now as a college student I am deeply involved with learning more about cinema. Between the ages of 10-13 I had a different love though. I have always enjoyed the elaborate, the dramatic, even as a pre-teen. My love was for professional wrestling. My friends and I had our own backyard wrestling association(AWA-Awesome Wrestling Association) and we even had weekly "cable televised" events and monthly "pay per view" events, with a championship belt and all. I watched every pay per view and classic match I could get my hands on, I studied the art of professional wrestling.

I say all of that to say this. Darren Aronofsky's latest film, The Wrestler, is about an entertainer. Someone who lives for the elaborate, the dramatic, the main event. Mickey Rourke plays Randy "The Ram" Robinson, a down on his luck professional wrestler, who in the 80's was at the top of his game. Now he only wrestles on the weekends to crowds of a couple hundred if he's lucky. Randy is a relic of the 80's, like the original Nintendo, like hair metal, like long hair and leather pants. He is a part of American pop culture history, and he is fighting to stay alive.

Aronofsky does a wonderful job of allowing us to get into how this truly is a passion in these men's lives, and not only a passion, but an art form. From the back stage scenes where we see them preparing for their matches, planning them out, we get a sense of camaraderie. These men are abnormal, and they get it. They don't do this because they want to be famous, they do it for the thrill of it all.

Along the way we meet Cassidy(Marisa Tomei), a stripper with a heart of gold. She is the only person Randy really entrusts anything to. Even when she is giving him a lap dance, the man is pouring his heart out to her, telling her about his day. This is what their lives have devolved to, impersonal sexual activity in place of real physical intimacy. It is an unrequited statement about the nature of how our society has grown so detached from any type of honest emotional connection. In the whole of the film, Cassidy represents something greater than the usual stripper/hooker with a heart of gold, doing said job because she has a kid. She represents what Randy has become.

Americans have this infatuation with their heroes and for awhile, wrestlers were our ultimate hero. There's something so inevitably American about Hulk Hogan telling kids to "say their prayers" while he body slams half naked men through tables in front of millions of people. It was never In God We Trust, it has always been, In Flavor Of The Month We Trust, so long as that flavor mentions some sort of moral activity that we can connect with.

Randy is a simple man really. All he wants is to connect with someone, anyone, and to wrestle. His failed relationship with his daughter is so heartbreaking yet so revealing that you almost have to look away. As a viewer you cannot help but to see Randy as a sort of lost icon. We wish and hope for a comeback. It's excruciating to see what one man will go through for his passion.

Screenwriter Robert Siegal structures this film in a very simplistic, Hollywood style. He reveals every moment at the exact second it should be, and seemingly follows step by step a Robert McKee like screenplay. Generally, this would make such a film come out about as bland as a rock, but with The Wrestler, Siegal and Aronofsky are able to transcend the usual Hollywood archetype and create something that follows the formula while remaining genuine and organic.

Occasionally, this comes back to haunt them. The allusions to Randy being a Christ figure, while generally well handled individually, overall become some sort of amalgamation of all that is wrong with Hollywood's obsession with said Christ figure.

It goes without saying that Rourke's acting is something to behold. He plays the part to utter perfection, with such subtlety and nuance that it couldn't seem anymore real if we were seeing him literally live this out in his life.

The film's final sequence is a masterclass in film making. While things happen, as one would expect, Randy makes a speech, people come back into his life who he thought he lost, the films final few frames show something transcendent on a level that few films reach.

Wrestling with my friends, playing in a band, writing about films; to me these things have offered such tremendously joyous feelings that other simpler pleasures cannot match. I still remember at age 11, holding that championship belt up and pretending there were millions of fans cheering me on, I guess we live with that child inside of us forever.

The Nominations.

2009-01-22T12:52:00.000-08:00

So the Academy Award nominations are in and I must say, I am relatively underwhelmed.

I won't rehash them for you as I'm sure those who are reading this have already seen the list, what I will say is one thing. I am so damn happy that The Dark Knight isn't up for Best Picture or Best Director. Everyone and their mother thought it was a lock, but I knew that if a black man can be the President than it's possible.

I'd like to thank my parents, my agent, and most of all the Academy voters for actually not making a similar mistake to the one they made with Titanic. Sure, I was really pulling for Wall-E and The Wrestler for best picture but at least something worked out to my advantage.

LOL

2009-01-20T12:59:00.001-08:00

As if my review, and every other review weren't enough, here is proof of all the overbearing Gump similarities found in Benjamin Button.

The Curious Case of Forrest Gump - watch more funny videos

In other news, it seems my readers actually agree with me as WALL-E has barely edged out The Dark Knight for best film in my poll. That'll do pig, that'll do.

"Some things last." REVIEW

2009-01-05T20:16:00.000-08:00

*This review is meant to be read backwards. Please go to the bottom and read up. Thanks.

That's really what The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button becomes. A string of wonderful scenes tied together by needless story devices that one might see in an amateur's screenplay when they are trying to get a grasp of different writing techniques. Ultimately the string grows weak and almost snaps, if it were not for it's source material, there's no telling where this thing would have taken us.

There really are moments of sheer brilliance though. My favorite scene of the film has to do with Benjamin Button as a baby, and it's truly transcendent in so many ways that I would like to see the film again, if only for that short scene. The film really ties itself together kind of well, in the midst of all it's messiness. There are even some nice short films thrown into this rather un-short film(almost 3 hours, not as bad a thing as some think it is). One involving a clock that ticks backwards, and wouldn't you know it, Eric Roth HAD to throw in a real life president just for kicks(Also seen in Gump). This short scene is actually quite moving, but this film didn't need it. Nor did it need any of the book end's with the older woman and her daughter reading the diary. I'll let you figure out who they are in the context of the film.

I'm not saying Eric Roth is incompetent. This film isn't bad, really, it's quite good. David Fincher(still wrenching over his Oscar snub for Zodiac) really brings it here with beautiful shot compositions and wonderful acting. It's a pity he couldn't have seen through a lot of Roth's grievances and allowed Fitzgerald's parable to shine through.

Let's not forget the women. Yes, Benjamin Button, despite his oddity, had himself a few women, as did Mr. Gump. But there was always that one woman. Jenny, I mean Daisy(Cate Blanchett) is just that woman. Of course fate forces them together in that funny way that fate works. Leaving someone unable to fulfill theirlife's dream just so the other person will get theirs.

This film works as if Eric Roth read Fitzgerald's story and said, "We've got something here but not enough for a full length." Amidst all the hustle and bustle of writing a screenplay he thought to himself, "What's the one film everyone remembers me from? Ah Ha! Forrest Gump! Well it's been 14 years, here's to hoping they don't have good memories."

As if Roth's attempt at Gumping up Fitzgerald's already wonderful story wasn't seen enough through a naive narration by an eccentric person who lived a long, event filled life. We are given a character by the name of Captain Mike(played well by Jared Harris) who's character resembles that of a Lt. Dan(Gary Sinise) in Forrest Gump. Tie this in with the lead characters infatuation with his mama, and extraneous details to add some whimsy to the story(here it's a hummingbird in the middle of the ocean, in Gump it's a feather).

Really? Enlighten us some more, please?

"My name is Benjamin Button, and I was born under unusual circumstances. While, everyone else was agin', I was gettin' younger... all alone."

Benjamin Button(Brad Pitt) is an odd child. Born old and aging younger. F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote the story after reading Twain's remark of how it is a pity that the best part of life was in the beginning and the worst at the end. Fitzgerald's short story isn't as elaborate as Eric Roth's script, nor should it be. Eric Roth added another layer to the story by having someone who shared Benjamin in a large part of his life dying as an old woman. Her daughter reads Benjamin's diary to her and we are thrown into the story with a Forrest Gump-ish narration from old Benjamin.

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button is a "curious" film in the way it decides to take such an enriching story and a wonderful premise and do nothing but make a near waste of time. I say near because the film is beautiful and occasionally gripping.

...............

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button-2008-David Fincher

Best Of 2008

2009-01-02T05:43:00.000-08:00

It is now the year 2009. 2008 is only a memory. Many amazing things happened in 2008, including the election of our first African American President. Though the economic situation has left many to wonder, "What's next?" I believe we can find hope anywhere we look, especially the movies. 2008 offered us a glimpse into the psyche of Batman, made us feel for a dirty little tramp of a robot, and allowed us to watch as one man seemingly defied gravity between the two towers that have defined this decade. Amongst all of these things, 2008 offered us hope. Even the most cynical of films had glimmers of hope waiting to burst at the seems.

2008 is the first year I have seen this many films and been able to write at length about which are the best in my humble opinion. With that being said, I was still unable to see the following:
The Wrestler, Doubt, Revolutionary Road, Che, Rachel Getting Married, Seven Pounds, The Reader, Gran Torino, Frost/Nixon, Happy Go Lucky, Let The Right One In, Trouble The Water, Hunger, A Christmas Tale, Ballast, The Band's Visit, The Fall, Frozen River, Shotgun Stories, IOUSA, Encounters At The End Of The World

I decided that I would go ahead and make my end of year list, although I had previously wanted to wait a couple weeks as a number of these films are opening around here in mid to late January.

Another thing, I went over my entire list of films I have seen many times, trying to make a top 5 actress column but was unable to come up with more than one, out of the films I have seen, that was above mediocre in a leading role. I found plenty of supporting actress'. I'm sorry to anyone out there hoping to see my opinion on that matter, but as you can see from my list of unseens, all the great female performances(at least according to the buzz) are to be seen in those films(from Frozen River to Happy Go Lucky to Rachel Getting Married) Anyways, without further ado.

Deadpan 'Don't Think Twice, It's Alright' Best Lists 2008!

Worst films of 2008(that I saw):

10. Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull
-I won't lie, I did find a sense of enjoyment in this travesty. It was kind of fun, but only in the way watching a train wreck is, I guess. No, I am not talking about it's so bad it's good. I think this is a decent action film, but as an Indiana Jones film it is severely lacking in the area of, how shall I say, goodness?

9. Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay
-I found the first Harold and Kumar installment to be a surprisingly funny film. This one, not so much.

8. Semi-Pro
-Will Ferrel, what is wrong with thee?

7. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
- CS Lewis is one of the great fantasy authors of last century and his series about Narnia and the four children it follows, is a wonderful and skillfully written group of books that has a rich, deeply thought out subtext. The films based on these books care about nothing more than putting the families butts in the seats.

6. Twilight
-Well, I wasn't sure if this one was going to be bad enough to make it on this list, but sure enough it is. Can someone explain to me why anyone thought Catherine Hardwicke was the right person for the job?

5. Hancock
-A very amazing premise turned into B-level material.

4. The Incredible Hulk
-Trying to right all the supposed wrongs of Ang Lee's Hulk(which I have yet to see) Edward Norton's testosterone filled meat-head fest does little for the brain besides make it backfire.

3. Vantage Point
- Here is a film that just doesn't even try, and with so many talented actors.

2. Strange Wilderness
- A new low in comedic cinema.

1. Jumper
- Another interesting premise brought down to B-level, hell, C-level material.

...............

Top 5 supporting Actors:

5. Haaz Sleiman-Tarek Khalil-The Visitor
-Sleiman's performance as a Syrian musician who is unknowingly involved in a real estate scam and inadvertently meets Walter Vale(Richard Jenkins) is a wondrous exercise in optimism within defeat. He is constantly smiling while allowing the audience to see the sadness in his eyes.

4. Brad Pitt- Chad Feldheimer- Burn After Reading
-This isn't an awards worthy performance, or even something that will be talked about in any acting forum as a means of outstanding achievement. What this performance is is a beating heart to the Coen's lifeless film. Every other performance in Burn After Reading, while funny, lacks any kind of sympathetic appeal.

3. Robert Downey Jr- Kirk Lazarus-Tropic Thunder
-Mr. Downey is a wonderfully eccentric and charismatic actor whom I would watch in most anything. Here, his satirical take on method acting is utterly hilarious and carries the film through it's rough spots.

2. Heath Ledger-The Joker-The Dark Knight
- I will be wearing a bullet proof vest for the next few weeks when I leave my house because I'm sure that not putting this performance as numero uno grants me some death wishes. The truth is, I loved Ledger's performance so so so so much. It is one for the ages, but I can't get past the fact that the man's death has affected this performance. I simply do not know if I would be stark raving mad for it if he were still alive today. His 2ND place spot can also be attributed to the fact that one man surpassed him in his performance, in two totally different films.

1. James Franco-Scott Smith and Saul Silver-Milk and Pineapple Express
- I remember seeing this guy on Freaks and Geeks before I knew who he, Seth Rogen or Judd Apatow were. Now I am watching him grow into a formidable force as an actor. Mark my words, this name will be synonymous with the name Oscar.

Top 5 Supporting actresses:

5. Freida Pinto-Latika-Slumdog Millionaire
-I just really thought she was wonderful.

4. Samantha Morten-Hazel-Synecdoche, New York
-In a film like Synecdoche it's hard to get past the oddity of it and really grasp each performance. Morten really understands her character and goes for it wholly. She will be overlooked for sure, but this is a wonderful performance that helps carry a beautiful film.

3. Isamar Gonzales-Isamar-Chop Shop
-This girl has never acted before? Really? She just seems so real. Chop Shop is a film that doesn't manipulate in anyway. We simply get to watch these people live their lives.

2. Mila Kunis- Rachel Jansen- Forgetting Sarah Marshall
-I never would have thought the worst actress on the show That 70's Show would give us a Lauren Bacall-esque performance in a comedy produced by Judd Apatow. There I go thinking again I guess, as she is outstandingly gorgeous and truly becomes Rachel Jansen. A guy can't help but fall in love with her on the screen.

1. Marian Seldes-Barbara-The Visitor
-Alongside Richard Jenkins, this woman's chemistry is top notch. Her quiet sadness while her son is being detained is so disheartening and one of the things that really makes this film work.

Top 5 Actors:

5. Sean Penn-Harvey Milk- Milk
- Over the top? yes, but Harvey Milk himself was over the top. Sean Penn, yet again, shows that he is one of the greatest actor of his generation.

4. Josh Brolin-George W. Bush- W
-Without becoming an impersonation or a caricature, Brolin really captures the essence of what and who Bush is. I applaud his performance, not only because it is noteworthy, but because it transcends the film itself.

3. Phillip Seymour Hoffman-Caden Cotard-Synecdoche, New York
-Hoffman could very well play any role that Sean Penn could, but maybe not quite as well. With that being said, I am not sure that Penn could play any role that Hoffman could, in particular this one. His melancholic tone throughout allows for everything he says to sink in and become something tangible.

2. Chiwetel Ejiofor-Mike Terry-Redbelt
-I am still a little unsure of what to think about Mamet's latest film, but Ejiofor's performance at least allowed me to sit back and enjoy skillful acting.

1. Richard Jenkins-Walter Vale-The Visitor
-Shortly after this film's release there was so much buzz surrounding this performance, just month's later everyone seems to have forgotten about Jenkins and the film. There is so much strength in the subtlety that Jenkins and the film exudes. They compliment each other.

...................

5 Disappointments:

The lack of awards buzz for Synecdoche, New York
Final 45 minutes of The Dark Knight
In Bruges
W.
American Teen

5 Surprises

Role Models-2ND funniest film of the year.
Young@Heart-Sweetest film of the year.
Religulous-Funniest film of the year.
Chop Shop
Mila Kunis in Forgetting Sarah Marshall

5 favorite Quotes

''No, venti is 20. Large is large. In fact, tall is large and grande is Spanish for large. Venti is the only one that doesn't mean large. It's also the only one that's Italian. Congratulations, you're stupid in three languages.''

—Danny Donahue (Paul Rudd) in Role Models

"You wanna know how I got these scars?"
-Joker(Heath Ledger) in The Dark Knight

" I know who I am! I'm the dude, playing the dude, disguised as another dude."
-Kirk Lazarus(Robert Downey Jr) in Tropic Thunder

"It's impossible, that's sure, so let's start working."
-Phillippe Petit in Man on Wire

"There are millions of people in the world, and none of those people are an extra, their all leads in their own stories."
-Caden Cotard(P.S. Hoffman) in Synecdoche, New York

Top 5 Characters

5. Aldous Snow(Russell Brand) in Forgetting Sarah Marshall
- Hilarious yet poignant.

4. Harvey Milk(Sean Penn) in Milk
- A moving and hopeful portrayal of a man with a lust for life.

3. Will Proudfoot(Bill Milner) in Son Of Rambow
-Endearing and charming.

2. Saul Silver(James Franco) in Pineapple Express
- No matter what you think about the rest of the film, this is a wonderful cinematic character.

1. WALL-E
-Easily chosen.

Top 5 Villains

5. Ourselves in WALL-E
- Yeah, that's right. Watch yourself because yourself is gonna get you.

4. U.S. Immigration System in The Visitor
-If you aren't careful, they'll deport you.

3. Dan White(Josh Brolin) in Milk
- A sympathetic and sad man who just couldn't find hope anywhere, even when it was right in front of him.

2. Death in Synecdoche, New York
- It's inevitable. The only killer who hasn't lost a victim.

1. Joker(Heath Ledger) in The Dark Knight
- Wanna see a magic trick?

top 5 moments in film(2008):

5. Forgetting Sarah Marshall-Nude Scene
-Jason Segal's full frontal scene in his latest film was at once hilarious and artful. His reasoning for being naked, as the films underlying theme, really helped the film transcend the usual slacker comedy fare.

4. The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button- Baby Realization.
-SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
OK, so the moment where, as a baby, Benjamin Button is looking at Cate Blanchett's character right before he dies was so incredible in it's sheer simplicity that I would rewatch the film just for that brief moment.

3. The Visitor- The Ending
-SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
As Tarek is sent back to Syria, Walter finds himself saddened by what has happened but also forever changed by the experience he has been through. He goes down to the subway, where Tarek was first taken away and plays his drum, faster and faster and faster as the train continuously passes by.

2. WALL-E- Spark Kiss
- My jaw dropped when WALL-E and EVE went to kiss and do so by causing sparks between their faces. It isn't something revolutionary just an absolutely brilliant idea that kept me smiling for weeks.

1. Man On Wire- Walking between the towers.
- As Ty Burr of the Boston Globe stated, "The sight is magical and heartbreaking in equal measure. Look, the movie says: Where so many would fall, a man walks on air."

.............

Finally now, my Top 12 films of the year.

12. Young@Heart
-Such an elegant and overlooked film. A film as much about death as Synecdoche, New York, but as much about life and love as WALL-E.

11. Milk
-Harvey Milk's message is needed so badly today it's not even funny. Van Sant allows for us to see the message crystal clear.

10. Transsiberian
-Hitchcockian in it's use of trains and suspense. The film's mcguffin, drug smuggling, allows for an excellent thriller that doesn't tell the audience a thing. We must simply figure things out on our own.

9. Slumdog Millionaire
- I shouldn't like this film, I just shouldn't, but I cannot help it at all. It's charm is rarely outmatched.

8. Forgetting Sarah Marshall
- Apatow isn't rolling on all cylinders as he was in 2007 but this film is so unlike his usual films that it's hard not to like, although I enjoy many of his better ones. Nick Stoller directs this film where we see a man naked, not just for the fun of it though, but for a purpose.

7. The Visitor
-Thomas McCarthy's follow up to The Station Agent, carries that films sense of truth and honesty. The characters are so endearing and real that you can't not feel for them, not matter if you agree or disagree with their ultimate decision's.

6. My Winnipeg
-A man goes back to his hometown and hires people to play himself and his family while he films them in the home he grew up in reenacting moments from his life. Guy Maddin's My Winnipeg is a film unlike any other. The real life Synecdoche, New York.

5. Paranoid Park
-Gus Van Sant had a wonderful year with two excellent films, but the one garnering less attention is the one that I found the most gut wrenchingly painful and beautiful.

4. Man On Wire
- If there ever were a fairytale story to pass on to your kids, this is it. Oh wait, this really happened? Wow.

3. Snow Angels
-Talk about underrated, David Gordon Green's film from earlier this year that follows three couples at different stages in their relationship is so incredibly thought provoking with a sad but hopeful touch that I would recommend it to anyone.

2. Synecdoche, New York
- Charlie Kaufman may well be the best screenwriter working today. While many leave this film bewildered and left asking more questions than find answers, what they don't realize is that is the point. Kaufman isn't moralizing to us, but simply allowing us to find our own conclusion in this life.

1. WALL-E
- My love for this film is due wholly to how exceedingly amazing WALL-E truly is. Yes, all the critics are saying that now, but honestly, why shouldn't they. This is the best film of this year, last year and maybe even the decade.

.....................

Those are my favorites of 2008. I feel these lists are very personal and deeply subjective so I want to here some feedback on where you think I was wrong or right. Thanks.

Well...

2008-12-23T09:18:00.000-08:00

I guess, documentaries are going to be my first foray into genre study(sorry TS). Please, if you have any in mind that I should particularly have a look at leave any recommendations in the comments. I will gladly have a look at them. I am picking out 10-12 films to view in the coming month. So far on my current list of documentaries I have:

Hoop Dreams
Crumb
The Thin Blue Line
Harlan County USA
Gates Of Heaven
Vernon, Florida
Don't Look Back
Roger and Me
The Times of Harvey Milk
American Movie
Hearts and Minds
Little Dieter Needs to Fly

That's the 12 I currently have chosen, but I understand most of these are from the 80's and 90's, so as I said before I am open to suggestion and would nix any of these films to add a more deserving documentary from an earlier time.

I did not add Woodstock or any other concert films as those will be studied when I do concert films.

My next study will more than likely be Silent Comedies and then I will do Horror. I am genuinely excited about both of those as well as my current study.

Thanks for voting.

"You Gotta Give 'Em Hope." REVIEW

2008-12-23T08:18:00.000-08:00

Milk-2008-Gus Van Sant

........................

2008 was not a great year for film. There have been a few gems(WALL-E comes to mind) but overall the films come out seemingly lackluster. I wouldn't say the films out this year have been terrible either though, they just seem to always have something lacking that keeps them from being wonderful. Within all of this, there is an actor, who to me has had a banner year. James Franco has been a supporting actor in both this film and Pineapple Express. Why do I happen to mention this specific actor? Because to me he grounds both films. While in Pineapple Express he plays a drug dealer with a heart. He likes to help out his grandma, and is lonely. He wants a friend to hang with him. That film is about friendship, and he really nails it wonderfully. Now in Milk, he plays Scott Smith, Harvey Milk's lover. The film opens when they meet. He is who Harvey confesses he is "forty years old and (he) hasn't done a thing". His subtlety and total comfort in embodying Smith left me yearning for more screen time with him. But Van Sant only allows him to be there when the story needs him, he doesn't try to force the character on to us simply because he is so magnetizing.

Milk follows Harvey Milk. After meeting Scott Smith, turning forty and moving to San Francisco's Castro district, he becomes interested in homosexual activism. He sees the atrocities at play and wants justice for the gay community. So he enters the political office and on the way creates a movement, a movement that because of him still has activists fighting today.

Harvey Milk had a love for life that was so enriching you can't help but smile when the man is speaking. In the documentary from 1984 The Times Of Harvey Milk, you can see the real man that Sean Penn brilliantly portrays. This movie, Milk, doesn't glamorize Milk to the point of unbelievability. It allows us to see the man for his failures and his victories. This is especially evident when Diego Luna's character enters the film. The audience might ask why Milk would stay with such a person, but he answers that very question when Scott inquires.

Gus Van Sant is a wonderfully gifted filmmaker. His film from earlier this year, Paranoid Park, is among one of my favorites of 2008. His films often have a dreamy, lucid quality to them that truly set them a part from the pack. The problem with this is when Van Sant does step back and allow his style to become a side note, his films seem to come out lacking. This is really only his third attempt at giving Hollywood a film they might like. Generally straight forward and genuinely moving. What sets Milk a part from Van Sant's other, more conventional fare is how we can see Van Sant's passion for the material. This film has a lot of heart, so much so that you can hear it pounding throughout the speakers. The problem is, even with Van Sant's passion seeping through the screen, the film does not overcome general biopic conventions. It falls prey to the who, what and where dilemma that many biopics spend too much time with. Even Van Sant's use of the opera in the third act to represent Milk's life, and politics in general, comes off a little heavy handed.

Despite it's convention the film is very moving. You can't not fall in love with Harvey. Sean Penn's performance is outstanding, and is generating a lot of awards buzz. I won't get into how deserving I think he is of that buzz except as to say I do love him in this despite his flashiness. The thing is, Milk himself was a flashy guy. He had a theatricality about him that really couldn't be denied. Penn does capture this and exudes it throughout the film's duration.

Milk has an ensemble cast of the greatest young crop of actors in Hollywood. From Emile Hirsch to Joseph Cross, all of these guys will be around for a long time. Another great performance, that was truly transcendent, is that of Josh Brolin. His portrayal of Dan White is mysterious. He keeps a rain cloud over much of Milk's achievements throughout. I'm sure everyone knows how this turns out in the end. What Van Sant and screenwriter Dustin Lance Black do with him is wonderful. While, at first, allowing us to despise the man, they then show us his utter confusion and we can sympathize with him. At the moment before he pulls off his last big scene, we see him sitting on his couch in his underwear. He looks frightened as he peaks out the window. By films end we realize what he represents. He isn't set here for us to be disgusted by, or to give Milk a good protagonist(I know this is a true story so obviously he's there because this all really happened but in regards to the way in which he is placed into the film). Dan White allows us to see an individual who is so incredibly in need of Harvey Milk's hope message yet too scared to receive it.

As has been said by many, this film has come out at an opportune time with all that's currently going on in our country and more specifically California. While the film does have it's problems, I believe films like this are important, especially in the times we are currently living. We need films that can show us tragedy yet give us hope without sentimentality or sappiness. Sean Penn's directorial effort from last year, Into The Wild, did this very thing while not allowing the typical biopic conventions to overtake the films themes. Milk is such a film and should be viewed as such. Not because Van Sant has created the film in such a way that it's obvious he wanted the story to take precedent to any kind of cinematic or stylistic device possible, which isn't a bad thing. This is simply why James Franco grounds the film. This film is not an exercise in subtlety, but Franco's performance truly is.

"Sometimes I think sitting on trains Every stop I get to I'm clocking that game" REVIEW

2008-12-19T23:06:00.000-08:00

Slumdog Millionaire-2008-Danny Boyle

....................

For 10 million rupees, Is Danny Boyle's latest film, Slumdog Millionaire, a real crowd pleaser?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Maybe
D. What's a slumdog?

"uh, this is a tough one" Shawn parlays to the host. "But I think I'm going to go with A..."

Silence.

The host looks at his monitor for what feels like an eternity. Sweat droplets begin rolling off of Shawn's forehead as if they were auditioning to be a part of Niagara Falls.

Still there is Silence.

"Well, Shawn, I'm sorry to tell you this but...."

Silence yet again.

"You're absolutely right!!!!"

Crowd Cheers!

Slumdog Millionaire is a fairytale through and through. Albeit, a rather unconventional fairytale as we, the audience, are asked to sit through considerable amounts of fighting, torture, and sadness to reach the films ultimate conclusion. Following Jamal Malik, as he is a player on the Hindi version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? The government finds it hard to believe that someone of his low stature could possibly know the answers to the questions he is being asked. With a wonderful episodic structure, Boyle is able to show us how we truly learn things through experiencing life. The life that is truly lived is worth a million dollars.

What Boyle really does right here is that he realizes just because you have a story about poverty or third world orphans, you don't have to make it somber. While the film does strike it's somber notes at all the "right"(I put this in quotations as I feel these moments are a little too calculated) moments, a smile is kept on the viewer throughout the duration of the film.

This film really reminded me of the Disney fairy tales I watched as a child. Aladdin, Pinocchio, Beauty and The Beast, these films all asked serious questions of it's viewer but at the same time took them on a journey, ultimately leading them to their happily ever after ending.

What strikes me is the way in which Boyle(or probably the author of the book the film is based off of Q and A) portrays destiny within the film. When destiny is spoken of, it is generally said by the characters as being written. This is said quite a few times throughout the movie. One could argue that the film is in fact written, they are acknowledging that and commenting on that fact. This is obviously a film where suspension of disbelief is needed to allow for the viewer to be moved. I think they wanted to recognize that very sentiment. The film also comments, shortly, on God. Salim, Jamal's brother, does some pretty terrible things throughout the film's duration. He is also seen doing a few heroic things, but is a very guilty person. This is the only character that ever mentions God and it happens at two interesting points late in the film. If the film is written by a God-like creator called a screenwriter, who created this universe and knows exactly what will happen. Does God write destiny in our universe? This is all presupposing that God is real. While I gain something from this aspect, as I believe He is, a viewer with little or no affiliation to God in anyway, or no belief, would probably be of no interest in this theory.

Following that same subject, the film also reminded me of an Old Testament Bible story. The two brothers get at each other almost like a Cain and Able, or Issac and Ishmael. With tragedy and warmth destiny, or God's providence, or whatever it is you may want to call it, is shown by stories end.

White folk are satirized slightly within the film. A few key scenes show our utter naivety and/or ignorance of other cultures, which work surprisingly well and don't come off as heavy handed or unoriginal.

Where the film will ultimately lose people is in it's conclusion. I am afraid to say, against all judgment, I became totally engrossed in what finally happens with the characters. I believe it gets so many things right that a recent film like Twilight gets so wrong, and that is, how true love works. Even though it is a little contrived, the characters love for each other doesn't seem to be that way simply because that's what's supposed to happen for the story to work. It's truly an organic thing that lives within the film. It may seem far fetched or pointless for some, but if allow it, it can be totally riveting.

Every little episode Boyle and co-director Loveleen Tandan gives us doesn't always work, but in each one their is a bit of joy to be found. With a mish mash of culture and language, the filmmakers do beautifully capture it by using a variety of techniques. While I found myself feeling a little more lost than excited during some of the action sequences, most of the time these techniques served the story wonderfully.

The films overarching universal themes can be a little in your face at times, but, the sheer optimism of the film was enthralling and burnt a smile onto my face for hours after the credits rolled.

In the coming year...

2008-12-10T20:37:00.000-08:00

So I posted my supposed list of film genre's on the side here, and will add links as soon as I finish each study. I also have a poll up where you can vote on which study I will tackle first. In regards to the decades I also added on there, that is for any films I happen to miss from that decade that I wish to tackle. I know some decades are ripe with more films I am a little more excited about seeing(50's-70's for example). And, although I have tons of films that will be listed in each category I'm sure there will be those I miss, and they will be added into those categories.

I hope I can actually accomplish all of this. I need ya'll to root for me.

"Wormser is a master of aerodynamics. He has engineered the javelin to complement Lamar's limp-wristed throwing style."

Of Up and Coming Monarchs

2008-12-10T13:42:00.000-08:00

Although my quest to review a lot more films by years end is noble, I just don't think I have it in me. I will be seeing all the DVD releases I said I had yet to see, but to write out a review for each of them would just kill any outside life I have that doesn't already involve work, school and family. I know, I know, I can hear all the sighs of disappointment from my adoring fans, but no need to fret. I will write reviews of the slew of theatrical films I plan on seeing in the coming month and having some sort of year end list of all things film by mid-January. I know it's totally cliche', but I am a total sucker for those things and have always wanted to make my own. I know I'm lame.

On another note, some new plans are ahead for the new year. I figured out that as someone who enjoys writing about film, and considers himself somewhat(and I mean that in the lowest amount someone can say somewhat) of a film geek, I have seen entirely to few movies. To remedy this situation I have come up with the following plan. Instead of going forth and studying more directors(as I did Hitchcock) I am going to disband that for now and look into genre. I am going to watch 10-12 films a month from a certain genre and offer a write up on them. The thing is, these are going to be classics that I have never seen, ranging from silent comedies to modern thrillers. It'll be a credibility crusher admitting all the amazingly well revered films of which I have yet to accustom myself, but if I wish to become a better film lover, maker, and writer it's something I need to really accomplish.

Yes, that was all exaggerated for giggles, but I will have some genres up in a poll soon, and the entire list I am going to begin peaking into up on a sidebar.

Anyways, until next time. Godspeed.

"In sports you should play fair. In war, you shouldn't play fair at all." REVIEW

2008-12-05T08:40:00.000-08:00

*photo taken of director Chris Bell just hours between photos

Bigger Stronger Faster-2008-Chris Bell

.......................

If Michael Moore has taught us anything, it is the fact that documentaries are generally totally subjective. The director takes a subject they feel passionate about, finds any evidence pointing towards their thesis and ignores all other evidence pointing the other way. This goes contrary to what the public feels about documentaries. When Fahrenheit 9/11 came out there were people in a frenzy. Everything said in it just had to be true, it was a documentary. While I am definitely no Bush supporter by any means, we all know just how Moore twisted the facts and used them to bend to his own theories. To be honest, I have little problem with that as long as the film is still compelling. I just don't enjoy being manipulated.

Chris Bell has created a documentary so interested in truth, so interested in getting to the bottom of a major problem in America, that's it's refreshing. Bigger Stronger Faster is about steroid use in America. The closest we get to any people affected by steroids are the entire Bell family. Chris' brothers Mark and Mike(Smelly) Bell. We see how steroid use has affected them in their daily lives, and their family. We also get a glimpse at their religious parents and what they feel about what has happened to their sons.

Bigger Stronger Faster is at once totally light hearted and almost cheery in the sense that we are learning something in a unique way, but as the film goes on, we see how tragic it truly is. What amazes me, is how the film is interested in the facts to such a degree that it refutes itself quite a few times. We hear both sides on the steroid battle and even get examples of enhancement drugs in other fields of work.

The portrait that Chris Bell allows us to see of his brothers is the most heartbreaking part of the story. Mark, the oldest, has dreamed of becoming a professional wrestler for so long. He has a wife now and a kid on the way, yet he still isn't giving up that dream. Not only that, he isn't giving up his steroid use.
Smelly wins seemingly every weight lifting competition he joins. But his wife wants him off steroids, first, so they can have a kid, but she wants him to stay off of them. Will he or won't he? His attachment to the drug and to staying the strongest is so tragic.

It's really wonderful the ways in which the film examines the American dream. Growing up, we are constantly bombarded with the idea that, as long as we put our minds to it and try hard enough, we can accomplish anything. This is such a true statement, but at the same time incredibly misleading. Sometimes we fall short, as Mark obviously has. Are we to applaud him to continue going for his dream even though he is getting older? Or are we to join their father in grief for what he is doing to his family? It's a conflicted ideal to begin with. Chris shows Mark as someone who really has a lot going for him, but is still willing to lose all of that to accomplish his dream.

Bell's sympathetic approach to his brothers and other steroid users really struck me as genuine. You can tell the guy has so much respect and adoration for all of these people, while at the same time grieves their choices.

To me, the film transcends its material in a small scene where Chris and his father are talking in a restaurant. His father goes on about how we just have to love people, that's all it comes down to. Everyone makes big mistakes, but that doesn't stop them from doing great things. He offers examples from the Bible, like King David and Abraham, and compares those using steroids to these men of the Bible. To some, this may seem a little contrived, but to me, it really struck me as beautiful. Here is a man, who earlier in the film was expounding on the ways in which his oldest son is being an idiot, yet in this scene, we hear how he can overcome those initial feelings of annoyance with his son's choices and feel that he is still capable of some truly astounding things.Bigger Stronger Faster is not the hardest hitting of documentaries, but it's earnest approach and journalistic integrity should not be cast aside. It's not everyday that most Americans see this subculture. We are left to see it from our couch watching ESPN as MLB players are accused of drug use time and time again. We put little thought behind what has caused these men to do such a thing. Bell gives us a grey world where nothing is in black and white, I hope Michael Moore was watching.

"I never wash my pants. I like to keep the night on them. "

2008-12-04T23:42:00.000-08:00

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist-2008-Peter Sollett

........................

In the mid-90's Richard Linklater directed a masterful film starring Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy where we witness two characters meet, hit it off, and subsequently spend the entire night out together falling in love. It is the kind of romantic film that leaves you with a certain type of lightness, where you know you just saw some type of beautiful human interaction, but find it hard to express. Peter Sollett has directed a film that tries to fall into a similar vein, but instead, falls flat.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist gives us two sweet and lovable characters to follow as well. There's Nick(Michael Cera) the awkward yet adorable musician with a soft heart. And Norah, she's the daughter of the Electric Lady Studios owner, and has a wicked taste in music. Throughout the course, they meet, and go on a search for the band Where's Fluffy, which all the characters seemingly love. Hilarity ensues throughout the night. Before Sunrise-lite is what they should have named it.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist (or as I like to call it Nick and Norah's Infinitely Long Title) seems to live or die on how truly hip it can be. Characters name drop indie bands of all types and litter their conversations with mentions of I-Pod's and how totally gay friendly they are. Sometimes trying so hard to convince us it's OK to be gay that it rings false. It's not a slight to the film to be gay friendly, I actually loved that aspect. The characters mentioned homosexuals without batting an eye, like it was an everyday part of life. What the film does with this though, is inadvertently use it to make some jokes on behalf of the homosexuals littered throughout. Nick has a band(The Jerk Offs) where he is the only straight member. I found that to be an interesting twist. At once, when this seems to be played out very wonderfully, we then get a scene where they go into a gay club and every guy they pass winks and smiles at Nick. I have never met gay guys who act like this. Maybe I am from an alternate universe to this, but it seems they were force feeding a homosexual stereotype while still trying to maintain credibility by being gay friendly.

It's hard to wrap my head around how utterly precocious this film is as well. It wants to be so cute and hip that it really loses track of it's characters. Oftentimes we are stuck in mundane conversations filled with nothing but void name droppings of hip bands. Really, Norah's summation for why she thinks Nick has too many The Cure songs on his I-pod is mind numbingly stupid.

Let me stop there. Perhaps I am being too hard on the film. I honestly don't enjoy tearing things down, but I am letting my honest opinion choose which letters my fingers are to press. This film really isn't a trainwreck like I have made it out to be. We get some really wonderful moments here.

First off, Michael Cera is quite possibly the funniest person on the planet. Not in terms of sheer LOL-ness, but in the ways in which he can subtly say one line that would never be funny said any other way or by any other person. Kat Dennings is also nice in the film, and while I think she has a career ahead of her, she isn't quite there yet. The supporting cast are all fine as well. Nick's ex-girlfriend plays super bitch superbly, although she seemed a little young looking to be such a sex-goddess, or perhaps I am getting too old for this.

I could definitely relate to Nick on so many levels. I am of a similar make. In high school I was playing in bands and playing shows, had a terrible car and had trouble getting my guitar into it sometimes. Nick's plight with his ex is also very relatable. While he often makes stupid decisions, I applaud the film for being more realistic as more often than not, that is the decision any guy would make in that moment.

There are quite a few cameos littered throughout the film as well. Seth Meyers, John Cho, Kevin Corrigan, all do wonderfully small, but funny things. Andy Samburg of SNL and Hot Rod steals his scene as a hobo outside a church though.

If it weren't for the utter cuteness and hipster attitude of the film, I believe I could have jumped on the bandwagon more often. I wanted to know Nick and Norah, their moments alone are some of the best in the film. Every detraction, every instance of following Norah's drunken friend wondering the streets of New York left me with an uneasy feeling.

Peter Sollett definitely had some type of talent here. I enjoyed the look he gave the film and the somewhat John Hughes feel of the film, and can see him making great, entertaining cinema in the future, but for now, I'll keep watching Juno for my hipster cuteness.

"Mayo is sick." REVIEW

2008-11-29T22:10:00.000-08:00

Paranoid Park-2008-Gus Van Sant

.......................

"I don't know if I'm ready for Paranoid Park" Alex says while skateboarding down an empty sidewalk with his friend Jared. Jared replies with assurance, "Yeah, but no one's ever really ready for Paranoid Park."

And so goes Gus Van Sant's film, released earlier this year. Paranoid Park is a work of lush visuals, deliberate yet soulful pacing, and cinematic experience. The film isn't told through basic story telling techniques, but told through the mind of a teenage boy who is revealing his guilt to us, one memory at a time.

In Paranoid Park we follow Alex, a young skateboarder stuck in the middle of everything. He has a best friend he skates with, a girlfriend he wants to break up with, and parents who are separated. Throughout the course of the film we witness a horrific accident that Alex is somehow involved in that offers him a tidal wave of guilt and fear.

What Van Sant brilliantly executes with such an idea is to not set us into any cliche' territory. This could easily become some sort of neo-noir or detective film, or it could easily become a gripping drama about a teenage kid dealing with teenage life. Instead, Van Sant simply allows us to experience the inner workings of Alex's head. Much like the 8mm footage of the skateboarders going up and down effortlessly throughout the lively hills and dips of the skatepark, we are lost in Alex's head, just drifting, hoping we just land without a problem.
Alex is given advice by a friend to write down his thoughts, just to get them out. We see, various times, Alex, slowly writing the words on paper; Paranoid Park, as if each letter is fighting to stay within the led of the pencil. Through this letter, we get Alex's narration, performed perfectly by Gabe Nevins, who is a non-actor. It's almost as if the words aren't written. The way in which Alex speaks is so honest that it's hard to believe that these words didn't just find themselves on the tip of his tongue just before he speaks them. Van Sant casts the entire film to perfection, with the exception of Alex's girlfriend Jennifer(Taylor Momsen) who is truly awful. Ironically enough, she is, I believe, the only actual actor in the film. She played Cindy Lou Who in Ron Howard's totally forgettable How The Grinch Stole Christmas.

The score is also a form of brilliance. It's lush instrumentals and soft rhythms add to the ebb and flow of the film, which rolls along as if it were an ocean, rhythmically moving, like it's known no other form of movement.
By the time we reach the end of the 80 minute's or so, you realize how perfectly timed and paced Van Sant made this film. It is rare to see such confidence by a director. Van Sant seemed to know exactly what he wanted to do with every cut, every long take, there isn't a second wasted.

In a time where skateboarders in film have become stereotyped to either encapsulate idiotic punks, or uber cool kids who just replaced a football with a skateboard, it's nice that Van Sant had the capacity to actually make a film with skateboarding, and not allow cool tricks or radical dudes to take over the screen. Paranoid Park is just a simple, intimate portrait of a teenager dealing with guilt and fear. Don't expect a climax, or pay off in the end, that's not what this film is, it's almost like a journey that you are only in the middle of once the credits start rolling.

"I dream about being with you forever. " REVIEW

2008-11-28T21:34:00.000-08:00

Twilight-Catherine Hardwicke-2008

.......................

Not to be confused with the 1998 Paul Newman film, Twilight, directed by Catherine Hardwicke, is the new it thing among teens. A young adult novel, written by Stephanie Meyer, adapted for the screen, is not unlike another book turned film that had tweens and teens in a frenzy. I am recalling the seven part saga that is known as the Harry Potter series. Now about to release it's sixth film, Harry Potter is always among the highest grossing films of the year. The comparison is apt, but does it really seem fair? Is the recent Twilight frenzy just a new ploy to get the kids filling the seats or is there a level of depth, as I would argue that the Harry Potter series has, hidden within this myriad of romance, love and, of course, vampires.

Twilight follows Bella(Kristen Stewart) as she moves in with her father in a Washington town called Fords, while her mother and step father are on the road with his minor league baseball team. She attends the local high school where she meets a group of friends and is quickly accepted as part of their clique. Amongst this clique we get a slew of fun, quirky characters. The one that stuck out to me was Anna Kendrick, playing Jessica Stanley. Kendrick has impeccable comic timing, as well as an innate sense of how the character would react under any circumstances. She really is such a minor character, but I left the theatre thinking about her performance(which was reminiscent of the great Kristen Wiig of SNL fame).

Anyways, we were just getting to the juicy part. All of the sudden, one day, Bella sees this totally HAWT guy named Edward Cullen(a heavily made up Rob Pattinson) and is like totally unable to keep her eyes off of him. After initially being put off, they become friends and then realize their deep connection, until, she finds out his dark secret. He's a V-A-M-P-I-R-E. Wouldn't you know it, all the good ones are either taken, gay, or immortal, mythological, blood sucking extortioners who are unable(or in this case unwilling, I guess) to be seen in the sun.

So Bella and Edward fall in love and so on and so on...

This is what the kids are eating up these days? This is an obvious new take on the Romeo and Juliet story. Which in itself has been played out over thousands of times in all different types of settings. I enjoy the idea, and maybe the book is better, but the film is filled with problems, that I'm not sure I would care to see fixed.

After the initial opening, we are thrust into this new world with Bella, who we get to know from her voice over. I like the way in which we see everything through Bella's eyes. We learn new things as she does. Rarely, if ever, is there a time that we know something she doesn't or vice versa(besides that fact that we already know Edward is a vampire). The film takes it's time setting things up, but after the first act decides that Bella has realized that Edward is a vampire. This seems a little ludicrous to me, although the clues are obvious I guess. But really, vampire? How many times have a number of odd things happened to you with another person and it crossed your mind that they are possibly of another species.

Herein lies the films major problem, why are there vampires? Really...I'm curious...Is it at all relevant to what's going on between the characters? There can be a connection made that, in Edwards case, his blood lust is a metaphor for his hormones raging for Bella. I believe the case for this is strong, and interesting. We are given a scene where Edward and Bella begin getting physical but Edward jumps back, and comments on how he might give in to the temptation. Of course, in the film, he is talking about sucking her blood, which is amazingly more appropriate for families to sit and watch together than sex is on the big screen, but that's another thing altogether. The sweetness comes from what happens next. Edward and Bella spend the night together talking, laughing and cuddling. It's a little cheesy, but I was heartwarmed by the idea that love can grow and become fruitful without the sex. It's an interesting thought nonetheless.

Where this theory leaves us though is asking why are there other vampires then? are they too wrestling with hormonic passion? Not really. It would have been interesting to see it play out that they all have their vices that their lust for blood becomes a metaphor of. No examples come to mind, but it could have become about obsession and where our lusts take us(for power, money, sex, etc.). The problem with this, is that that also lives within another film altogether. This is a love story. While a lot of the focus is reliant on that, it seems they detract from it often to show some "cool" vampire doings, like playing baseball? Uh, while it is definitely an original idea to see vampires play America's favorite past time, where is the relevance?

Overall the film is a total bore. It is a film that most Hollywood producers foam at the mouth for screaming, "It has romance, action, and laughs(albeit these are a little sparse)!" You would think this could be a film that would sell to young girls(romance) young guys (action) and anyone else that are interested in romantic action or action filled romance(What most films try to do actually). Twilight chugs along with absolutely no tension, no suspense and worst of all, no heart.

Hardwicke really fails at everything here. Her direction seems to be totally complacent and without and kind of inspiration. She seems to have just set up cameras and asked the characters to act out the book. Never was there a time where I forgot I was in a movie theatre. Never was there a time where I feared for a characters safety. Never was there a sense of danger or excitement. Am I too old for this? Is it just that I am not the target audience? I feel that critics are being disingenuous to young girls when saying, "Well, it's a bunch of crap, but young girls will eat it up". Why do we not say the same thing when Transporter 3 is released? "Well it's a load of crap, but the young boys will all go crazy for it". Yes, this film does have a few touching moments, but the directing was a huge let down, even with material that isn't that groundbreaking to begin with.

This film will make loads of money though, as will the rest of the franchise. I'm just hoping it ages, like the Harry Potter series has, and gets better as the series goes along(this is not to say that each Potter film has been subsequently better). If not, and the money still roles in, then we blame it on the 14 year old girls.

Catching up...

2008-11-26T11:32:00.000-08:00

So I decided, since there is only one month left in the year, I have seen only roughly 50-60 films released this year. There are about 10-15 I haven't seen that I wish to see that have already been released, and most are on DVD. I would really like to have an expansive view of 2008, and be able to look back on the year with a top ten list and such and actually have a real opinion on a lot of films. So I can be sure of my opinions on this years films that I will be watching a whole lot of this month, I will be writing reviews for each one. The films I have yet to see that are released on DVD that I plan on getting into are:

Paranoid Park
The Visitor
Transsiberian
Man On Wire
Red Belt
Bigger Stronger Faster
Standard Operating Procedure
The Flight of The Red Balloon
The Bank Job
The Hammer
The Band's Visit
Funny Games
Son of Rambow

I will still be trying to get in weekly reviews of theatrical films, soon enough Twilight and Milk will be given the Deadpan rundown.

Another note I wanted to make on my Man Crush list. I am so upset that I totally forgot to add Jack Lemmon to the list. He would easily be top 2 or 3.

"There are nearly 13 million people in the world, none of them are an extra." REVIEW

2008-11-25T09:02:00.000-08:00

Synecdoche, New York-Charlie Kaufman-2008

...............................

It isn't often that we are offered a film such as this. Charlie Kaufman's latest opus Synecdoche, New York has left many a viewer baffled at it's sheer audacity, at it's total disregard for regularity, at it's blatant lack of "American" filmmaking. It's easy to be afraid while viewing such a film, but it is such a film that should be championed.

Kaufman is the screenwriter of such art house fare as, Being John Malkovich, Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. With all the credibility he has garnered from his outstanding run of film's, Synecdoche is his directorial debut.

The film follows Caden Cotard(Phillip Seymour Hoffman), a married theatre director with a four year old daughter. Caden is constantly worried about death. He directs a rendition of Death Of A Salesman, using young people in the place of the main characters. After Caden's wife, Adele(Catherine Keener), leaves him, taking their four year old daughter Olive, Caden's fears grow. He loses track of time, even going so far as believing his wife has only been gone a week, when, in fact, it has been a year. As the saying goes, "Time flies when you're having fun", no one mentions the fact that time basically only flies whenever we don't want it to.

Caden then receives a MacArthur Genius Grant, and decides he wants to do something with his life. He wants to create a huge masterpiece of theatre using truth as his guide. He creates a life-size replica of his town and begins directing reenactments of his own life theatrically.

The plot truly goes in so many different directions, but a film like this should not be studied for it's plot. It is structured in such a way that it would be impossible to make sense of time, place and even reality. Scenes come at us seemingly haphazardly, but they are linked with common traits of theme and substance. This isn't the type of film where we are to examine and think, "Was it all in his head?" or "Is this some sort of day dream?", but the questions we should be putting forth are, "Why is this important?" I won't pretend to have Synecdoche figured out, and that's the point. This isn't a film to be totally figured out. Can it be mastered? Yes and no. Yes in the sense that one can grasp all of it's themes, and get a feel and understanding of every character's purpose, but no this film is of the caliber that it cannot be subjected to a theoretical plot analysis of any type.

Kaufman seems to be exercising his own demon's here, and this is something that also makes this film so mesmerizing. While Caden is searching for truth through his epic directorial effort, could Kaufman be expounding that very same sentiment?

It's as if Kaufman is given a sheet of paper, he proceeds to shred that paper into many different pieces and throws them into the air. Some land near each other, some further away, some are blown out of viewing distance, but they are all still connected. They are all pieces that fit together, and Kaufman follows each one of them to their end. This is truth. This is art.

Caden's existential dilemma is played out through various scenes and reenactments, but we are never given a monologue to explain where Caden truly is at this point in his life. This film is not of our world.
Synecdoche, New York is a film of grand ambition, reminiscent of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, not in it's overall themes or basic plot, but in the kind of questions it is asking, and the way in which we are presented with these questions. This isn't a film of answers, it's more philosophical than that(just like 2001). The viewer is given questions to ponder and relate back to the film. We are given no moral to hold fast to and teach our children, we are simply shown truth for what it is, life for all it carries. This film's messy structure is, in itself, a reenactment of the way in which our mind recalls life. Life is messy, the scenes of our life don't flow perfectly together like a storybook. Often times we aren't met with a connecting scene in our life for months, or years, to the scene or moment we have just encountered. This is where Kaufman examines the human condition to utter perfection. We are all messy, we are all lonely, we are all imperfect.

I will always champion films that encourage me, not only to live a better life, but to live the life more abundant. To get out there and do something, get excited about something and act on it. This is such a film.

"Suck It, Reindeer Games!"

2008-11-19T17:05:00.000-08:00

Role Models-David Wain-2008

...........

Two comedic character actors finally get a shot at sharing a starring role in a recent widely released film. Paul Rudd and Sean William Scott are funny guys, but rarely do we see them get their due. Sean William Scott had the unfortunate job of becoming a character that would embody his entire career, Stifler. And if that isn't enough he hasn't outgrown him. While lately, he seems to be trying with films like The Promotion and Mr. Woodcock, did anyone actually see those? Not only did no one get around to watching them, I doubt there will ever be a time when someone looks at them(Mr. Woodcock especially) and thinks to themselves, I should really watch this, nay, I NEED to see this.

David Wain has redeemed Scott and finally given Rudd the screen time he has earned. Wheeler(Scott) is Stifler, only a bit more mature. We actually feel for this character, and he too actually feels for other characters. What has been done here with brilliance is something that Apatow has really grabbed a hold of recently. Think of a plot you have seen a million times, fill the roles with hilarious but not quite A-list actors, add a touch of sugar and place on simmer for 90 minutes.

This isn't a perfect film by any means, and it also isn't going to really blow anyone away. What this film will do is provide anyone watching it with an enjoyable time, well written characters and absurd comedy.

David Wain is most known for his work with The State and Stella, but has recently directed 2 films prior to this(Wet Hot American Summer and The Ten) and while all of his other work takes comedy to such an absurd level that it's hard to get just anyone to sit down and watch it, this film reigns that absurdism in a bit, puts a bow on it and gives it to it's viewer as a gift. This might be a good thing, may be bad, depending on the viewer.

Another wonderful thing about this film is the fact that no one plays second fiddle. Everyone is hilarious. Jane Lynch is hysterical(watch out for the hot dog trick, Ken Marino and her have a little more fun a bit into the credits) Ken Jeong proves that he is the funniest man alive and of course Chistopher Mintz-Plasse and Bobb'e J Thompson(Augie and Ronnie respectively) are perfect fits for their roles. Anyone who thought Mintz-Plasse was only McLovin needs to look out, this kids going places.

Throughout all these outstanding comedic performances we get a bit of a romance between Rudd and Elizabeth Banks. While this romance is what basically drives everything that follows in the story, it is unnecessary and cliche'. The film could easily work with a few tweaks and drops this whole storyline, but with it in there, we aren't really hurt either.

What basically works out the best is that nothing is wasted here. Every throw away line used by a character is brought back into context within the film. You haven't seen KISS like this before.

While I will commend Wain more for his work with Stella, I really think he hit all the right notes with Role Models and hope all these actors aren't strangers over there in Hollywood. I am looking forward to seeing them all again.

"That's why they call them crushes. If they were easy, they'd call them something else"

2008-11-19T09:05:00.000-08:00

So since I was so incredibly late on the whole Alphabet Meme thing, I decided I would start my own meme and see if anyone actually follows it up.

So here's my idea.

Top 10 man crushes in film.

Rules:

This can be a character, actor, director, really anyone working on films. The only thing is, they must be a personality. You have to really know something about them. This rules out most producers, cinematographers, etc.

If you are a man, these man crushes, obviously must be men. If you are a woman than I say they have to be a woman. They must be the same sex as the writer making their list.

You can choose anyone living or dead. They must be chosen due to their film content. If you choose Michael J. Fox and the only thing you like about him is his role in Family Ties then he doesn't work. But if you choose Michael J. Fox because you love Marty McFly, and you want to mention that you also love Family Ties, that is acceptable.

Alright? Here goes.

10. Peter Sellers
-Sellers is a comedic god. Something I look for in a man(crush) is the ability to consistently make me smile. The thing is, Sellers is not only capable of causing me to go into uncontrollable fits of giggles, but he can make me cry too. His character in Being There is absolutely transformative to his entire career and my view on him.
9. Clive Owen
-Witty yet totally bad ass. He is what every man wants to be. And he's got a friggin British accent. That boosts any man to crush status for me.
8. Paul Rudd
-I could watch this man endlessly. Every supporting role he has been in leave me in stitches, and his most recent starring role shows him doing what he does best, being a snarky, smarmy, cynical asshole. At his heart though, Rudd is a sympathetic person. Why is he not noted yet for his comedic genius?
7. Kurt Russell
-Honestly, among all the 80's/early 90's action stars I would choose Mr. Russell. He is smarter than Schwarzenegger and Stallone, better looking than Bruce Willis, and wittier than all three. His anti-hero action status led the way for Willis and Die Hard. But how could anyone top his run with Carpenter in the 80's?
6. Heath Ledger
-Many love him post-humously because of his amazing portrayal of Joker. My love for him came before that. His greatest role was of course in Brokeback Mountain, but I found him amazing to watch in popcorn films such as 10 Things I Hate About You and Lords Of Dogtown. While I can't speak to the quality of these films I can speak to the charm and heart I found in Ledger and his characters.
5. John Cusack
-Say Anything anyone? Not to mention his slew of goofy 80's films (One Crazy Summer, Better Off Dead, The Sure Thing) to his newer dramedies(High Fidelity, Being John Malkovich, The Ice Harvest). He always has an earnestness about him, and while he is seemingly always playing himself, I could watch Cusack do Cusack for days on end.
4. Steve Martin
-Although lately Steve Martin has made me want to gag with his slew of horrible films, I still love the man and forgive him due to his amazing ability to always seem candid and honest, and playing many snarky characters with vulnerability. I love him most in Planes, Trains and Automobiles but how could anyone deny his outstanding stand up and early films especially a little unknown comedy directed by Carl Reiner, I'm sure some of you might have heard of it.
3. Robert Downey Jr.
-Talk about having it all. Style, looks, wit, charm, a former drug problem. Okay, that last part isn't something I look for in a man(crush) but really, can anyone deny this man anything? He made Iron Man a hit recently and I'm dying to see him again. Not to mention he is hilarious in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, and perfect in Zodiac. He is the GQ man that all of us, whether we admit it or not, want to be.
2.Dustin Hoffman
-He may be 71 years old now, but he still warms my heart. From The Graduate to Midnight Cowboy to All The President's Men to Rain Man to Stranger Than Fiction this man knows how to act, and he knows how to pick a role. I would say out of anyone on this list he has the largest amount of great films amidst his performances. Not to mention, The Graduate makes me happy.
.......

Drum Roll Please.

1. Bill Murray
-The way Bill Murray has reinvented himself with Wes Anderson and Jim Jarmusch is incredible. The man is still hilarious but has a melancholy and dryness about him now that I find absolutely engaging. I love Bill Murray and if gay marriage were allowed in Ohio and he lived here, I would ask him for his hand. I don't care that he has at least 30 years on me.

Runners-up:
Michael Cera, Cary Grant, Humphrey Bogart, Jimmy Stewart, Jason Batemen, Casey Affleck, George Clooney, Sam Rockwell, Harrison Ford

I know I have many more classic actors in the runners up, this is only because I have connected and man crushed on more modern actors, I guess.

Anyways I am tagging Marcy at Because I Saw The Film, Fletch at Blog Cabins, TS at Screen Savour, The Film Doctor, and Dark City Dame. Do it if you'd like. If not, whatev.

I think I'm the last.....

2008-11-18T14:06:00.000-08:00

....to post an Alphabet meme.

Anyway's I was tagged by Dark City Dame to do this and have slacked. I think there are a million other's out there, all probably better than mine. I won't even attempt to explain except to say:

I like way more films than this and this is really no representation of my favorite films.

As usual it's hard to find films for some letters and there may be better for each letter but this is the ones that struck me upon thinking of the letter. I am coming at this rather simplistically and going off the cuff. I think of the letter, think of a film with that letter that I adore and BAM! That's my only criteria.

So here goes.

Annie Hall
Being There
Chasing Amy

Do The Right Thing

ET(Although 8 1/2 really wanted it)
Fight Club
Graduate, The
High Fidelity
It's A Wonderful Life
Juno
Kill Bill Vol. 1
Last Temptation of Christ, The
Magnolia
Network
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
Psycho(Pulp Fiction is so very close)
Quiet American, The (A film based on a Graham Greene book that is alright, but the only Q film I have seen and at least somewhat enjoyed.)
Raging Bull(Holy crap! Rushmore, The Royal Tennenbaums, Raising Arizona, Rear Window, Red Planet, Requiem For A Dream, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, Ratatouille, Resevoir Dogs, Robocop, Rocky)
Seventh Seal, The (Another amazing letter...Saving Private Ryan, Schindlers List, The Searchers, Sense and Sensibility, Seven, Sex Lies and Videotape, Shawshank Redemption, The Sixth Sense, Sideways, Silence Of The Lambs, Some Like It Hot, Slacker, Solaris(both versions) , Stranger Than Fiction, South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut, Synecdoche New York, Swingers)
Taxi Driver
Unforgiven
Vertigo
When Harry Met Sally
X-Men
Young Frankenstein
Zodiac

.....

So there it is. Don't act like you're not impressed.

In the coming days expect reviews of the new Charlie Kaufman film, Synecdoche, New York, as well as David Wain's third directorial effort, Role Models.

"Princess Leia ain't never had no sex with Han Solo in the Star Wars."

2008-11-06T10:55:00.000-08:00

Zach and Miri Make a Porno-Kevin Smith-2008

................

Zach and Miri Make a Porno. What the hell else do you need to know?

To be honest, while that is the basis of the film, I believe it was the words of the film criticism god Ebert that can sum it up, "A film isn't about what it's about." If there were ever a film that earned that statement, well better examples can be found, but you get my point.

Zach and Miri are two late 20's losers barely able to pay rent. They are best friends who have known each other since the first grade, and inconsequentially have not once felt feelings for one another. When their electric and water gets turned off and they have nowhere else to turn, they decide to make a porno for some quick cash.

And with that plot line, described in the film's title, we are off and running.

Director Kevin Smith isn't really mining new ground here with his usual raunchy, but sweet humor. And to Smith's credit his filmmaking abilities are obviously improving. The camera moves, the city looks beautiful, he plays with color palettes yet still allows it to be all character and story.

The movie opens perfectly setting the characters up by showing rather than saying, which is occasionally a fault of Smith's very wordy scripts. The first act flies by and it is perfect. Each note is hit with utter grace and everyone shines. Justin Long steals the show though as a gay porn star. He plays it against the usual stereotype of homosexuals, but at the same time, is playing up those same stereotypes.

After the first act though, the comedy gets a little hit and miss. This is especially true for a certain sight gag that really doesn't fit in here, even amidst all the raunch.

When they begin making the porno is where I believe Kevin Smith has achieved a new level of maturity with his writing. This is not to say that the jokes are mature, but what he sets up is at once ingenious and completely fitting for the film.

It reaches a level of meta-ness. We are watching this film within a film unfold and when something happens and breaks that apart, our film reaches that same level of climax. It's hard to comment on without totally giving away but if you aren't paying attention then it comes across as cheesy but when you get the irony it plays out perfectly. Especially when Jason Mewes(Jay in the other of the View Askew films) gets to lay out the films themes with subtlety by explaining the dutch rutter to Zach.

Those that are saying Smith is trying to grab hold of Apatow's thunder may be somewhat right, but in retrospect he actually chose Rogen as Zach before Knocked Up even hit theatres. So at that point Rogen was still virtually unknown. Everyone seems to forget that it is Apatow that has taken the formula of Smith, yet made it a little more accessible and mainstream. If asked to say which one was the better filmmaker, all that anyone would need to do is look at the frames of the films. While Smith isn't some supreme visual artist his films have a look all their own, while Apatow's films, in regards to looks, could be directed by most anyone.

In the end with all of it's shortcomings I think in terms of filmmaking, Zach and Miri is a huge step up for Smith. But with all the praise I have given I was slightly disappointed. I have found much beauty and worth in many of Smith's efforts(Chasing Amy especially) and was hoping to find that same level. Not in the sheer look or feel of the film, but in terms of the screenplay I don't feel like Smith focused enough on these characters when we reached the film within a film section. He focused not only on the meta-narrative I already discussed, but also on poop jokes and sex jokes in terms that could be distracting. Although I particularly thought that Jason Mewes and Katie Morgan's sex scene was hilariously staged and executed.

Smith makes personal films, and that resonates with a lot of people. Those who don't like him have their reasons, and those reasons are perfectly understandable, but when you do relate to his canon on a transcendent level they become more than the sum of their parts.

.....................

In news sort of related to this review; after seeing Zach and Miri Make a Porno I have decided that for my next director study I am going to look at the 7 films Kevin Smith made before Zach and Miri. I know that in terms of credibility this may not make me look like the most knowledgeable film blogger out there, but I have a real affection for the man and many of his films. This is not to say that I believe he is the best filmmaker out there of course, but I have found surprising amounts of depth and beauty in the world Smith creates and have always wanted to delve a little deeper into that. So starting in a few weeks Kevin Smith will get the Deadpan run down.

"You mean like pulling out their toenails?" W. Film Review

2008-10-28T15:26:00.000-07:00

W.-Oliver Stone-2008

................

Oliver Stone's latest film W. seems to do little in the way of importance. In general Stone's films have been filled with different views on politics, war, race, and so on. But lately it seems that Stone has gone kind of soft. His latest efforts have been extremely unimportant films who don't even seem to know what they want to be. Don't get me wrong, he is tackling important subjects (World Trade Center especially) but he seems to be doing so in such a way that even he doesn't know exactly what he is doing. Is it always important for a controversial filmmaker to remain controversial? No, not necessarily, but I am reminded of what the great Ingmar Bergman once said, "If I have nothing to say and I just want to make a film, I don’t make the film. The craftsmanship of filmmaking is so terribly stimulating, dangerous and obsessing that you can be very tempted. But if you have nothing to come with … try to be honest with yourself and don’t make the picture"

Oliver Stone seems to think he has a lot to say, and at first glance he does, maybe too much. W is an exercise in saying a whole lot without saying anything at all.

We follows W. as he works his way from frat boy to President of The United States. We see basically anything we have read, or heard about Bush, put to screen and reenacted in some fashion. Bush choking on the pretzel, Bush and Laura meeting, Bush buying the Texas Rangers, helping campaign for Poppy(H.W.) in '92 and the main focus is the lead up to and decision of the War in Iraq.

Before W. was released into theatres I saw an interview with Oliver Stone On Real Time With Bill Maher. While Maher praised the film, the only things he really said was the fact that the film is basically Bush's greatest hits, and mentions the pretzel scene. I have to admit, from hearing that, I got a little excited. I cannot explain the reasoning behind it but I concocted this whole film in my head surrounding this absurd moment in W's life where he almost died choking on a pretzel. I thought of Stone making this a metaphor for the entire life, and presidency of W. In a sense, I guess he sort of did that, but it just seemed haphazardly thrown in there. In this same interview Stone explained how George W is such a brilliant and interesting dramatic figure. He explained how in the making of Nixon he understood the extreme guilt that Nixon felt and wanted to exhibit that throughout the film. In turn he exclaimed how Bush is so astounding because he feels utterly guiltless for the things he has done. He is a completely earnest human being.

This sentiment did come across in W, but not in the way I expected. This thought doesn't shine through with subtle moments of bliss, but rather Stone gives this film a total sense of boredom. I could not help wondering at times, why am I watching this? I understand these are important to get the whole spectrum of W, but they are brought together in such a amateur way that you realize this is a dramatization, I don't feel empathy for these characters at all. And while I can applaud Stone for keeping a distance and not forcing his beliefs down our throats and proclaiming that George W. Bush isn't the best President this country has had(No kidding) I cannot root for this film, simply due to it's lack of a heart.
Where the film finds its footing is in a few wonderful instances. The relationship is wonderful between Poppy and W, and a real basis for a lot of what W seems to do in his life. I was wanting to explore this theory more in depth, and while it is the closest we get to a complete subplot, it doesn't all hold together. A few random occurrences of Bushie in the Rangers stadium hoping to catch an imaginary fly ball from center field give us visuals that are subtle enough for us to have to think, but out there enough to allow the audience to understand their place in the film.

The most wonderful thing about W is the outstanding performances. From Richard Dreyfuss(playing the ultravillain Dick Cheney) to Jeffrey Wright(Colin Powell) to Elizabeth Banks(who doesn't get much but shines in everything she does do) we are overloaded with great acting that doesn't come across as caricature or impersonation but as actual characters that just happen to be real people. Of course the highest praise goes to Brolin, who takes it to the edge of being an over the top impersonation but holds back just enough to make it absolutely perfect.

Overall W. has it's moments but they are few and far between. Bill Maher really had it right when he said it was like Bush's greatest hits. W. is exactly that an album filled with wonderful songs but as a whole they could never work out to be amazing.

Hitchcock-The Master Of Supense

2008-10-15T08:56:00.000-07:00

So as my Hitchcock marathon finally comes to a close(a few weeks late) I wanted to give a run down with all the links.

Lifeboat(1944)
Vertigo(1958)
The Birds(1963)
Notorious(1946)
Strangers On A Train(1951)
North By Northwest(1959)
Frenzy(1972)
Rear Window(1954)
Psycho(1960)

This was so much fun, and really rewarding although I want to dig a lot deeper and see many of his British films and early American ones.

I hope you guys enjoyed it as much as I did.

PSYCHO-HITCHCOCK MARATHON

2008-10-15T06:42:00.000-07:00

Warning: An extreme amount of spoilers are listed below. Psycho-1960-Alfred Hitchcock

.................................

Psycho.

The scenes are already popping into your head. The shower scene. The fruit cellar. The music. The creepiest ending ever put to film.

In 1960 it seems that Hitch was at the top of his game. He had just come off a string of classics from Strangers On A Train, to Rear Window, to Vertigo, to North By Northwest. Everybody knew who Hitchcock was. Not only from his outstanding run of great films, but because of his television shows and celebrity status. So when Hitchcock released Psycho in 1960, everyone thought they knew what to expect, and they were wrong.

Psycho opens with Marion Crane and Sam Loomis in a hotel room. They are having a premarital affair and Marion is upset because she so wants Sam to marry her. As a foreshadowing device Hitchcock places Marion in white underclothes as she is currently an innocent. She has hopes and dreams of love and marriage. The only problem is Sam's lack of money due to his debt and alimony payments.

Marion leaves the hotel with one last thing to say, when Sam asks if they can walk out together she replies, "I'm late and you have to put your shoes on." If only she knew how late she was.

Back at the office(real estate) Marion is a secretary. She works with another secretary who cannot stop blabbering on about her husband and their marriage. Suddenly her boss walks in with a customer. Tom Cassidy is his name and he is laying down 40,000 dollars to buy his daughter and her fiance a new place.

At this point, marriage has become a running theme. What is it about marriage that all these people will go to such drastic measures for? Is it love? Lust? Societal expectations? Everyone is putting themselves at risk for it. When Mr. Cassidy gives Marion the money to deposit for him she is supposed to take it to the bank, but as I said marriage is making these people do crazy things. Marion decides to take the money and run away.

We see Marion next changing and packing. We understand she is no longer innocent as she is now wearing black underclothing. At her most vulnerable now she has allowed evil to seep into her and given in to temptation. She's trying to, as Mr. Cassidy earlier states, "...buy out of unhappiness."

As Marion leaves her boss spots her at a stoplight but thinks little of it at the time. She is then talked to by a police officer who saw her asleep in her car on the side of the road. She acts suspiciously and gives him cause for concern. It seems almost as these are Marion's chances to turn back and not let this temptation take her over before it's too late. But Marion forges on, not knowing what lies ahead.

She takes her car to a used car dealership to trade it in for a different car as she fears the policeman will track her down. The policeman sees her there but says nothing, only watches. Once Marion gets the car and leaves in a hurry she can hear in her mind what she believes they are saying. Not only the policeman and car salesman, but her boss, Mr. Cassidy, her sister Lila, and Sam. This tool is later used by Norman Bates to a different degree.

Getting lost and tired Marion decides to stop at a little hotel called Bates Motel. Upon stopping there she is greeted by Norman Bates. A slightly shy, awkward fellow but seemingly nice as can be. He helps her with her bags and shows her her room. Something strange about the whole scene is Norman's inability to say the word bathroom. You can almost sense something isn't right about that bathroom, but the film goes on without another mention.

Norman offers to make Marion some dinner and hopes to have her come up to his place, but his mother doesn't approve. In fact, she is fuming with jealousy.

Because of his mother's lack of hospitality Norman decides to bring some food to Marion. He asks if it's alright that they eat in the office parlor of the hotel and she agrees. In this parlor we get, what I believe is the best scene of the film with some of the most heartbreaking dialogue ever said on celluloid.

Norman Bates: You know what I think? I think that we're all in our private traps, clamped in them, and none of us can ever get out. We scratch and we claw, but only at the air, only at each other, and for all of it, we never budge an inch.

Marion Crane: Sometimes, we deliberately step into those traps.

Norman Bates: I was born into mine. I don't mind it anymore.

Marion Crane: Oh, but you should. You should mind it.

Norman Bates: Oh, I do,but I say I don't.

There happens to be so much honesty and vulnerability in the words that Norman says here. It also happens to be one of the only times he can say a complete sentence without stuttering or stammering while talking to Marion. Continuing on with Norman's relationship with his mother Marion finds the things she said to him would be hurtful if said to her. Norman can only say little things like "A boy's best friend is his mother" or when talking about the untimely death of his mother's lover and says she has nothing left, Marion replies with "Well, At least she has you" to which Norman states, "A son is a poor substitute for a lover." What we sense through his facial reactions and the way in which he says this is that he wishes he could be that substitute, or in fact, that lover. It is the Freudian aspect within all of Hitchcock's films reaching it's ultimate climax.

After their parlor conversation Marion is convinced she has to do something to get out of the 'personal trap' she has placed herself into. Even before leaving the Parlor, when Norman asks her name she tells him Mrs. Crane, allowing herself to be truthful again. Heading back to her room where she has the money wrapped on the nightstand in a newspaper, she is figuring out how to pay back what she has spent. She is now ready to regain her innocence and shed herself of this temptation. To do so, in a religious sense, she must wash herself of her sin. So Marion, in a moment of total honesty, sheds all of her clothing and lets the shower water wash away her transgressions. In the midst of this, she is smiling and it's obvious that she is going to change herself for the better. What transpires next is something truly and incredibly shocking. No longer today is a viewer surprised by what happens because it is a part of pop culture, but still in the context of the film, it shocks you and leaves you with a knot in your stomach. While Marion showers and washes herself clean, she is murdered by what seems to be Norman's mother. Her sins have caught up with her and she no longer has the ability to go on. Marion reaches out with one last hope grabbing nothing but the shower curtain which gives out, causing her to fall over, dead.

As Marion was finally allowing herself her innocence she had it stolen as we watch the blood run down the drain. A slow dissolve from the drain to Marion's eye shows us to total emptiness that now encapsulates her soul. As she already told Sam "I'm late and you have to put your shoes on." She's too late and he's too far behind to help her.

With Marion's death we are left with no one to empathize with. We are only halfway through the film and the only other character with whom we have had a chance to spend any time with and feel anything for is Norman. What Hitchcock does here is total and complete brilliance. With Norman's total shock of the murderer and his clean up, we see a son cleaning up his mother's mess. But when Norman lays the shower curtain on the ground and moves Marion to lay her on it, he looks at his hands, he has gotten blood on them. Is Norman guilty? Is the blood really "on his hands", as the metaphor so profoundly states. At this point we don't know, but we feel for Norman as he cleans up the mess. He wraps Marion up in the shower curtain just as she wrapped her sin(the money) up in the newspaper.

Norman has to throw Marion and all her belongings and anything to prove the murderer into Marion's car trunk and push the car into a pond outside the motel. After pushing the car into the pond we get a feeling of doubt and fear as the car stops sinking for a few seconds. Is it going to sink all the way? We hope it does because we are now rooting for Norman, in a sense.

From there we go to Sam's work where a woman is reading the label of an extermination tool; ""Guaranteed to exterminate any insect in the world", but is it painless? Every death should be painless whether it be insect or human." Could this be a foreshadowing of Norman's ultimate surmise? He, or his mother, didn't allow for Marion's death to be painless, but rather painful. Why else would this bit of dialogue be so strategically placed here, just after Marion's death?

When Lila confronts Sam about whether or not he knows where Marion is, they are both approached by a Private Investigator named Arbogast. He is after her to retrieve the 40,000 dollars. He tells them how he's looking for Marion as well, and then we see him go on a search from motel to motel, finally reaching Bates Motel.

Arbogast shows up and without suspicion asks Norman about Marion to which he first denies until further evidence proves that she was in fact there. We then get a series of close ups on Arbogast and Norman showing the fear of Norman and the hope felt by Arbogast that something might be gained. When Norman let's it slip that "She might have fooled me, but she didn't fool my mother." This gives Arbogast the realization that to gain everything he needs from Bates he needs to speak with Norman's mother. Norman won't allow this so Arbogast leaves feeling dissatisfied. While Arbogast pulls away we see Norman standing against the hotel wall, his face in half light, half shadow. Could his mother be taking him over? When he told Marion that "Mother is not quite herself today" was he really meaning that she isn't at all herself, but actually him?

Arbogast decides he's going to return to talk to the mother. He goes into the Bates house and begins yelling for Mrs. Bates. No answer. He looks around to no avail, but heads up the stairs to go to her bedroom where he has seen her sitting by the window. Once Arbogast reaches the top of the stairs he is attacked and murdered.

After waiting for so long Sam decides to go to the Bates Motel to talk with Norman or Mrs. Bates and see if something is wrong. When he arrives he sees an old woman sitting in the window of her room, but she doesn't answer. He yells for Arbogast but again, no answer. We see Norman looking out at the pond as he had just pushed Arbogast's car out there. He looks over once he hears Sam, with his entire face now in shadow. The darker side of him has taken over.

When Sam finds nothing him and Lila go to the Deputy Sheriff who is of little help besides to inform them of Norman's mother's death. He lets them know she has been dead for 10 years now, she died with her lover, in bed. What he doesn't know at this time is at who's hands she died.

Feeling strange about the situation Sam and Lila decide to get a cabin for a night and look around to see if they can find anything incriminating. While Sam distracts Norman, Lila looks around the house for Mrs. Bates or some other type of evidence. She sees Mrs. Bates' room but no one in it. She then sees Norman's room which is still as a child's room with toys and a child's bed, that is unmade, as if it is still slept in.

In an earlier scene we see Norman hide his mother in the damp, cold cellar. This is just as he hides his victims in the damp, cold swamp.

When Norman figures out that she is in his house he knocks Sam out and runs to it. When Lila sees him she heads to the cellar and sees an old woman sitting there. She turns her around and screams at the sight of a skeleton. Norman runs down wearing a dress and wig, with a knife in hand only to be stopped at the last second by Sam. While all of this is happening a single light bulb swings back and forth through all the commotion showing the truth that has been revealed. We have finally been shown the light.

In a rather pointless but still interesting scene we are informed of Norman and his mother really being Norman in a split personality sense. Norman has, ever since her death, been half Norman half mother. We learn that he is no longer ever fully Norman, but is often fully mother. Even drifting in conversation from Norman to mother in sentence after sentence. This is heavily seen in the parlor scene with Marion and Norman.

Why I say this scene of exposition is rather pointless is because Hitchcock could have done without this scene and allowed the viewer to make up their own interpretation. While it is interesting to hear exactly what in the world just happened, I would have liked to be able to make that up for myself. I get the feeling this wasn't Hitch's decision but the studio's to which he conceded to in order to make such an outlandish film.

The final scene and monologue are greatly needed as they show the total and complete takeover of Norman by his mother personality.

Norma Bates: It's sad, when a mother has to speak the words that condemn her own son. But I couldn't allow them to believe that I would commit murder. They'll put him away now, as I should have years ago. He was always bad, and in the end he intended to tell them I killed those girls and that man... as if I could do anything but just sit and stare, like one of his stuffed birds. They know I can't move a finger, and I won't. I'll just sit here and be quiet, just in case they do... suspect me. They're probably watching me. Well, let them. Let them see what kind of a person I am. I'm not even going to swat that fly. I hope they are watching... they'll see. They'll see and they'll know, and they'll say, "Why, she wouldn't even harm a fly..."

A creepy thing during this scene is while Norman holds a blanket around him with both hands a third hand sits on his lap. Could this be the hand of his mother with which he isn't going to swat the fly? creepy indeed. Not to mention the shot where Norman looks directly into the camera with the skeleton being slightly dissolved into the background.

This, to me, is Hitchcock's masterpiece. Even with the exposition(which I could do without) I feel this is a perfect film. The innovation and style are 100% Hitchcock and no one else could pull it off, as evidenced by the following sequels.

"You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate."

2008-10-07T21:32:00.000-07:00

Religulous-2008-Larry Charles

..........................

George Michaels once sang, "You gotta have faith", but with Religulous what Bill Maher is singing is the exact opposite. Maher claims his message is doubt, and he stands by that message with a certainty. The question that remains, does Religulous actually try to answer questions or is it just poking fun at those who believe differently?

The wonderful thing about this documentary is that Maher seems more courteous than I thought. He isn't attacking anyone. All that Maher does is honestly and truthfully ask the questions that lie deeply on his heart. Even going as far to thank some truckers for being "Christ-like and not just Christian" and saying that they are smart people.

This could possibly be the funniest film to be released all year, and oddly enough the most serious. Not serious in the way things are portrayed, but in the severity of the questions being asked. Maher simply wants to know how anyone can know for SURE that what they believe is true. I could relate. I grew up in a Christian family and went to a Baptist school for most of my life. I was hammered daily with knowing what I believe and standing firm in that belief. While I agree that any one's beliefs shouldn't be easily wavered, I do have degrees of doubt that I cannot ignore. I do have faith in a hope that there is a God who's son, Jesus Christ, died on the cross. While I believe this to be true, I cannot say with 100% certainty that it is the absolute truth. In my heart I believe it to be, but you get what I am saying.

I also understand Maher's complaint that with someone in office that believes the end days are upon us making decisions based upon those beliefs it can be scary, especially to some who doubts that there is even a God at all.

Maher's humor in Religulous stems mostly from the people he interviews. A Puerto Rican man claiming to be the 2nd coming of Christ who happens to have 100,000 followers. He questions rich pastors about why Jesus said the rich shall not enter the kingdom of heaven, and they deny that it specifically says those words. He interviews fake Jesus, and gay Muslim activists. The list goes on and on.

While Maher is generally very cordial, I think the editing at times is so blatantly one sided that it is distracting. Sometimes it is overly obvious that that was not an answer to a question or that was not the correct context that I grow more and more disappointed. On the other hand, the subtitles and cut-aways were always gut bustingly hilarious and truthful.

I think Charles did a much better job in Religulous than with Borat simply because he allowed the true nature of the humor to speak for itself. In Borat he tended to throw in Jackass style humor every once in awhile that took away from the films satirical outlook.

While Religulous is utterly one-sided I like Maher's honesty in his monologues, especially his final monologue discussing doubt. I think this film is important for the religious and non religious to see and discuss. Instead, I fear we will find the religious condemning while the non-religious get a sense of pride knowing they are "above" these stupid religious type. Both sides being at fault. If that does happen it won't be the films fault because the film graciously asks for a dialogue between believers and nonbelievers, using intellect and intelligence(disregarding Kirk Cameron's comments about going around intellect).

"I don't know if you know it, Babs, but you're my type of woman." HITCHCOCK MARATHON

2008-10-07T21:04:00.000-07:00

Frenzy-1972-Alfred Hitchcock

.................................................

After Hitchcock made The Birds he went into a major decline as a director. While his films weren't bad, they tended to lack the intensity,polish and heart of so many of Hitchcock's classics. So it's not surprise that when Hitchcock made Frenzy it was said that it was "the picture of a young man."

Frenzy brings us into a story of mysterious connected neck tie killings. We meet Dick Blaney along the way, who is thought to be the neck tie murderer, but as usual in a Hitchcock film, is wrongly accused. All the evidence points to him as his ex-wife is murdered just minutes after he left her office. After that, his current girlfriend is also murdered. The film follows him on the run, but not getting very far.

The amazing thing that Hitchcock does here is give us a killer we originally grow to like. When we first happen upon Bob Rusk he is helping out Dick. He seems like a helpful and loving guy. He visits his mom, he sells fruit, he gives Dick tips on the races. What's not to like?

Something else that struck me was Hitchcock's visceral shooting style. While normally Hitchcock doesn't show us the gruesome stuff, here he allows us to see a woman be raped and murdered, there are multiple shots of nude woman(normally dead), but oddly enough it works because Hitch isn't exploitative. Hitchcock knows enough not to show too many murders, so he shows us the first one to bring us into just how terrible a thing was being done. After that we get the murderer's struggle. A darkly comical scene where Bob has killed off a main character and tried to throw her in the back of a potato truck, but realizes that something of his was in her hands and would easily incriminate him.

A thought that constantly has crossed my mind after watching Frenzy is; why neck ties? It could have just as easily been rope, belts, any number of things. Could this be Hitchcock's ode to the working class? Is he saying that the working man is somehow killing the working woman? The two woman who are murdered seem to be hard working woman(one has her own business, the other a bar tender). Is it an argument against sexism? One would have to examine more carefully to truly find out, but it is a question I have pondered.

Frenzy is definitely a very hard hitting film, but it does lack some of that Hitchcock quality. While it does have suspense, horror, humor, and many of Hithcock's usual themes and ideals, it doesn't come across as emotionally gripping and thematically deep as some of his earlier classics.

There's much more that could be said about Frenzy though. While it isn't a classic Hitchcock film, it is still far superior to most of the dreck that is released weekly.

"If you had only once said that you loved me." HITCHCOCK MARATHON(GUEST AUTHOR)

2008-10-01T22:14:00.000-07:00

Before getting to the review of Notorious I wanted to say a few words about the author. TS writes over at Screen Savour and does an excellent job over there. I have found his writing to be both insightful and entertaining. As one reader commented, he is like a professor and we are his students, ready and eager to learn some more. While I mainly have dealt with theory and theme throughout my marathon, TS will deal with both of those along with history, back story, production details, cast and crew details and much more. I hope you enjoy this glimpse of TS's writing and go check out his own Hitchock marathon throughout the month of October. He is going to be going through every Hitchcock film available for us to see. Anyways, without further ado...

..................

Notorius-1946-Alfred Hitchcock

................

"The story of Notorious is the old conflict between love and duty." - Alfred Hitchcock to François Truffaut

Notorious is Alfred Hitchcock's mid-career masterpiece. Yes, he had made great movies before it (The 39 Steps, Rebecca, Shadow of a Doubt) and would on to make great movies after (Rear Window, Psycho, North by Northwest, Vertigo, etc.), but Notorious is a stand-out addition to his canon. It is not only the best film he made in the 1940s, it's one of his greatest films overall.

In many ways, too, it might very well be considered his crowning achievement in terms of sheer synthesis. It combines the ostensible thriller with the love story, then the love story with film noir, and then the standard glossy Hollywood look with Hitchcock's overtly stylized visuals. It twists and complicates that "old conflict," which Hitchcock defined for Truffaut, into an ultimate statement on how far duty and love can drive two people apart and how much is stake when it seems like all might be lost. There is not a single moment in Notorious where you might mistake it for any of the multitude of films made in the post-war boom of the late 1940s; without a question, Hitchcock is in control of every single frame.

The story takes place shortly after the end of World War II in the waning months where Nazis still invoked fear. A German spy ring has fled to Brazil, and the U.S. government wants to infiltrate their organization with a spy. T.R. Devlin (Cary Grant), an espionage agent, drafts Alicia Huberman (Ingrid Bergman), a patriotic America whose father was nevertheless recently found guilty of being a Nazi sympathizer. Just as Devlin feels himself becoming attracted to Alicia, he receives orders to have her begin socializing with a friend of her father's, Alex Sebastian (the great Claude Rains). Devlin and Alicia part ways – until, of course, Alex becomes wise to Alicia, and ...

Well, it wouldn't be a Hitchcock movie if I told you what comes next.

Notorious is not often credited with being among Hitchcock's most insidious explorations of his own internal issues – instead we cite Rear Window, for its voyeurism; Vertigo, for its obsessive makeover; Psycho, for its unrelenting mother issues; and lesser famous films like I Confess, for its religious tension, and The Wrong Man, for his fear of the authorities. But Notorious is surprisingly complex in its own internal turmoil. The film was Hitchcock's second collaboration with Grant (previously in Suspicion) and Bergman (previously in Spellbound). Both were stars by 1946, and both had their images manipulated by the director who was interested in burrowing into the darker elements of the human psyche. Devlin, played by former screwball actor Grant, is cold and calculating in his manipulation of Alicia. Hitchcock and the elegantly romantic Bergman bring Alicia to life initially as a promiscuous lush, then allow her to become self-destructively submissive and sacrificial, putting her in Sebastian's arms and bed, and she obliges, all for the sake of earning Devlin's love. They are phenomenally deep as lead characters: Alicia ignores her physical reality for the emotional lure of Devlin, and he ignores his emotional reality for the professional lure of what Alicia can access inside Sebastian's cadre of Nazis. The potential attraction is always immediately below the surface for Devlin, although the woman he pushes Alicia to become is not the sort of woman he thinks he could ever love. (Not to mention the film contains one of Hitchcock's earliest incidents of running afoul with the Production Code. At the time, the Code limited kisses to three seconds, so Hitchcock has Grant and Bergman keep with the merit of the Code by kissing for three seconds, then breaking, then kissing three seconds, then breaking, etc. The entire hint-hint-nudge-nudge sequence runs 180 seconds.)

The great screenwriter Ben Hecht was behind the richly layered script, which took an elementary scenario from a short story called "The Song of the Dragon" and transformed it into something original. His screenplay was nominated for an Oscar, one of the two nominations the film earned. (The other was Rains for supporting actor; neither won.) It is suspenseful and taut, particularly in its final twenty minutes. It is dense, but never confusing, and sly without being ostentatious. Production started only months after the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan, and the use of uranium as the trafficked-element-of-choice for Sebastian and his German cadre is one of Hitchcock's all-time great "MacGuffins" (the item everyone is concerned with but that really doesn't matter in terms of anything but the gear that keeps the film rolling). As it places Alicia in harm's way, it makes a credible case that she is in a magnificent amount of danger. (Certainly Sebastian's mother, one of the great evil women in all of Hitchcock's films, has not qualms about slipping her a little something and attempting to solve the problem.)

And, oh, the look of this film: I could devote thousands of words to its elegant and evocative style. Anyone interested in the power of cinematography should settle into Notorious with one hand on the pause button and another devoted to a pen and a steno pad. Although Hitchcock experimented with the constraints of the camera through his entire career (shots with limited range, like in Lifeboat and Rear Window; long takes, like in Rope and Under Capricorn; obtuse angels, like in North by Northwest), his most effective camerawork might just be in Notorious. The famous ones are so famous it's as if no one has dared try to imitate them. There is the high-mounted wide shot of the gigantic foyer at Sebastian's mansion, which leads to an continuous zoom that ends outrageously close to a key in Alicia's hand. There is a party scene where a silhouetted head looms along the bottom of the frame, and although we cannot see the face of the man whose head we see, it is as if Hitchcock knows we will be able to identify it as Grant's. There is a shot where Alicia, just waking, sees Devlin in her doorway, and he walks toward her and she repositions herself, the shot in her point of view rotates in a perfect arc. There is an exhilarating shot near the end where Devlin carefully escorts Alicia to a car, and once inside, the camera zips and captures him as he smoothly locks the door and essentially gives another character a death sentence. No part of these miraculous technical achievements is done for pure flair; they are surprising, but slyly informative, and they build suspense while pushing the mechanics of the narrative along.

I could go on. Notorious holds a special place in my heart. I saw it for a film class years ago on my birthday – and what a gift it was. Later (and again, for my birthday), my wife gave me Criterion's magnificent release of the film, which proved so popular it quickly found itself out of print. Used copies of that edition can cost you sometimes as much as $50 or more, but – thankfully! – that is all about to change. While the Criterion version is not experiencing a reprinting, MGM is delivering the next best thing: many of Hitchcock's harder to find films, such as Notorious, Spellbound, Rebecca, and The Lodger, are reappearing soon on DVD. It is long overdue that this masterpiece be made widely available again.

"I admire people who do things." HITCHCOCK MARATHON

2008-10-01T20:03:00.000-07:00

Strangers On A Train-1951-Alfred Hitchcock

..........................

So two fellows meet on a train eh? Bruno is the more effeminate one with a peculiar way about him, Guy seems confident, but only on the outside. Bruno just happens to know a lot about Guy. Guy is a tennis player with a wife named Miriam. He also has a girlfriend named Ann Morton, who is the daughter of a senator. Why is guy two timing his wife? Well his wife is a selfish, money grubber who could really care less about Guy. He wants a divorce but she doesn't because she can get more out of him without one. When Bruno, a self professed mama's boy(not in those exact words), proclaims his hatred for his father he lets a little plan slip out. If two strangers had someone they wanted to kill and they had each other do it, no one could fault them for it. It is a win-win situation. Bruno explains that he could kill Miriam and Guy can kill his father. Guy refuse's but Bruno insists. Does Guy give in to the temptation? Well Bruno goes ahead and forges on with the plan as if Guy had said yes, and expects Guy to follow through after he has in fact killed Miriam. How can he get Guy to give in? Well Guy happened to leave his lighter with a tennis logo and the phrase "A to G" engraved on it.

Hitchcock's 1951 film Strangers On A Train is a lot like his other work. We have someone with mother issues, we have a wrong man situation, we have murder and love and betrayal. So, as we see, in many ways, Hitchcock is using his by the numbers directing playbook here. He is a veteran at the time Strangers On A Train is released. But some things that struck me were the lack of a blonde female lead. The lack of a macguffin here is also interesting to note, unless you could argue that the lighter was in fact a macguffin.

This film's major aspect is that of the criss cross, or double cross. Constantly we see things like Guy talking about being able to strangle his wife and then a dissolve to Bruno making a strangling motion with his hands. In the scene after Bruno kills Miriam he takes a look at his watch and then a cut to Guy on a train looking at his watch. It builds the tension really well. What connects these two men?

"Everybody is a potential murderer" says Bruno on the train. Bruno furthers this point at a party when he discusses murderer with a Mrs. Cunningham, telling her the perfect way to murder someone in his eyes.

One of the most magnificently planned out and shot scenes in the film is the lead up to, and actual act of, Miriam's murder. While we see Bruno follow her to the amusement park with her two guys(neither of them her husband) she keeps looking back noticing him, but kind of smiles as if he's following her because he is attracted to her. After walking into the park a little boy walks up to Bruno going "Bang, Bang" and shaping his finger like a gun, pointing it directly at Bruno. This foreshadows the fact that Bruno will eventually murder Miriam, while also being a portrait of him. He is murdering for attention. He is murdering Miriam to in turn get his father murdered. He wants all the attention of his mother, and can only have that with his old man out of the way. Lastly this foreshadows Bruno's eventual end.

During the same scene we get another foreshadowing of a future scene in the film. Miriam and her boys get on the merry-go-round, while Bruno does so also. This is when Miriam really notices him following her, but thinks nothing strange of it. The Merry-Go Round plays a significant part in the ending of this film. Bruno then follows them onto the Tunnel Of Love. While on the ride we see Bruno's shadow catch up to Miriam's and then cut to the outside of the tunnel and hear Miriam scream, but then see her and her boys pop out. It turns out it was only a scream of excitement or just her having fun. They go to an island that the Tunnel of Love's river leads to and begin playing around, Bruno follows and waits in the bushes. While Miriam is running around she notices Bruno. She playfully says hello, and he says it back and then begins to strangle her. We are not seeing this first hand but as her glasses fall off we see her being choked through the reflection of the glasses.

Miriam's glasses and the reflection of her murder hold an important place in the film. Later on, when we meet Ann's sister Barb, it is noticed that her glasses are similar to Miriam's. When Bruno meets her he can see the murder happening in the reflection of her glasses. Is this Bruno's guilt being summoned, or does he feel guilty at all? Could this simply be reminding him of how his father has yet to be dead although he has done his side of what he thinks was a deal? We aren't told for sure, but when Bruno is explaining to Mrs. Cunningham the perfect way to murder someone he puts his hands around her throat playfully and tells her to try and make a noise. As soon as he begins play strangling her he sees Barb and becomes fixated on her. His choking of Mrs. Cunningham becomes real and he chokes harder and harder until he faints. Barb explains to Ann that it felt as if he was choking her, and Ann confronts Guy about it as she feels she has put two and two together. Guy tells Ann everything, but they mustn't let anyone else know he says.

Something I really noticed was this films major film noir use. While many of Hitch's films deal with film noir issues they are usually in color, or lack any other significant feature that would make it predominately noir. What we get here that really brings it into the noir mode is the chiaroscuro lighting. I especially noticed this in the scene in which Bruno tells Guy he has murdered Miriam. They are talking through a fence and it seems as if they are behind bars, trapped in a cell. The lighting shows both of their faces in half light, and half darkness. Sticking to that half theme, Strangers On A Train is said to have a doppelganger theme. Bruno is Guy's desire to kill Miriam, sort of a real life subconscious wish fulfillment fantasy. Bruno may represent Guy's inner mind. Guy obviously desires her dead, as he did scream on the phone with Ann that sometimes he wishes he could strangle her. Be careful what you wish for, some might say. I am more reminded of the Bible verse.

Matthew 5: 21-22

'You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not murder”; and “whoever murders shall be liable to judgement.” But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgement'

I know, Hitchcock's film is not religious by any means, but what I am saying is that thinking something in her your heart makes it basically a done deal in your heart and truly torments you, and this can be accounted for by anyone who has ever been alive. We all wrestle with daily grudges and arguments, and if we let them seep into our hearts they ruin our lives. This is a common thing whether you are religious or not. This basic theme is something I think Hitch was getting at. This point is more driven home when Bruno proclaims, "Everyone has somebody that they want to put out of the way. Oh now, surely Madam, you're not going to tell me that there hasn't been a time that you didn't want to dispose of someone. Your husband, for instance".

Bruno fulfilling Guy's desires can also be found in the ways they are constantly criss crossing. They are constantly crossing railroads to get to certain places. They meet by crossing their legs and accidentally bumping each others feet(although I suspect Bruno predestined it). Also the criss crossing of the tennis racquet's on Guy's lighter.

The tennis racquet's could be said to foreshadow the tense tennis match when Guy is trying to hurry and sneak past his shadow. I am completely amazed at how Hitchcock can make a tennis match tense and suspenseful in the midst of a murder mystery. This and Bruno's dropping of the lighter into the sewer drain and subsequently reaching to get it are some of the most heart pounding scenes in the film(and Michael Bay thinks explosions cause the same effect, watch some Hitchcock Mr. Bay).

"Since you're the one profiting from this I think you'll need to end up paying for it." Bruno shouts this at Guy near the end of the film, but what he doesn't know is that Guys hands are clean. Bruno eventually pays for what he has done.

Another element of foreshadowing was done at first with a picture Bruno's mother painted. It seemed to be a man burning in flames, Bruno thinks it's his father. It turns out it is really him. This is proven when he first lights the lighter and sees a flame in the reflection of Miriam's glasses just before he murders her. Through this it could be said to mean that when Bruno had the lighter it was the idea fermented in his mind. He was going to kill Miriam and frame Guy if he didn't go through with the side he never agreed to go through with.

When Guy does sneak out to go to Bruno's place and we think he is going to kill him, something strange happens. To get the full circle of what happens we have to go back to something Guy said to Barb about Hennessey, his shadow.

Guy: Doesn't that bloodhound ever relax? He sticks so close he's beginning to grow on me... like a fungus

When Guy sneaks out and goes to Bruno's house, we see him check the map to find Bruno's fathers room. Hennessey is not Guy's shadow at this moment, Hammond, the more paranoid of the two is shadowing but doesn't see him leave. Guy walks into Bruno's house and around the corner to go up the stairs. He is carrying a gun. At the top of the stairs is a dog(a Great Dane, but to me the connection still fits) who at first growls at Guy but then licks his hand, as if to wash his hands of the situation. When he enters Bruno's fathers room we see Bruno appear and say his father is out of town. Guy explains that he wasn't going to go through with it, but he was going to tell his father of his psychopath of a son. Was he really planning on going through with it at first? I have my suspicions, but maybe the dog(Hennessey) saved him. Guy also refers to Hennessey as his guardian angel. In many scenes do we see Hennessey literally save Guy from being turned in by stopping Hammond from turning Guy in before it is revealed that Bruno is the murderer. Of course this is only a theory, I have recently read a completely different theory at everything2.com (the article is under the link) about the homo-erotic symbolism of Strangers On A Train.

"In this case, a long and narrow revolver represents Guy. Similarly, earlier in the same scene, a Great Dane represents Bruno. The dog's association with Bruno is set up earlier in the film, when Mrs. Antony chides her son, "You're a naughty boy Bruno"- more the sort of thing one would say to a dog than to a man- and then giggles and looks at the dog in the background. In addition, "Bruno" is typically a dog's name, and the dog itself is never named. As a result, the dog growling at Guy, but then inexplicably licking his hand, can be viewed as Bruno threatening yet desiring Guy. A slow motion shot as the dog licks Guy's hand draws attention to the sensuality of that act."

I truly found Strangers On A Train to be one of Hitchcock's best films. It isn't as often talked about as his other classics but I found it to withhold a lot of depth and emotional pull while still being entertaining.

'It's For The Birds' HITCHCOCK MARATHON

2008-09-30T14:54:00.000-07:00

The Birds-1963-Alfred Hitchcock

.......................

As a lazy, midwestern suburbanite I have done the unthinkable. No, it is not what might come to mind, such as killing or something involving cannibalism. And before you even think it, yes I have seen Hitchcock's 1963 masterpiece The Birds. what I have done though or haven't might be the case, does involve that film. Alright, alright, I can hear your screams and whimpers "Get to the point!" I know, you don't read this blog to read blabbering, in fact you don't read this blog at all(This is my attempt at a Rodney Dangerfield type humor...not funny? I know, but I tried).

To get to the task at hand, answering the question I brought up in the first paragraph. While having seen The Birds, and trying to write a well versed in-depth analysis, I realized something. First, I must tell you, I did not get the chance to rewatch the film at hand. I thought to myself "Oh, Shawny boy, you've seen that film a few times, why would you need to rewatch?" "Well..." I said to myself, "We cannot simply go off a memory, and while I do some research ahead of time, such as names, dates and some incriminating plot details, I don't want to steal anyone's thoughts before I am able to assimulate my own." Then my wife walked in and saw me talking to myself in the mirror, totally nude, except my tube socks. It was a weird situation. So, where were we? Oh yes, The Birds. So I wanted to have my own clear and articulated thoughts, while also not taking the time out to rewatch the film. Why not rewatch the film? What's the harm? Well, while I am not the busiest person, I do have work, school, a wife, a friend or two, and various other activities I am involved in. This isn't to say I am not dedicated to this blog. Or is it? I guess that's up to the reader. But I do love to watch films and I really love to write about films, but there are so many I have not seen or ever written about that I wish to write about and see soon. I really need to catch up on those unseen films, and while I am working on that had decided not to rewatch The Birds.

So I will present you with some talking points I had already made up that I was already planning on writing about.

-While I do think that the woman of the story that surround the leading man have a major purpose in the story, also giving the name it's ironic title The Birds (in regards to the literal birds and the woman), I do not think that this is the main theme that Hitchcock is investigating. I simply say this because the story does not surround the man(as most Hitchcock films do).

-One major thing I always thought The Birds was was a metaphor for Melanie's guilt for the things she had done in the past. She seemed to be running away from something to follow this man to some random island, and her guilt followed her, and harmed other people. After her guilt finally got to her(in the famous bedroom attack scene) they were able to get away. I could be wrong about this though, but it was the first theme to manifest itself in my mind after initially seeing it a while ago.

-Hitchcock's uncanny ability to bring us in and not have to explain any extraneous details to us (i.e. where the hell these birds are coming from and why they are so hostile). Which is something many of his worshippers do not seem to understand(for a PERFECT example of this I give you M. Night Shayamalan's The Happening, which had a great premise and had to give us explanation after explanation leaving very little to the imagination).

-The atrocity that is Michael Bay(Armageddon)/Naomi Watts(Funny Games)/Martin Campbell(Casino Royale) planning a remake of The Birds for 2009.

This is only the tip of what I wished to speak of, but as you can tell, I was planning it out a bit and just ran out of time and well... just time really.

I hope this read was at the very least somewhat enjoyable.

I will for sure have a Strangers On A Train analysis up tomorrow as well as TS's (Screen Savour) analysis of Notorious.

Definitely be checking out TS's blog because for the entire month of October he will be going way, way in depth with Hitchcock and totally trumping anything I have done here.

"Without access to true chaos, we'll never have true peace. Unless everything can get worse, it won't get any better."

2008-09-27T14:27:00.000-07:00

Choke-2008-Clark Gregg

.....................

"There is none righteous, no not one" Romans 3:10

It's interesting to note, how utterly different and totally similar an author's works can be. Chuck Palahniuk is one of the more famous modern authors around, mainly from the success of the film Fight Club(based on his debut novel). He has gotten to a generation that believe reading is for old people, and made reading something fun to do, as it should be. I praise him for this, and for his keen sense of knowing how to portray characters that are in any case abhorrent and in no way charming. Yet, somehow Palhniuk does it time and time again. It's no wonder so many people want to adapt his books (as I typed this there are talks of an adaptation of his novel Survivor). The main question anyone might be asking is, do they need to be made into films, will the message still work? In the case of the latest adaptation of his book Choke I would have to say yes and no.

Choke is about Victor Mancini. He is a sex addict. An unrepentant sex addict that is. He works a dead end job at some sort of old times amusement park of something. He is a med school drop out, and a con artist. He has a mother who is in a psychiatric ward and doesn't even know who he is(constantly referring to him as lawyers who are now dead, that she has had in the past). We follow Victor and his friend Denny through a journey of realizing what love really is. Victor's con that he pulls is an interesting one to say the least, and where the book/film derives it's name. Victor will eat out at a restaurant and force himself to choke on his food only to be saved by a stranger. Usually, he lies and gets some sort of money in the mail afterwards from his savior.

What I find most striking is Choke's unbelievably heart warming tale, amidst all of the vulgarity and dirtiness. Victor is a basket case. He wants love so much that he looks for it in all the wrong ways. His sexual exploits prove to be empty and void throughout, and he is able to acknowledge this. When Victor finally meets someone he actually has feelings for he is unable to perform, not because he doesn't want to, but simply because of the misconceptions he has placed around sex. It almost seems that throughout the story sex is a metaphor for love.

Now Victor has more reason's for doing the things he does than for mere personal gain. He reveals to us the rush he gets from choking and his favorite part(being held after being saved) shows his true need for love.

Denny, Victor's best friend, is a chronic masturbater. This could be used as a crotch for comedy, and occasionally is, but ultimately Denny is Victor's better half. He finds himself working through the problems and going through the steps that he learns from the sex addicts anonymous class victor and he takes.

Along the way, Choke reveals more and more about Victor's character. I was fascinated by the depth's a which his character dove, and Sam Rockwell's great performance also played a factor in that. It was clear that Clark Gregg, who is an actor himself (he plays Charlie in this film, hilariously I might add) knew how to direct the actors, but any depth or true film making technique is pushed aside. He simply pointed the cameras at the actors and said "okay guys now quote the book". Which is surprising because Tim Orr, one of my favorite cinematographers, shot this film, and it looks so bland.

Another fault I find in Choke, actually lies within the marketing of the film. It really isn't about the sex and tits and anal beads (although all are sadly present), it is about being able to love the unlovable, and that true love only comes when you are able to show love yourself.

In the picture above we see Victor and Denny trapped in a cage, but really they are outside of it, about to go in. What we don't know is how this marks the true change for Victor. Denny has a rock collection, to keep him from masturbating. Victor finds this stupid until one of the final moments, inside this cage where something happens that reveals exactly what the story is about.

It seems that Choke, has an interesting story that Clark Gregg realizes, but occasionally tries to exploit for the gain of who knows what? I guess sex sells better than stories of redemption and love. If you like either, this film could be right up your alley.

Update

2008-09-27T09:55:00.000-07:00

So, if you haven't noticed lately I have been slacking. I have two film analysis' due this weekend, and I am here to tell you they will be published either late monday night or tuesday morning. I won't be home basically at all this weekend so time has eluded me.

In regards to the current Hitchcock series. If you hadn't noticed I am up to date as I have published both North By Northwest and Rear Window, but they are out of order(Rear Window being the last one published. Thanks to anyone who is keeping up with the series.

In other news, I came across a really fun and interesing website called For The Reels. It is full of film-parody web comics and is generally very funny, Mel Brooks style stuff. I suggest checking on the Schindlers List, The Departed and V For Vendetta parodies for a healthy dose of laughing your butt off.

Until next time. Godspeed.

"Nothing has caused the human race so much trouble as intelligence." HITCHCOCK MARATHON

2008-09-25T22:17:00.000-07:00

Rear Window-1954-Alfred Hitchcock

.................

Rear Window is one of Hitchcock’s most interesting films. It does something that Hitchcock did often, it limits the film to a confined space that we are trapped in for the entirety, but it does so in a different way than films such as Rope, or Lifeboat do. Instead of focusing on what is in our little space we are trapped in, we are put into the point of view of one character that is also trapped and we look out at the world around us.

As said in my comparative essay of Rear Window and Disturbia (here), Rear Window is one of the few occasions that a peeping tom is actually rewarded for peeping. In general, peeping toms are viewed by society as a bad thing. This can be in the case of a man looking out his window at his neighbors, or the government peeping into it’s citizens business. Either way, it is never looked upon as healthy, or in good standing within anyone’s moral code. Somehow, despite all of this, Hitchcock finds some way to get us to truly sympathize with L.B. Jeffries, A photographer (interesting choice of profession for someone so interested in the lives of others) who has been injured and forced to spend some time in a wheelchair. Here we have the usual Hitchcock leading man, who has some limiting flaw that is the basic premise upon which the rest of the story is based around. Without this, just as in Vertigo, the film simply wouldn’t work.

The plot in short is about L.B. Jefferies, trapped in his apartment due to his impairment. He grows bored and with nothing else to do, stares out the “rear window” at his neighbors and becomes interested in their lives. Most of them live out ordinarily mundane lives, that Jefferies enjoys watching for its familiarity or dramatic conclusion (in the case of the arguing couple.) But when Jefferies grows suspicious of one of the people he peeps on, he has to wrestle with his own mind. Has he really seen what he thinks he has, or is he creating stories out of boredom, or basic human paranoia?

To me, Rear Window continues to be Hitchcock’s most entertaining work. I wouldn’t call it flawless, or his best, but on a mere entertainment level, I could watch this film over and over again.
What’s most interesting is the idea of peeping that is shown to us at the end with Jefferies girlfriend, Lisa , reading a book, and when noticing Jefferies is asleep she picks up a magazine. I found this to be her way of peeping on the lives of others, much as her beau was doing out the rear window.

It seems to be a commentary, not only on the discernment between reality and fiction, but on the way our lives affect those who see them, and on the fascination we have with seeing other people live their lives.

This film couldn’t be more appropriate than for our current age. Reality TV has grown so popular it warrants its own cable station. The tabloids are our rear windows. But if in the end our peeping grew rewarding, as it does here in this film, than is Hitchcock really commenting on us in a bad way? Or could he be saying watching the lives of others is a good thing, as it keeps them on their toes?

This is merely a question, as to me, I find that he isn’t only saying that it could be good or bad, he is simply stating that we cannot help but do it. Being peeping toms seems to be in our nature, every person to their own extent. Some may even consider films, books, songs and plays as ways of us peeping on the lives of others, especially considering the amount of films, books and plays that are written about real people. In just a few weeks W. will open and I’m sure people will be watching it in anticipation of peeping on the current president’s life.

This film takes Hitchcock’s usual blonde bombshell, but uses it in a different way than usual. Jefferies is afraid of commitment and will not give in to her endless questions about marriage and relationships. One could make the assumption that Jefferies wheel chair is simply a metaphor for his fear of intimacy. It certainly says something about the public. I enjoy watching films and getting different perspectives on ways of life, but rarely do I ever go out and participate in all these forms of life, or even with the different types of people I fall in love with on screen. While Jefferies seems to be in love with the woman, he cannot overcome this fear.

This brings us back to paranoia. Just as he is paranoid that his neighbor has murdered his wife, he is paranoid that someone will screw up the relationship and it will end bad, or if he appears vulnerable, he may be unlovable. This is a common fear among men, due mainly to insecurity, which Jefferies obviously has a lot of. Notice Jefferies didn’t know these neighbors after all the time he lived there, but he did know them after watching them from a safe place without having to reveal any of himself or be intimate in any way.

Perhaps this is what Stella means when she says “We’ve become a race of peeping toms.”

"Not that I mind a slight case of abduction now and then, but I have tickets for the theatre this evening." HITCHCOCK MARATHON

2008-09-25T20:49:00.000-07:00

North By Northwest-1959-Alfred Hitchcock

.....................

Mistaken identity.

Hitchcock's thrilling and totally entertaining chase film North By Northwest follows Roger Thornhill. A wealthy, but ordinary man, who is mistaken for a (fake) CIA officer named George Kaplan. He ultimately is chased throughout by foreign spies. The US must decide what to do, because they created the pseudonym of George Kaplan to throw off the enemy by booking hotel rooms across the country with such a name, without ever putting anyone into them. Thornhill happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and is not believed by anyone that he hasn't been to places or done certain things.

As in most Hitchcock films, Thornhill also has a mother complex, seemingly relying on her for everything and practically treating her like a girlfriend.

The thing I find truly interesting about North By Northwest though, is in how Hitchcock strips Thornhill of his identity little by little throughout the film. It begins with just a name being called and his response making it seem like he was 'Kaplan'. Then he takes his mother to the estate to prove to her he wasn't drunk driving on purpose, but the lady of the house calls him Kaplan and tells him he had to much to drink last night.

The strips come off even more when they head back to the hotel where Kaplan is supposed to be staying and break into his room. When the maid sees Thornhill she calls him Kaplan, not having ever seen Kaplan (since he is non-existent).

As the film goes on Thornhill is framed for murder. This is what allows the CIA to realize that someone has been mistaken for their non-existent decoy.

Professor: We do nothing...That's right, nothing. Oh, we could congratulate ourselves on a marvelous stroke of good fortune. Our non-existent decoy George Kaplan created to divert suspicion from our actual agent has fortuitously become a live decoy... What can we do to save him, without endangering our own agent?...We didn't invent our non-existent man and give him the name of George Kaplan, establish elaborate behavior patterns for him, move his prop belongings in and out of hotel rooms for our own private amusement. We created George Kaplan and labored successfully to convince Vandamm that this was our own agent hot on his trail for a desperately important reason...If we make the slightest move to suggest that there is no such agent as George Kaplan, give any hint to Vandamm that he's pursuing a decoy instead of our own agent, then our agent working right under Vandamm's very nose will immediately face suspicion, exposure and assassination, like the two others who went before

To which Mrs. Findlay add's; "Goodbye Mr. Thornhill, wherever you are."

Once Thornhill reaches the train and meets Eve, he lets us in on a major part of what his character is.

Eve: Roger O. Thornhill. What does the 'O' stand for?

Roger (shrugs): Nothing. (He lights her cigarette) I'd invite you to my bedroom if I had a bedroom.

What we then happen to find here is that in Roger's heart of hearts he is an empty individual. As we see in earlier scenes where he explains to his secretary that lying isn't bad, or makes excuses when he steals a cab from someone else. His reasoning is always empty, and shows his own selfishness. This is a film about the death of the old self and moving on to be a better, more fulfilled person.

This then brings us to another Hitchcock regular. The lying woman. Eve is working for Townsend(the spy) and is only using him, but in turn, falls in love with him. Just as in other Hitchcock classics(most notably Vertigo).

It seems Roger cares not about lying to others, but when he is lied to, it hurts. He tells Eve she has "no feelings to hurt" and leaves her, until he is informed that she actually works for the CIA but is also Townsend's mistress.

I just find it fascinating the way in which Hitchcock directs his films. The themes of many of his films could be soft, slow-paced indie drama's, but he infuses them with such vigorous, dramatic relevance that draws the viewer into the story and makes the film enjoyable in two ways. Either for just entertainment purposes, or for thematic study. You can watch a Hitchcock film and see only surface and be entertained. Or you can look deeper and realize that Hitchcock has placed his heart in the center and has allowed the film's rhythm and beat to follow the beat at which his heart allows it.

North By Northwest is about finding your place in life. We, as humans, can get to a point where we just become empty and filled with routine. We make excuses for our selfishness and seem to have a good reason for anything we do, that we don't think right for others. But life has a way of stripping away the layers and making us who we are meant to be.

Thornhill goes through a struggle of identity in North By Northwest. Not just mistaken identity, but he faces an identity crisis.

It seems that maybe his mother complex has led him to be a grown man-child. He bottles everything up inside, and is afraid of being hurt. But after the layers are stripped we find a different tune being played by Thornhill.

Eve: You're supposed to be critically wounded.

Roger: I never felt more alive.

Eve: Whose side are you on?

Roger: Yours always, darling.

Not only this but during the final chase scene Thornhill spouts about his past, and how he's changed.

Roger: If we ever get out of this alive, let's go back to New York on the train together, all right?

Eve: Is that a proposition?

Roger: It's a proposal, sweetie.

Eve: What happened to the first two marriages?

Roger: My wives divorced me.

Eve: Why?

Roger: Well, I think they said I led too dull a life.

The final chase, with Mount Rushmore involved, just seems to make me think of how Thornhill and Eve and the spies were dwarfed by the monument. They are dwarfed by history, and the past. While the spies cannot survive Roger and Eve are able to make it through the past and realize that although the past is bigger than them, they are to move on from it and learn from it. Another way to look at it would be for them to also have grown to understand their significance in this life is small, but important. There are bigger things in life (the world, history, politics,etc.) than themselves (as Roger overturns his selfishness) and moves on to more rewarding things.

In typical Hitchcock fashion the title , North By Northwest, has a lot more to do with the plot than meets the eye. It relates to Thornhill's identity crisis, as it is not only not seen on a compass, but it cannot make up it's mind in which direction it is truly going. To further the theme Hitchcock constantly had his characters go north and then west. Not only this, but when Thornhill is traveling he travels north by Northwest.

Hitchcock knew how to make smart, fun films that could be enjoyed by anyone and studied for ages to come, this is no exception.

"Dying together's even more personal than living together." HITCHCOCK MARATHON

2008-09-22T08:58:00.000-07:00

Lifeboat-1944-Alfred Hitchcock

................

Lifeboat is easily read as a propaganda film. We were in World War II at the time and obviously the German’s were evil.

Upon watching I was hoping the German character would truly be noble, because it would be so unique for the time, so revolutionary. It’s just like today where we have Vantage Point or some other nameless action film with Middle Eastern terrorists. When are we going to realize that lumping a group of people together because of the foolishness of a few doesn’t do anyone any help?

Anyways, from ranting to reviewing.

Lifeboat begins with a boat being torpedoed by the Germans. The wreckage is monstrous and we get to see the aftermath. In the midst of all of this is a single lifeboat. On this lifeboat is a single woman. She seems to have no harm done to her whatsoever. Throughout the film, various people come aboard and leave, including a German Nazi. Those on the boat must try and trust the Nazi or give in to paranoia. They split on many decisions and just when you feel for the Nazi he does something horrible, but Hitchcock creates sympathy around this awful character, at least in my eyes, that I wanted to see him be good. Alas, he was not and the film was a bit worse off for it.

Lifeboat isn’t a bad film by any means. As a matter of fact it is a truly interesting character study. Much like 12 Angry Men, or The Mist, Or Dog Day Afternoon to some extent, we get characters thrown together in a tense situation forced to deal with one another. As usual it is an allegory for our lives, and the way we treat one another in the world.

The German isn’t always bad in the film. During a scene where a character needs a leg amputated, he is a trained surgeon and performs the surgery with the limited utensils they have. He doesn’t do anything wrong on purpose and actually performs it perfectly. It isn’t until later that we see this same character pushed into the ocean by the German. What is Hitch trying to tell us here? Did he have it all planned out when he was performing the surgery, or maybe he was just annoyed, or bored? The wonderful thing is that it isn’t telegraphed. We aren’t sure of every reason why every character does everything.

Something I loved about the film was the character Joe. Joe is a black man (played by Canada Lee) and although all the other characters were written by Jo Swerling, Canada Lee was able to write his own lines. This leads to some wonderful moments. One such moment happens when they are all trying to vote who the skipper of the boat is going to be, and when Joe is asked who he is going to vote for he simply replies “Do I get a vote?”

The suspense in this film is built between the tensions in the characters. Hitchcock uses the weather a lot, almost as a character itself. At their lowest moment, it suddenly rains, and they are forced to sit through it. This also brings the characters together, and some even fall in love (which seemed a bit forced to me.)

The truth is, while I did enjoy this film, and it does deserve some merit, Hitch just didn’t seem to pour his soul into this film as he did in his other classics. It seems like he had a lot he wanted to do that he kept at bay to make the audience happy. The overtones of science versus religion are also easily drawn. The German believes in science while the sympathetic, level headed Americans believe in religion. While this may have been true for the time, the way they paint the characters and the beliefs they uphold and then correlating that with the way the characters act, I am very disappointed. While I am a Christian myself, I do not stand by the belief that I am smarter than anyone who doesn’t follow my faith. I am actually positive there are many who know more than I do about any given thing, especially science. I also think we should be striving toward a world where religion and science can co-exist together, rather than being at each others throats. While this film was made over 60 years ago, I still think Hitch could have had better sense than to add silly little things such as these character traits into his film, that otherwise would have been pretty great.

In the end, I get the sense that Hitch used the medium of propaganda film to make a statement. While being paranoid is never a good thing, as shown by the way the characters act in the end when another German boards the ship, being gullible also is a terrible trait to have. The problem is we aren’t exactly shown a happy medium. Maybe there truly isn’t one. Maybe you either must be paranoid and realize that the world is a terrible place, with terrible people, or be gullible and think only the best of everyone. Could it be that when we think we are in between those two ends we are really tricking ourselves? These are the underlying questions that get pushed aside for the use of propaganda.

"If I let you change me, will that do it?" HITCHCOCK MARATHON

2008-09-21T13:25:00.000-07:00

Vertigo-1958-Alfred Hitchcock

...........

lfred Hitchcock’s films are at once entertaining and puzzling. He was able to draw things out of the cinematic language that so many directors forget, especially modern directors. All that needs to be done is a comparative look at Hitchcock’s Rear Window and DJ Caruso’s Disturbia to find out an idea can be portrayed differently through the language of cinema. Hitchcock uses subtlety and what the audience doesn’t see to create suspense and fear in the mind of the viewer.

For an example of Hitchcock and enigmatic I offer you Vertigo. A film that didn’t catch on in its own time, but is now required viewing for anyone interested in film.

If you don’t already know, Vertigo is the story of Detective John ‘Scottie’ Ferguson, played by Jimmy Stewart. He suffers an accident while on duty as a detective and is imbued with a case of vertigo. He retires from the force, but is asked by a friend (Gavin Elster) to follow his wife Madeleine, played by Kim Novak, to see where she goes all the time. He says she’ll be gone for hours and return and say she didn’t remember where she went. We find out she supposedly is being possessed by the her great grandma, Carlotta Valdes. After some convincing, Scottie, still hesitant agrees to help his old friend out. When it turns out that Madeleine’s real name is Judy and it was all a scam, Scottie tries to change Judy into Madeleine(his dream) and in the end realizes that life may really be “nothing but a dream”. What follows leaves the viewer asking what his vertigo has to do with the film, until the two key scenes where characters die.

The first thing to notice again is Hitchcock’s use of subtlety. When we open and see Scottie hanging from the side of the building and his partner falls to the ground and dies, we don’t get a shot of him getting back up, we only see him hanging and then are brought directly into the next scene, which seemingly has little to do with the incident we just witnessed.

When Scottie is chasing Madeleine up the tower and suffers vertigo and cannot reach the top, we see a body fall, but we aren’t told how it fell until later. Did she kill herself? Did she slip? Was she pushed? These linger in the mind of the viewer. It is thought that she jumped on her own volition but it is never thoroughly examined until later on in the film. Here Hitchcock only shows us Scottie’s reaction to Madeleine falling(or so we think) and then he runs to his car and leaves. We aren’t told where he goes or what he does afterwards, next we see him he is in court.

Having examined the tiniest bit of Hitchcock’s filmmaking technique, not even bringing up the pan/zoom shot he created specifically for this film that has been used by every subsequent director in the history of filmmaking, I cannot help but wonder what this film is trying to say.

The Woman:

The first step to examining Vertigo lies in the woman of the film.

They are all blonde and they all play different roles in John’s life.

The first woman we meet in Vertigo is Marjorie ‘Midge’ Wood.

Midge-

Midge is Scotties only seemingly real friend in the film. Gavin uses Scottie for his own personal gain, but Midge just enjoys talking to Scottie and trying to help him out.

What Midge ultimately represents is a mother figure for Scottie.

Scottie: I'm a man of independent means as the saying goes. Fairly independent.

Midge: Hmm, mmm. Well, why don't you go away for a while?

Scottie: You mean to forget? Oh now, Midge, don't be so motherly. I'm not gonna crack up.

She seems to be trying to help him mature as well. The scene in which they discuss the bra she is working on she discuss’ how he’s a big boy he needs to know these things.

What happens next in the arc of Midge is a little unexpected, but needed. We eventually find out, from little shots of her, that she is in love with Scottie. Which reminds me of another Hitchcock film, Psycho, where the mother and son have a very oddly close relationship. This only further becomes a problem when Scottie falls in love with Madeleine. We see her jealousy in a discussion between Scottie and Midge when she first hears of what Scottie has been up to.

Midge: Is she pretty?

Scottie: Carlotta?

Midge: No, not Carlotta. Elster's wife.

Scottie: Yes, I guess you'd consider that she would...

Midge: I think I'll go and take a look at that portrait.

Furthermore she sees Madeleine exiting Scottie’s house after he rescued her from San Francisco Bay, and the jealousy escalates.

Midge: Well now, Johnny-O. Was it a ghost? Was it fun?

We can feel in her turn that she isn’t to happy with what has transpired and in a subsequent scene get further evidence of her longing for Scottie.

Scottie walks into Midge’s place and they plan on having dinner, while Midge tells him she took up painting, which was her first love(which hints back to her love of Scottie, because she painted the picture for him). When he looks at the picture it is her face on Carlotta Valdes’ body. Scottie leaves upset. This also represents her longing to be Madeleine because Scottie is in love with her. Midge is to Scottie what Scottie is to Madeleine

Lastly, Midge refers to herself as Scottie's mother in the Psychiatric ward scene.

Midge: Oh, Johnnie, Johnnie. Please try. Try, Johnnie. You're not lost. Mother's here...John
O, you don't even know I'm here, do you?

Madeleine-

What Madeleine ultimately represents is Scotties dream woman. We constantly see her in soft colors and seemingly surrounded by a glossy, fogginess. Scottie becomes obsessed with her from the get go, because she isn’t real. He falls in love with her, but does he even know her? He says things like “Once you’ve saved a persons life, your responsible for it forever.” But what exactly does he mean by these things? What has he saved her from? Yes he saved her from the Bay, but is he going to save her from Galvin, from her “illness”. Furthermore, she seems to fall in love with him just as easily, while knowing just as little about him. Are they each other’s dream?

When Madeleine comments about history repeating itself it is a comment on the film and how things will repeat themselves. The women in Scotties life, the longing for love where it cannot be found, the death of Madeleine and the death of Judy are all signs of repetition.

Even when Scottie and Madeleine kiss it is so obviously staged, it is as if God was making a play, with the waves crashing behind them with each kiss, it’s just so perfect.

When the end of Madeleine approaches and she is running for the tower, Scottie yells, “No one possesses you.” What we may be able to gleam from this is Scottie’s ignorance to what is actually going on, or that no one but him can possess her. This is his dream getting away from him, just like his job did. He loses them both because of his illness. Or might they represent the same thing.

Judy-

Judy is reality. She is a pretty, brunette girl, who is a little shy and not as easily taken as Madeleine. But Scottie pursues her because he reminds her so much of Madeleine, his dream. He so desperately wants to relive his dream that he will go to any lengths to change her to make her the way he wants her to be.
While she reluctantly agrees to go out with Scottie we discover that Judy was Madeleine while she stares in the mirror contemplating what had just happened. She only wants Scottie to love her for her, as she loves Scottie. But once Scottie arrives and they start dating, she becomes a possession to him. He first wants to find the dress that Madeleine wore, and then he wants her to dye her hair blonde as Madeleine's. Is Judy the portrait of the average woman, she feels like to please her man that she must be something she isn’t.

Judy is constantly seen in front of mirrors, whether it is when she is contemplating being with Scottie, or trying on what Scottie wants. It seems to always be when she isn’t being herself, but a mirrored image of herself.

When Judy finally makes the full transformation and she emerges for Scottie to see, we see her as we first saw Madeleine. The shot and her movement is precisely the same. Scottie is again enthralled with her, until he notices she is wearing the same necklace that Madeleine had. It was a one of a kind necklace that she received as a hand down from her family, he realizes this by looking at Judy in the mirror and seeing who she really is. Upon his realization, he decides to go back to the scene of the crime. Where his heart was broken and dreams shattered. When he tells Judy his reasoning, he is the one who is acting this time. The roles seem to have reversed. She is unwillingly going up the steps as he is making her, as it could be seen that Madeleine did to him in a sense.

When they reach the top of the tower and Scottie tells her he knew after he saw the necklace she is frightened, and although Scottie is hostile, nothing seems to be going wrong until a nun comes from the shadows. In the shadows the nun is shaped as the grim reaper, which because of Judy’s guilt, causes her to jump. Scottie again loses the girl. Could she have really been his dream girl if he let her? It lingers on.

……….

What most stands out in Vertigo to me is the way Scottie goes from innocence to obsession to possession. The way the character shifts happens so seamlessly that it is hardly noticed at first. Some have said the woman in this film represent the typical Hitchcock woman; Blonde, beautiful, and mysterious. Could Hitchcock have been facing his own obsessions with this film. I like to think that directors choose, or write their work out of personal identification with that work. The easiest way to draw the line to Hitchcock is through the woman, as he always had a strong, blonde female lead.

Interestingly enough Scottie is obviously cured of his vertigo in the end because he is able to look over the edge and doesn’t seem slightly fazed by it at all. Could this mean that through the death of Judy, he is now able to move on from the past and onto something new?

I think a major underlying message of Vertigo is that fear is the cause of most death. Scottie’s fear of heights was hindering him, and led him into the situations he was in with Madeleine, Judy, Galvin. These things would not have happened had Scottie not been afraid of heights. The same goes for Judy, her fear of being without Scottie led her to her own death. But mainly her guilt and fear of what might happen caused her death when she thought she was seeing the grim reaper. Her fear led her to jump and lose her life, and it was foolish. Because of this maybe Scottie was able to get over his vertigo by realizing that being afraid of life only leads to death.

"Report back to me when it makes sense."

2008-09-20T12:18:00.000-07:00

The Coen Bro's are known for their quirky characters, off the wall plot twists and over the top style, So that might be the very reason that they seem to be almost phoning it in with their latest effort Burn After Reading. Don't get me wrong, there is plenty to like about this film; mainly some hilarious dialogue and situations these idiotic characters throw themselves into.

Upon seeing the trailer for Burn After Reading, it's easy to think this is going to be a goofy comedy, but what struck me was the way the actors were playing their parts. With the exception of Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand it seems all the actors are playing this thing totally straight. Sure what they say or do might be totally off the wall, but they don't seem to realize it. This to me, is a strength of the film. Too often are we given comedic actors playing for laughs.

Burn After Reading's plot follows Osborne Cox(played with bitterness by John Malkovich) as he is demoted, and subsequently quits his job in the CIA. He begins writing a memoir about his working days, but when his wife, Katie(Tilda Swinton), is looking to file for divorce, she must gather his things and bring them to the divorce attorney to make sure she gets her share. Due to a secretaries mishap the disc with Osbourne's notes for the memoir ends up at Hardbodies Fitness Center, where Linda Litzke and Chad Feldheimer(Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt) work as fitness trainers. They find the CD and decide to bribe Osbourne to get some money so Linda can get some plastic surgery done. Somewhere in there Harry Pfarrer is sleeping with both Kaite and Linda(not at the same time).

The Film Doctor had an interesting theory on The Coen's ideology behind this film, and I think he is very much right. They seem to be satirizing American middle aged folk. They are body obsessed, money obsessed, self obsessed people who are easily amused and boring. Could they be satirizing themselves, their own films? It's hard to say. But just the thought of Linda and Chad taking the disc to the Russians is hilarious. The Coen's are either focusing on the fears of the new Russia and a new cold war, or on the stupidity of the characters to think that Russia is as big of a threat as they used to be.

In turn, Burn After Reading is very off balance. At once a character will be shot and killed, and it'll be cold blooded and messy, and then just minutes later we are expected to be laughing again. This can work, in fact it does in other Coen works like Fargo and No Country For Old Men, but here, where we are being sold a comedy with some drama, it feels they forgot how to mix the two as perfectly as they have in the past. It is a disappointment to say the least, but still a Superior film to a lot of what Hollywood has to offer.

I'm Going Back In Time...

2008-09-19T11:27:00.000-07:00

Bring on Huey Lewis cause I'm going back to 1968 with Raymond Benson. I was invited to be a part of a series that Benson is doing over at Britannica where he is doing analysis' of his top ten films from forty years ago. I will be commenting on each of his posts with my own two cents. If you care to follow my comments or join along with the series just follow the link.

Hitchcock is coming up soon, along with Burn After Reading.

"Always make the audience suffer as much as possible."

2008-09-16T12:32:00.000-07:00

I know you all have been anxiously awaiting this moment, but my Hitchcock marathon has finally arrived. I have a few comments about my study first though.

I have placed on the side the scheduled dates for each film's analysis. If they do not happen to appear on that date expect them a day later, and if that happens I will try and post two that day if another is due that exact day.

I was unable to get my hands on Notorious or Rebecca which makes me upset since those were the two I was most looking forward to seeing.

Notorious will be analyzed by a guest writer, TS from Screen Savour has agreed to do so, and it'll be in correlation with his own Hitchcock marathon he is doing in October. I'm glad I beat him to the punch. =)

I really recommend checking out his blog, he does great write ups of many classic films, and puts me to shame.

As for Rebecca if someone wants to send me an essay on that film, I will gladly post it, otherwise there will be no write up on it.

So starting this Sunday(the 21st) with Vertigo and going through to October 8th with my look at how I feel all of these films reflect parts of Hitchcock and why he is considered such a legend.

A review of Burn After Reading should be expected soon, as well as the marathon.

" And I Guess That's Your Accomplice in The Wood Chipper."

2008-09-04T21:07:00.000-07:00

So a friend of mine was explaining to me how he is so disappointed, because every movie he was looking forward to seeing this year has now passed. I laughed, and said, "you have got to be kidding me? All the movies I wanted to see are just now about to start playing." He asked me which ones I wanted to see and my head grew blank. What did I want to see? Was I wrong and just thinking because its Oscar season that good films would be on the horizon.

I am glad to say that I have checked the facts and I was right, there are plenty of movies I am foaming at the mouth to see.
Burn After Reading/Coen Bros

I have been a Coen Brothers fan for quite some time now, but haven't enjoyed many of their films in the theatre. I was in awe when I saw No Country For Old Men in the theatre, and although this one looks more in the vain of Raising Arizona(which I love) I am extremely excited for it. Just look at Brad Pitt's hair. I would pay 10 bucks to see that hair. The trailer looks hilarious, and the Coen's always offer some nice surprises in their scripts.

Miracle At St. Anna/Spike Lee

I actually have seen very little of Spike Lee's films. This isn't to say I don't want to, just haven't gotten around to watching them. Do The Right Thing though, is one of the most emotional pieces of cinema I have watched and I am just a pudgy suburban pasty white dude. Anyways, I think this films plot seems really well integrated into the things Lee usually explores (race, culture) and real human based drama. The cast looks great as well, gotta love Joseph Gordon Levitt, Derek Luke, John Turturro, the list goes on...

Eagle Eye/DJ Caruso

I thought Disturbia was decent at best, but showed some glimpses of really good film making. The trailer for Eagle Eye shows more glimpses than the entirety of Disturbia. Caruso seems to want to follow Hitchcock's films pretty closely though, because I am sensing a lot of North By Northwest here, which isn't a bad thing as long as he does it right.
Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist/Peter Sollett

This doesn't really look outstandingly good or oscar worthy at all, but it does look like a fun movie. I would see it for the sheer presence of Michael Cera, especially to catch a glimpse of him out of Apatow/Arrested Development camps. The trailer has a feel of a sweet romantic comedy, and good music.Religulous/Larry Charles

So Larry Charles directed Borat, which was good, but not scathing and biting as it was purported. He is now here with Bill Maher and they are sending up religion. As a Christian I really disagree with a lot of what is actually being said here, but I too am skeptical of religion and I found the trailer to be humorous, while also trying a little to hard. Just as in Borat it looks like Charles is out to shock rather than show truth and honesty. There were glimpses of truth and honest in Borat, and from the reviews so far it seems this one is much more honest and thought provoking.

W./Oliver Stone

So I am gonna drop another film cred bomb. I haven't watched many Oliver Stone films either. They always seem a little too political, but I have recently grown an interest in them, and while this one doesnt seem to be setting itself up for the classic status that many of his previous films have it does look like an interesting, and humorous leap into the enigma that is George W.
Synecdoche, New York/Charlie Kaufman

How could anyone not want to see Kaufman's directorial debut. It has anything you could ask for in a film; a Kaufman penned script, his directing, PS Hoffman, a friggin crazy plot and ALOT of imagination. This may be my MOST anticipated. Note the caps. =)

Zach and Miri Make A Porno/Kevin Smith

As a few of you may know, I am a pretty big Kevin Smith fan. I am no apologist though, I understand he isn't the most innovative or creative director in the biz. I have an affinity for his films because to me they resonate deeply. I can relate to every Kevin Smith film better than most any other film I have seen. I know that he isn't the most popular choice for a favorite director, and I wouldn't exactly call him mine, but I do love him quite a bit.

On a note related to the movie, the trailer didn't make me laugh as much as I would have thought, and I am hoping Smith does more character and relational humor than gross out humor. I am glad Elizabeth Banks is a part of this for she is a talented and underrated(until recently) actress that I admire, and of course mr. Rogen's involvement peaks interest since Smith rarely works with "outsiders" to the Viewaskewniverse. Yeah, I am a nerd.

The Soloist/Joe Wright

Do I really need to explain why I have a cinematic boner for this?

The Road/John Hillcoat

Cormac McCarthy is of course, now famous for No Country For Old Men, but his most popular book(even Oprah recommends it, which normally isn't a good sign.) The Road is now being adapted and from the plot synopsis, pictures and cast it looks/sounds like the saddest movie this side of Schindlers List, but I don't mind crying like a baby, which I probably will. Don't judge me. =)
Milk/Gus Van Sant

Go ahead and watch the trailer and then try and tell me you aren't interested. I get goosebumps from the trailer alone. Sean Penn looks amazing, as does James Franco, Josh Brolin and Emile Hirsch. Mr. Van Sant, where do I cash the check?The Brothers Bloom/Rian Johnson

If someone were to ask me who I thought this film and Rian Johnson's previous effort Brick were made by, I might think, at least for a second that those darn Coen's were at it again. Rian Johnson seems to be the brightest young director working today, and I couldn't be more excited to see this.The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button/David Fincher

Is it just me or is Fincher going home with some awards this year?

Other Notable films:
Frost/Nixon
Slumdog Millionare
City Of Ember
Role Models
Bolt
Body Of Lies
Changeling
The Day The Earth Stood Still
Revolutionary Road
Valkyrie
Righteous Kill
Appaloosa
Choke
How to Lose Friends and Alienate People
Defiance
Doubt
Yes Man
The Spirit

I know a lot of those could go either way, but I am excited for them all in some way, shape or form.

Let me know what your list would be, and where I am wrong.