Happy New Year everyone! How many of you who are familiar with this movie remember that it revolves around New Year's Eve? It seems fitting for me to use this movie as a way of closing out 2011, the first year of this movie blog. I appreciate the reads that I have gotten in the past 9 months. My first review was "The King's Speech", after it won Best Picture. I am enjoying blogging a lot, and have loved the feedback I have gotten from you all. I guess I will keep going until someone out there begs me to stop.
What's another way to know that a film is great? I think it says something about the quality of a film if one has very little in common with the main characters, and still finds so much with which to identify. We are all humans after all, and even when we have different ethics, value and culture, there is still a lot of room for familiarity.
This works well with "When Harry Met Sally", for its characters lead very different lives from the lives that my wife and I live. My wife and I were each others' first love, while Harry and Sally have had many other loves in their lives. In spite of that, there is so much with which Steph and I can identify in this movie. What man does not watch as Harry deconstructs men to Sally and nod in some sort of familiarity? What person doesn't look at this couple and see so much humanity? True, there is an idyllic quality that permeates so much of Nora Ephron's (screenwriter=she also wrote "Sleepless in Seattle" and "You've Got Mail") work. New York always looks down right pastoral in her work. But in spite of the fanciful nature of the New York we are given, the film is grounded in a lot of reality.
New Year's Eve plays an important role in this movie for several reasons. The ending of the movie is set on New Year's Eve. The fact that both Harry and Sally find it necessary to have someone to be with on New Year's Eve speaks to the yearning that most people have for companionship. Steph and I have returned to this film several times over the years, both because it makes us laugh, and it warms our hearts. This is truly a romantic comedy for adults. It speaks frankly about the differences between male and female sexuality. Yet again, the fact that the characters in this movie have different baggage from me does not detract from its impact. The most famous scene of the movie (to those of you who have not seen it, I will not give it away---but you'll know which scene it is when it happens) is completely preposterous, but it makes a point in an uproarious way. Men and women approach sex and sexuality differently. Whether the differences come from evolution, creation, or simply social conditioning is beside the point. The point remains that there are differences, and they are a source of frustration, humor and exhilaration.
Maybe Steph and I will watch this movie tonight. The movie brilliantly weaves in interviews of older couples (some who have been married for many years) reflecting on their respective courtships. These interviews act as parentheses to the story of Harry and Sally. I think that these couples represent the kind of relationship for which Harry and Sally (and maybe all of us) yearn. Both Harry and Sally are not at peace. They attempt to find companionship in other ways and places, but in the end they only seem to find the companionship that they want in each other. New Year's Eve provides a fitting back drop to that, as so many reflect on the past and look to the future. I will gladly spend the waning hours of 2011 with my wife of almost 12 years, and I will look forward with hope to what the 13th year will bring.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Saturday, December 24, 2011
It's a Wonderful Life
This is one of the most complicated movies I have ever seen. At first glance, it doesn't seem that way. It pops every year at Christmas time, and the advertisements always play up its sentimentality. The ending of the film certainly has that element, and it should not be overlooked. But what the ads do not tell us is how dark this movie is, and how paradoxical its protagonist is.
For the few of you out there who have not seen this classic tale, here's a brief summary:
Meet George Bailey (James Stewart). He is a husband and father of 4. He lives in a big, old, drafty house on the edge of the small town of Bedford Falls. His wife (Donna Reed) has been refurbishing the old house for years. In his view, he has never made a choice in his life that he wanted to make. He had to stay home rather than travel because his father passed away and he had to settle affairs with the family business. After that, he had to give up going to college so he could keep the family business going. After that, he gets married almost against his will, due to finally acknowledging his love for Mary. After that, children come along, and his dreams of traveling and building skyscrapers are taken from him. When the family business and his life are in jeopardy due to a clerical error at work, all of the choices he hasn't had over the years come to a head, and he becomes so depressed over the state of his life that he contemplates suicide so that the family can be saved on his life insurance policy. Enter Clarence the Angel. Clarence saves George from his suicide attempt and then shows him his hometown as it would have been if he had never been born.
This is the hook of the movie. The ending is one of the emotional zeniths of the film pantheon, as George Bailey realizes he does have a wonderful life. What makes the movie complicated to me is how selfish and full of rage George Bailey is. This is easy to gloss over as we come to the end. However, if the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, Mary Bailey may want to hire a therapist for her husband. As a husband and father who has had to deal with my own share of shifting ground and changing priorities, I can identify with some of George's pain. But when he is willing to take his own life, going nuts and smashing his models in front of his kids, there is a tension and a disturbance that is rare in movies. There is a harsh reality to this movie. In spite of the happy ending, George Bailey still will have to deal with an unfulfilling career and a life where many of his visions go unfulfilled. Christmas brings him a shallow hope, as the charity of the Yuletide saves him, and his community rallies around him. As a viewer, I hope that this spiritual experience he has had will catapult him out of his resentment, but the real world calls to all of us, and we know very well he may have times when life catches up with him again.
For those of us who use this time of year to celebrate the birth of Christ, we know that Christmas is more than a family time, or a time to remember what is important in life. In fact, for many, this time of year does not bring happiness, but it can bring hope. It is a time we can remember that God came in the flesh into a horribly screwed up world, and gave us reason for hope. He never claimed he would fix everything, and he never claimed he would make life easy. Instead, he walked through life as a human being, watched close friends and family suffer and die, saw almost everyone he loved abandon him, and took upon himself all of our sin and wrong doing. As he left this earth, he promised to walk through life with us and chisel away at our hard hearts until we are made more like Him. God uses communities like Bedford Falls to help people through hard times. I have no doubt that communities are a great gift to us all. But beyond that, there lies the central message that Christians observe each year. We reflect on this crazy story about a child born in Bethlehem who grew up to say some radical stuff. What we do with Him, His life, and all of his teachings (not just the ones we like), is important. If there is indeed a hope in this world that seems so forsaken by God at times, it is the notion that God left his supposed distant existence. In leaving his place in heaven, he suffered the injustices of this world for which we often blame Him. He also walked among others who suffered. He loved them, and offered Himself to them. In a world devoid of hope comes this person. Into Bedford Falls comes a presence that dwells on a different plain than money, wars, civic squabbles, family, and greed.
I wonder what George Bailey would think about that.
For the few of you out there who have not seen this classic tale, here's a brief summary:
Meet George Bailey (James Stewart). He is a husband and father of 4. He lives in a big, old, drafty house on the edge of the small town of Bedford Falls. His wife (Donna Reed) has been refurbishing the old house for years. In his view, he has never made a choice in his life that he wanted to make. He had to stay home rather than travel because his father passed away and he had to settle affairs with the family business. After that, he had to give up going to college so he could keep the family business going. After that, he gets married almost against his will, due to finally acknowledging his love for Mary. After that, children come along, and his dreams of traveling and building skyscrapers are taken from him. When the family business and his life are in jeopardy due to a clerical error at work, all of the choices he hasn't had over the years come to a head, and he becomes so depressed over the state of his life that he contemplates suicide so that the family can be saved on his life insurance policy. Enter Clarence the Angel. Clarence saves George from his suicide attempt and then shows him his hometown as it would have been if he had never been born.
This is the hook of the movie. The ending is one of the emotional zeniths of the film pantheon, as George Bailey realizes he does have a wonderful life. What makes the movie complicated to me is how selfish and full of rage George Bailey is. This is easy to gloss over as we come to the end. However, if the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, Mary Bailey may want to hire a therapist for her husband. As a husband and father who has had to deal with my own share of shifting ground and changing priorities, I can identify with some of George's pain. But when he is willing to take his own life, going nuts and smashing his models in front of his kids, there is a tension and a disturbance that is rare in movies. There is a harsh reality to this movie. In spite of the happy ending, George Bailey still will have to deal with an unfulfilling career and a life where many of his visions go unfulfilled. Christmas brings him a shallow hope, as the charity of the Yuletide saves him, and his community rallies around him. As a viewer, I hope that this spiritual experience he has had will catapult him out of his resentment, but the real world calls to all of us, and we know very well he may have times when life catches up with him again.
For those of us who use this time of year to celebrate the birth of Christ, we know that Christmas is more than a family time, or a time to remember what is important in life. In fact, for many, this time of year does not bring happiness, but it can bring hope. It is a time we can remember that God came in the flesh into a horribly screwed up world, and gave us reason for hope. He never claimed he would fix everything, and he never claimed he would make life easy. Instead, he walked through life as a human being, watched close friends and family suffer and die, saw almost everyone he loved abandon him, and took upon himself all of our sin and wrong doing. As he left this earth, he promised to walk through life with us and chisel away at our hard hearts until we are made more like Him. God uses communities like Bedford Falls to help people through hard times. I have no doubt that communities are a great gift to us all. But beyond that, there lies the central message that Christians observe each year. We reflect on this crazy story about a child born in Bethlehem who grew up to say some radical stuff. What we do with Him, His life, and all of his teachings (not just the ones we like), is important. If there is indeed a hope in this world that seems so forsaken by God at times, it is the notion that God left his supposed distant existence. In leaving his place in heaven, he suffered the injustices of this world for which we often blame Him. He also walked among others who suffered. He loved them, and offered Himself to them. In a world devoid of hope comes this person. Into Bedford Falls comes a presence that dwells on a different plain than money, wars, civic squabbles, family, and greed.
I wonder what George Bailey would think about that.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Love Actually
One of the things I have trouble admitting to people is how much I like "All I Want for Christmas Is You", by Mariah Carey. When I think about it, there is very little about the song I should like. It is drivel. It is cotton candy. It is completely devoid of depth. But I like the song very much. I rock out to it ever friggin' time I hear it. Maybe "Love Actually" has something to do with why I like it. This movie depends on evocation of a lot of nostalgia, and music taps into our sense of nostalgia. Steph and I first saw this movie 8 years ago. We attended a screening of it at a theater that had special screenings for parents with children. We enjoyed it then (adult content and all), and we watch it every year in December. It is a patchwork of many stories all designed to give the viewer a spectrum of what love is and how different people experience it as Christmas approaches. But it is also a comedy, and there are some riotous moments.
There are so many stories in the film that the viewer inevitably ends up clinging to one over others. For Steph and I, our favorite story line is one of the sad ones. Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson play a married couple who have a very comfortable, familiar and loving relationship. Rickman's character begins receiving explicit advances from a young lady at work. He does not run the other way, and what comes of his crisis makes up the story of the two of them. It is fair to say that these two outstanding actors could breathe life into the phone book, but their work here is extraordinary because of its truth.
The movie is not perfect. There is at least one story line that I find a waste of time (ask me if you are interested). Another storyline involves two adult film doubles who make small talk while performing scenes naked. In spite of the ribald nature of their scenes, the ultimate effect is actually quaint, as later they are shy about even kissing on a date, even though they have been doing much more exotic things while "working". The funniest story line is the one that opens the film. Rock icon Billy Mac is recording a horrible Christmas song, and his plot line follows his attempt to make this single a hit. Anyone who knows anything about rock history will find a lot to laugh at in this portrayal of an oversexed, strung out aging rock star. The most poignant story is the one involving Laura Linney. Laura Linney brings amazing talent to any work she does, and here she portrays a woman in love whose desire to pursue her wishes keeps being interrupted by a complication. Another plot line involves Hugh Grant as the Prime Minister, who must come to terms with the attraction he feels for a young woman who works for him at 10 Downey Street. All of these stories are played out over a London at Christmas which seems more like a small town than one of the largest cities in the world. That is part of the movie's charm. It feels intimate and close, and it truly makes the viewer feel warm, even though some of the story lines seemingly only exist for the purpose of getting laughs or dabbling in comical sex.
The truth that shines though in the movie is what brings Steph and I back, as well as the laughs. Love is a complicated thing, and sometimes pursuing what we think is love hurts those we love the most. It is always important to remember that the greatest love is self sacrificial-something which is lost on some of these characters, though not on all of them.
There are so many stories in the film that the viewer inevitably ends up clinging to one over others. For Steph and I, our favorite story line is one of the sad ones. Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson play a married couple who have a very comfortable, familiar and loving relationship. Rickman's character begins receiving explicit advances from a young lady at work. He does not run the other way, and what comes of his crisis makes up the story of the two of them. It is fair to say that these two outstanding actors could breathe life into the phone book, but their work here is extraordinary because of its truth.
The movie is not perfect. There is at least one story line that I find a waste of time (ask me if you are interested). Another storyline involves two adult film doubles who make small talk while performing scenes naked. In spite of the ribald nature of their scenes, the ultimate effect is actually quaint, as later they are shy about even kissing on a date, even though they have been doing much more exotic things while "working". The funniest story line is the one that opens the film. Rock icon Billy Mac is recording a horrible Christmas song, and his plot line follows his attempt to make this single a hit. Anyone who knows anything about rock history will find a lot to laugh at in this portrayal of an oversexed, strung out aging rock star. The most poignant story is the one involving Laura Linney. Laura Linney brings amazing talent to any work she does, and here she portrays a woman in love whose desire to pursue her wishes keeps being interrupted by a complication. Another plot line involves Hugh Grant as the Prime Minister, who must come to terms with the attraction he feels for a young woman who works for him at 10 Downey Street. All of these stories are played out over a London at Christmas which seems more like a small town than one of the largest cities in the world. That is part of the movie's charm. It feels intimate and close, and it truly makes the viewer feel warm, even though some of the story lines seemingly only exist for the purpose of getting laughs or dabbling in comical sex.
The truth that shines though in the movie is what brings Steph and I back, as well as the laughs. Love is a complicated thing, and sometimes pursuing what we think is love hurts those we love the most. It is always important to remember that the greatest love is self sacrificial-something which is lost on some of these characters, though not on all of them.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Elf
What a lovable piece of fluff this is! I was prompted to revisit it by my cousin, and it came up in some other conversation as well with a good friend on Facebook. After watching it, I instantly began incorporating a favorite line ("You sit on a throne of lies") into my daily conversation. This is, after all, what I do. I take amusing lines from pop culture and try to make myself look cool through random quotations throughout my day. It's a good life.
The plot involves a young man (Will Ferrell) who was left at an orphanage as an infant, and ends up being adopted by an elf in Santa's workshop (you see, the little guy crawls into Santa's gift bag on Christmas Eve and finds himself at the North Pole). Buddy the elf's adopted father (Bob Newhart) finally breaks the news to his son that Buddy is not an elf, but a human. Santa and Buddy's dad reveal the identity of Buddy's biological father. He is an executive who works in the Empire State Building (James Caan), and he is on the "naughty list." As Buddy tries to navigate living in New York, he is helped by Jovie (Zoey Deschanel), a reluctant department store elf who finds herself charmed by this childlike man who comes from the North Pole. Together, they must find a solution to a growing energy crisis: since so few people believe in Santa anymore, his sleigh (being powered by Christmas Spirit, of course) isn't working like it used to.
The movie works because it is funny. The fish out of water story works, and Will Ferrell brings the kind of devotion to the character that kind of reminds me of Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein. He dives into this role. With that in mind, one either likes Will Ferrell's brand of humor or doesn't. I have always been a fan of his, so I like the humor here. His style is over the top, but still PG rated, so I could watch it with the kids. The boys loved the prolonged belch at the table (some things seem to be ingrained), and all of the kids loved the fanciful story.
It is nice to have another entertaining holiday film in the arsenal. Does it represent everything that I think this time of year represents? Of course it doesn't. But it does have a cuteness to it that is charming, it has Bob Newhart in an Elf suit, it features NYC at Christmas, and it's got some great one liners. In short, it is worth seeing for its laughs and its mood. Enjoy :)
The plot involves a young man (Will Ferrell) who was left at an orphanage as an infant, and ends up being adopted by an elf in Santa's workshop (you see, the little guy crawls into Santa's gift bag on Christmas Eve and finds himself at the North Pole). Buddy the elf's adopted father (Bob Newhart) finally breaks the news to his son that Buddy is not an elf, but a human. Santa and Buddy's dad reveal the identity of Buddy's biological father. He is an executive who works in the Empire State Building (James Caan), and he is on the "naughty list." As Buddy tries to navigate living in New York, he is helped by Jovie (Zoey Deschanel), a reluctant department store elf who finds herself charmed by this childlike man who comes from the North Pole. Together, they must find a solution to a growing energy crisis: since so few people believe in Santa anymore, his sleigh (being powered by Christmas Spirit, of course) isn't working like it used to.
The movie works because it is funny. The fish out of water story works, and Will Ferrell brings the kind of devotion to the character that kind of reminds me of Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein. He dives into this role. With that in mind, one either likes Will Ferrell's brand of humor or doesn't. I have always been a fan of his, so I like the humor here. His style is over the top, but still PG rated, so I could watch it with the kids. The boys loved the prolonged belch at the table (some things seem to be ingrained), and all of the kids loved the fanciful story.
It is nice to have another entertaining holiday film in the arsenal. Does it represent everything that I think this time of year represents? Of course it doesn't. But it does have a cuteness to it that is charming, it has Bob Newhart in an Elf suit, it features NYC at Christmas, and it's got some great one liners. In short, it is worth seeing for its laughs and its mood. Enjoy :)
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Star Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Clones
Casting, casting, casting.
It turns out this is important. I watched this movie for the first time with my kids, and just like with "Phantom Menace", this entry in the Star Wars series looked better through their eyes. I liked it the first time I saw it back in 2002, but felt that the love story between Anakin and Padme was lacking. Having watched the movie again, it holds its own in the mythology of Star Wars. The overall arc of the six episode story is so strong that it can survive a few bumps in the road. Watching this movie again, I was struck by several good things, and two blaring shortcomings.
First, let's cover the good stuff :). The movie, as I mentioned, continues to add wonderful texture to the greater story. It follows the adventures of Obi Wan, Anakin and Padme as the Galactic Republic becomes more corrupt and travels further down the road to being the Empire. Little things are seen here that add so much depth to the world of Star Wars. We are introduced here to the Lars moisture farm on Tatooine which figures prominently in Episodes 3 and 4. We are introduced to the clones for the first time, which are referenced in the original trilogy. We see the back story for Boba Fett here as well, a character who would end up being one of the most popular of the series (for reasons which still escape me). We see the beginnings of what will become of the Empire. We get to see Yoda training young Jedis (as a side note, I think Yoda really is the star of this movie-the insight we get into his character is the movie's strongest point). We also get to see the complicated relationship between Obi Wan and Anakin, and why Obi Wan can look back with regret that he tried to train Anakin. The movie also has a dynamite light saber sequence at the end, which gave many of us one of the most satisfying moments of all 6 movies.
The action never lets up, and the visuals are indeed stunning. I thought that the most stunning visual comes when Obi Wan goes to Jango Fett's home planet. Rarely has a setting so clearly evoked the moral ambiguity of a place. The planet which houses the future clone army is shrouded in mystery-it does not appear in the Jedi archives, and it is a stormy, murky place which seems soaked with corruption. The other great visual setting is the capital planet of Courscant, which reminds the viewer of any metropolis of our world, be it Tokyo, London or New York. The imagination captured in the visuals is wonderful, as George Lucas gives us vistas and visions.
As for the shortcomings, I noticed 2 main ones. First, the strength of the story is compromised to me by how out of touch the Jedi council seems to be. It is one thing for them to be deceived by the Sith Lord, for to err is human. But it is outside believability that the characters of the Jedi Council would trust Anakin to carry out the vital missions he has been given. I had trouble believing that the wise Jedi council would actually trust this unstable young Padowan the way that they do. The Jedi end up coming off as incompetent. In the end, Star Wars fans know their fate, but I think the story could have been more believable. That transitions nicely into the other shortcoming. The love story between Anakin and Padme is lacking, partly due to the character of Anakin. Dialogue has never been a strong suit for these films, but the other films seem to have actors who can pull off the campy dialogue and make it work. Here, the actor who plays Anakin never seems to be in sync with the tone of the dialogue. I have never seen Hayden Christiansen in anything else, but I am sure he is a fine actor to be able to even be in competition for this role (just like any baseball player is exceptional if they make it to the major leagues). It just seems like his rhythm is off, while Natalie Portman is able to pull off the wooden dialogue. While the movie overall is a strong piece of storytelling, these two shortcomings take away some authenticity, and leave the story less satisfying then some of the other entries in the series.
But that is neither here nor there. I am not the only one to suggest what I have suggested. My admiration for these films remains. In fact, my admiration has grown as I have watched these movies with my kids. My kids simply love the story. As such, these movies can be seen in that light. All 6 movies contribute to the overall story. This is a story that can be lived and relived. The last question that I have to grapple with is this: when should I let my kids watch Episode 3? The scene involving the younglings' demise alone would be enough to depress my daughter for months.
It turns out this is important. I watched this movie for the first time with my kids, and just like with "Phantom Menace", this entry in the Star Wars series looked better through their eyes. I liked it the first time I saw it back in 2002, but felt that the love story between Anakin and Padme was lacking. Having watched the movie again, it holds its own in the mythology of Star Wars. The overall arc of the six episode story is so strong that it can survive a few bumps in the road. Watching this movie again, I was struck by several good things, and two blaring shortcomings.
First, let's cover the good stuff :). The movie, as I mentioned, continues to add wonderful texture to the greater story. It follows the adventures of Obi Wan, Anakin and Padme as the Galactic Republic becomes more corrupt and travels further down the road to being the Empire. Little things are seen here that add so much depth to the world of Star Wars. We are introduced here to the Lars moisture farm on Tatooine which figures prominently in Episodes 3 and 4. We are introduced to the clones for the first time, which are referenced in the original trilogy. We see the back story for Boba Fett here as well, a character who would end up being one of the most popular of the series (for reasons which still escape me). We see the beginnings of what will become of the Empire. We get to see Yoda training young Jedis (as a side note, I think Yoda really is the star of this movie-the insight we get into his character is the movie's strongest point). We also get to see the complicated relationship between Obi Wan and Anakin, and why Obi Wan can look back with regret that he tried to train Anakin. The movie also has a dynamite light saber sequence at the end, which gave many of us one of the most satisfying moments of all 6 movies.
The action never lets up, and the visuals are indeed stunning. I thought that the most stunning visual comes when Obi Wan goes to Jango Fett's home planet. Rarely has a setting so clearly evoked the moral ambiguity of a place. The planet which houses the future clone army is shrouded in mystery-it does not appear in the Jedi archives, and it is a stormy, murky place which seems soaked with corruption. The other great visual setting is the capital planet of Courscant, which reminds the viewer of any metropolis of our world, be it Tokyo, London or New York. The imagination captured in the visuals is wonderful, as George Lucas gives us vistas and visions.
As for the shortcomings, I noticed 2 main ones. First, the strength of the story is compromised to me by how out of touch the Jedi council seems to be. It is one thing for them to be deceived by the Sith Lord, for to err is human. But it is outside believability that the characters of the Jedi Council would trust Anakin to carry out the vital missions he has been given. I had trouble believing that the wise Jedi council would actually trust this unstable young Padowan the way that they do. The Jedi end up coming off as incompetent. In the end, Star Wars fans know their fate, but I think the story could have been more believable. That transitions nicely into the other shortcoming. The love story between Anakin and Padme is lacking, partly due to the character of Anakin. Dialogue has never been a strong suit for these films, but the other films seem to have actors who can pull off the campy dialogue and make it work. Here, the actor who plays Anakin never seems to be in sync with the tone of the dialogue. I have never seen Hayden Christiansen in anything else, but I am sure he is a fine actor to be able to even be in competition for this role (just like any baseball player is exceptional if they make it to the major leagues). It just seems like his rhythm is off, while Natalie Portman is able to pull off the wooden dialogue. While the movie overall is a strong piece of storytelling, these two shortcomings take away some authenticity, and leave the story less satisfying then some of the other entries in the series.
But that is neither here nor there. I am not the only one to suggest what I have suggested. My admiration for these films remains. In fact, my admiration has grown as I have watched these movies with my kids. My kids simply love the story. As such, these movies can be seen in that light. All 6 movies contribute to the overall story. This is a story that can be lived and relived. The last question that I have to grapple with is this: when should I let my kids watch Episode 3? The scene involving the younglings' demise alone would be enough to depress my daughter for months.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Quote answers
Thanks to everyone who participated in my movie quote contest. I will notify the winner myself, but she got 4 of them right!
Here are the anwers:
1. You'll meet them all again on their long journey to the middle. "Almost Famous"
2. What are you, a lawyer? "Rushmore"
3. Pop quiz hotshot. "Speed"
4. First medicinal wine from a teaspoon, then beer from a bottle. "The Music Man"
5. Son...kick their butt. "Hoosiers"
6. A laugh can be a very powerful thing. "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"
7. I don't want a cookie! "All The President's Men"
8. That's impossible, they're on instruments! "Airplane"
9. It's all part of life's rich pageant. "A Shot in the Dark"
10. Come along Mrs. Thornhill.... "North By Northwest"
11. "I now declare this bridge open" "Hard Day's Night"
12. If you don't have something nice to say, come sit by me. "Steel Magnolias"
13. Mordecai! "Royal Tennenbaums"
Here are the anwers:
1. You'll meet them all again on their long journey to the middle. "Almost Famous"
2. What are you, a lawyer? "Rushmore"
3. Pop quiz hotshot. "Speed"
4. First medicinal wine from a teaspoon, then beer from a bottle. "The Music Man"
5. Son...kick their butt. "Hoosiers"
6. A laugh can be a very powerful thing. "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"
7. I don't want a cookie! "All The President's Men"
8. That's impossible, they're on instruments! "Airplane"
9. It's all part of life's rich pageant. "A Shot in the Dark"
10. Come along Mrs. Thornhill.... "North By Northwest"
11. "I now declare this bridge open" "Hard Day's Night"
12. If you don't have something nice to say, come sit by me. "Steel Magnolias"
13. Mordecai! "Royal Tennenbaums"
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Thanksgiving Movie Quote Contest
Hello all, and Happy Thanksgiving! Here are 13 movie quotes from some movies that I like. To enter the contest, please e-mail me your answers. This will keep your answers confidential, so that others won't see them. The winner will receive a valuable prize ($10 gift card). The winner will be the FIRST person to give me all of the answers, or the earliest entry with the most correct. I will take entries until Tuesday, 11/29 at noon. Please do not consult the internet---let's see how many you can get on your own.
To enter, email me at losbascoms@mac.com...
Have fun. I will contact the winner to coordinate the prize.
Happy Thanksgiving!!!
1. You'll meet them all again on their long journey to the middle.
2. What are you, a lawyer?
3. Pop quiz hotshot.
4. First medicinal wine from a teaspoon, then beer from a bottle.
5. Son...kick their butt.
6. A laugh can be a very powerful thing.
7. I don't want a cookie!
8. That's impossible, they're on instruments!
9. It's all part of life's rich pageant.
10. Come along Mrs. Thornhill....
11. "I now declare this bridge open"
12. If you don't have something nice to say, come sit by me.
13. Mordecai!
To enter, email me at losbascoms@mac.com...
Have fun. I will contact the winner to coordinate the prize.
Happy Thanksgiving!!!
1. You'll meet them all again on their long journey to the middle.
2. What are you, a lawyer?
3. Pop quiz hotshot.
4. First medicinal wine from a teaspoon, then beer from a bottle.
5. Son...kick their butt.
6. A laugh can be a very powerful thing.
7. I don't want a cookie!
8. That's impossible, they're on instruments!
9. It's all part of life's rich pageant.
10. Come along Mrs. Thornhill....
11. "I now declare this bridge open"
12. If you don't have something nice to say, come sit by me.
13. Mordecai!
Friday, November 18, 2011
The Princess Bride
Stephanie and I watched this movie for the first time with our kids a little bit ago, and two things struck me. First (and this was not totally unexpected) was how much they laughed. Sometimes when you have watched and loved a movie for so long due to its adult wit, you can forget how many moments of simpler comedy are in a movie. Second, it really surprised me how much the story kept their interest. Herein lies, to me, the same genius in this movie that lies in many great movies.
The genius we find here is the ability of the film maker(s) to create something that is at once sophisticated and simple. The story of this movie is basic enough that any child can follow it. However, the dialogue and the humor are complex enough that we can all find ourselves returning to the film and gaining new laughs and appreciating the wittiness of the dialogue. I first saw this movie when it came out in the theater when I was 12, but I mainly got to know it through countless viewings on video. The fact that my High School church youth group nearly always watched this movie at camp gatherings further shows this movie's appeal. In my youth group (which was hundreds of students strong), it was always tricky to find a movie that is edgy and innocent. This movie fit the bill, and I have very clear memories of watching it at Camp Surf in San Diego on the beach near the US/Mexican border.
The movie is a story within a story. A young boy (Fred Savage) is sick, and his grandfather (the recently departed Peter Falk) comes to his house to read him a story while he is laid up. The story he reads to his grandson ends up being the principal plot of the movie, as we follow the adventures of Westley (Cary Elwes) and Buttercup (Robin Wright) as they attempt to find a way to live happily ever after. They encounter various obstacles as well as several funny characters along their way. They are pursued by Prince Humperdink (Chris Sarandon), a trite, smarmy royal who makes it his business to start unnecessary wars and make Buttercup miserable.
The story itself is nothing extraordinary. What makes the movie special is the characters and the dialogue between them. The best example I can think of is the sword fight between Westley and Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin, who also happens to have the most famous piece of dialogue from the movie). This is a standard, swashbuckling kind of scene that is made special by countless winks in the dialogue. Example: "Montoya: Why do you wear that mask-were you burned with acid or something? Westley: "No, they're just terribly comfortable...I think someday everyone will wear them." There are many other memorable lines, many of which can make one feel as though they are in an exclusive club if others recognize the dialogue in social interaction. But, in spite of all the sassy dialogue, the movie still works because of its heart. It is able to find a giant with a great heart (Andre the Giant), and a story that really is sentimental. It seems that this movie has achieved a sort of classic status. It deserves it. It is something special, and I think the reason for that is how universal its appeal really is.
The genius we find here is the ability of the film maker(s) to create something that is at once sophisticated and simple. The story of this movie is basic enough that any child can follow it. However, the dialogue and the humor are complex enough that we can all find ourselves returning to the film and gaining new laughs and appreciating the wittiness of the dialogue. I first saw this movie when it came out in the theater when I was 12, but I mainly got to know it through countless viewings on video. The fact that my High School church youth group nearly always watched this movie at camp gatherings further shows this movie's appeal. In my youth group (which was hundreds of students strong), it was always tricky to find a movie that is edgy and innocent. This movie fit the bill, and I have very clear memories of watching it at Camp Surf in San Diego on the beach near the US/Mexican border.
The movie is a story within a story. A young boy (Fred Savage) is sick, and his grandfather (the recently departed Peter Falk) comes to his house to read him a story while he is laid up. The story he reads to his grandson ends up being the principal plot of the movie, as we follow the adventures of Westley (Cary Elwes) and Buttercup (Robin Wright) as they attempt to find a way to live happily ever after. They encounter various obstacles as well as several funny characters along their way. They are pursued by Prince Humperdink (Chris Sarandon), a trite, smarmy royal who makes it his business to start unnecessary wars and make Buttercup miserable.
The story itself is nothing extraordinary. What makes the movie special is the characters and the dialogue between them. The best example I can think of is the sword fight between Westley and Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin, who also happens to have the most famous piece of dialogue from the movie). This is a standard, swashbuckling kind of scene that is made special by countless winks in the dialogue. Example: "Montoya: Why do you wear that mask-were you burned with acid or something? Westley: "No, they're just terribly comfortable...I think someday everyone will wear them." There are many other memorable lines, many of which can make one feel as though they are in an exclusive club if others recognize the dialogue in social interaction. But, in spite of all the sassy dialogue, the movie still works because of its heart. It is able to find a giant with a great heart (Andre the Giant), and a story that really is sentimental. It seems that this movie has achieved a sort of classic status. It deserves it. It is something special, and I think the reason for that is how universal its appeal really is.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Into Great Silence
"Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper."
---1 Kings 19:11-12
The film maker Philip Groning uses this quote from the history of Israel as bookends to his extraordinary documentary. This is the 52nd entry on this blog. I have covered films from many different genres, and in several different languages. The more I watch movies, the more I become convinced that there are certain artistic statements that can only be made with film. While some feel the written word is the ultimate form of expression (and it is amazing), we must not forget that it is only a medium...it is not art itself. With each type of art (be it painting, music, film etc), there are certain things that can be captured that simply could not be caught any other way.
And so, we turn to this extraordinary work by Philiip Groning. It is so simple, yet so profound. The film maker lived in the Grande Chartreuse monastery in the French Alps for 6 months, and captured the lives of its residents on film. The film has no score, no written dialogue, and no special effects. It simply records the lives of the monks: the sights, sounds, and rituals. As such, the viewer can approach this work from a number of different angles. For the secular viewer, one could watch as the quiet lives of these men are recorded, and marvel at the simplicity of their lives, and the beauty of their surroundings. Groning's camera shows us a vast spectrum of nature. It shows us the majesty of the French alps, the quiet of a brook, the lines in an old man's face, and the meditative world that is the monastery. For the believer, this film can be one of two things. One, it could be a simple act of challenging our devotion to God and how much do we meditate on his work. One of the devices that Groning uses to to intersperse different prayers over a black screen during the film. This dovetails nicely into the second thing this film can be for the believer. The film itself can be an act of mediation on God and on his creation. The viewer can see men, young and old, eating together, worshiping together, living together. We can also see them conversing, walking in the mountains, and even enjoying some sledding on a nearby slope. The film takes a certain discipline to watch, and I think that is why this film can be a meditation in and of itself. As we see the discipline these men have over their lives, we are challenged to sit through it for a mere 2 and a half hours.
Silence and meditation is something which is lacking in my life. This film made me think of ways that I could taste this gift. I once read the great abstract expressionist painter Mark Rothko explain his paintings as webs of meditation. This film acts this way. It not only documents its subjects, but it allows us to come close to actually living along side them and practice along with them. The patience and commitment that it took to make this film is noteworthy. The hours and days it must have took in order to simply catch a second of magnificent beauty is noteworthy. If possible, it seems that the way to best experience this film would be in a movie theater. Only there would the viewer truly be able to be immersed in this world with all its sights, sounds and experiences. I was able to get a copy from my local library, and I watched most of it while jogging on my treadmill. It was a good way to experience the film since it takes a certain discipline for me to get on the treadmill.
This is a profound work. I love what it says about its subjects. It gives us a very honorable picture of these men who have devoted their lives to prayer and meditation. But this film also says a lot about film. It shows us another angle about what movies are, and the possibilities that lie within the art of cinema.
---1 Kings 19:11-12
The film maker Philip Groning uses this quote from the history of Israel as bookends to his extraordinary documentary. This is the 52nd entry on this blog. I have covered films from many different genres, and in several different languages. The more I watch movies, the more I become convinced that there are certain artistic statements that can only be made with film. While some feel the written word is the ultimate form of expression (and it is amazing), we must not forget that it is only a medium...it is not art itself. With each type of art (be it painting, music, film etc), there are certain things that can be captured that simply could not be caught any other way.
And so, we turn to this extraordinary work by Philiip Groning. It is so simple, yet so profound. The film maker lived in the Grande Chartreuse monastery in the French Alps for 6 months, and captured the lives of its residents on film. The film has no score, no written dialogue, and no special effects. It simply records the lives of the monks: the sights, sounds, and rituals. As such, the viewer can approach this work from a number of different angles. For the secular viewer, one could watch as the quiet lives of these men are recorded, and marvel at the simplicity of their lives, and the beauty of their surroundings. Groning's camera shows us a vast spectrum of nature. It shows us the majesty of the French alps, the quiet of a brook, the lines in an old man's face, and the meditative world that is the monastery. For the believer, this film can be one of two things. One, it could be a simple act of challenging our devotion to God and how much do we meditate on his work. One of the devices that Groning uses to to intersperse different prayers over a black screen during the film. This dovetails nicely into the second thing this film can be for the believer. The film itself can be an act of mediation on God and on his creation. The viewer can see men, young and old, eating together, worshiping together, living together. We can also see them conversing, walking in the mountains, and even enjoying some sledding on a nearby slope. The film takes a certain discipline to watch, and I think that is why this film can be a meditation in and of itself. As we see the discipline these men have over their lives, we are challenged to sit through it for a mere 2 and a half hours.
Silence and meditation is something which is lacking in my life. This film made me think of ways that I could taste this gift. I once read the great abstract expressionist painter Mark Rothko explain his paintings as webs of meditation. This film acts this way. It not only documents its subjects, but it allows us to come close to actually living along side them and practice along with them. The patience and commitment that it took to make this film is noteworthy. The hours and days it must have took in order to simply catch a second of magnificent beauty is noteworthy. If possible, it seems that the way to best experience this film would be in a movie theater. Only there would the viewer truly be able to be immersed in this world with all its sights, sounds and experiences. I was able to get a copy from my local library, and I watched most of it while jogging on my treadmill. It was a good way to experience the film since it takes a certain discipline for me to get on the treadmill.
This is a profound work. I love what it says about its subjects. It gives us a very honorable picture of these men who have devoted their lives to prayer and meditation. But this film also says a lot about film. It shows us another angle about what movies are, and the possibilities that lie within the art of cinema.
Monday, November 7, 2011
It Might Get Loud
I have already put down my thoughts on one of Davis Guggenheim's films ("Waiting for Superman). While the last one was a controversial and emotional film, this film is a great breath of fresh air. It reminds us why we spend so much time listening to music and finding out about the artists who make music. We do it because the stories behind people are fascinating, and when the person whose story is being told is someone whose art we love, we are immediately interested.
The film depicts the life stories and musical philosophies of three musical giants. They each represent different generations as well as different approaches and inspirations. The common thread that they share is the instrument that has become the passion of their life: the electric guitar. In depicting these three artists, we gain a new appreciation for what makes each of them unique. We also are entertained as we watch professional musicians' appreciation for other practitioners of their craft, and we get to see them play together.
The three guitarists who are the subject of the film are Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin, The Edge of U2, and Jack White of the White Stripes. The diverse backgrounds of these three alone could warrant a film. Jimmy Page grew up in working class England. The Edge grew up in turbulent Dublin Ireland in the 60's and 70''s. And Jack White came of age in a Mexican neighborhood in Southwest Detroit. Each of them give their story, and how they ended up coming up with the style with which they are now synonymous.
To me, what makes a great documentary is also what makes a great film of any other type. The film needs to tell a story and tell it in a way that engages me. There is a lot more to my philosophy of film watching, but a lot of it does come back to those two factors. In these two ways, this film works very well. It is about these three individuals, but it is also about what inspires all of us. For each of these musicians, inspiration was vital. Each of them get a chance to play some of their favorite music for the film, and we can see how it affects them. In my book, the most entertaining line comes from The Edge. The line is a reflection after seeing the film "This is Spinal Tap" for the first time, and on what he views as the excesses the 1970's. He states, "I didn't laugh. I wept." Here, we see that The Edge's story has to do with a different kind of inspiration. In part, he was inspired to do something different than what was going on rather than being inspired to do something similar.
At the end of the film, and interspersed throughout the film, the three of them sit in a studio and reflect on their work. It is fun to watch the Edge teach Jimmy Page how he plays "I Will Follow". And when Jimmy Page reflects on the construction of "Stairway to Heaven", you watch the two younger guitarists sit in awe of the guitar god.
Whether you love rock guitar or not, this is a great movie. That fact illustrates why it is great movie. If a filmmaker can take a subject, and then engage audiences with varying levels interest, that filmmaker has truly accomplished something.
The film depicts the life stories and musical philosophies of three musical giants. They each represent different generations as well as different approaches and inspirations. The common thread that they share is the instrument that has become the passion of their life: the electric guitar. In depicting these three artists, we gain a new appreciation for what makes each of them unique. We also are entertained as we watch professional musicians' appreciation for other practitioners of their craft, and we get to see them play together.
The three guitarists who are the subject of the film are Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin, The Edge of U2, and Jack White of the White Stripes. The diverse backgrounds of these three alone could warrant a film. Jimmy Page grew up in working class England. The Edge grew up in turbulent Dublin Ireland in the 60's and 70''s. And Jack White came of age in a Mexican neighborhood in Southwest Detroit. Each of them give their story, and how they ended up coming up with the style with which they are now synonymous.
To me, what makes a great documentary is also what makes a great film of any other type. The film needs to tell a story and tell it in a way that engages me. There is a lot more to my philosophy of film watching, but a lot of it does come back to those two factors. In these two ways, this film works very well. It is about these three individuals, but it is also about what inspires all of us. For each of these musicians, inspiration was vital. Each of them get a chance to play some of their favorite music for the film, and we can see how it affects them. In my book, the most entertaining line comes from The Edge. The line is a reflection after seeing the film "This is Spinal Tap" for the first time, and on what he views as the excesses the 1970's. He states, "I didn't laugh. I wept." Here, we see that The Edge's story has to do with a different kind of inspiration. In part, he was inspired to do something different than what was going on rather than being inspired to do something similar.
At the end of the film, and interspersed throughout the film, the three of them sit in a studio and reflect on their work. It is fun to watch the Edge teach Jimmy Page how he plays "I Will Follow". And when Jimmy Page reflects on the construction of "Stairway to Heaven", you watch the two younger guitarists sit in awe of the guitar god.
Whether you love rock guitar or not, this is a great movie. That fact illustrates why it is great movie. If a filmmaker can take a subject, and then engage audiences with varying levels interest, that filmmaker has truly accomplished something.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Moneyball
My cousin Jeremy and I made our way to a movie theater last just off 14th St. in Manhattan, and ducked into the theater to catch this new film last week. It was a thrilling experience, partly because we had just had a wonderful day of sightseeing in New York, and partly because we saw a film that was both highly engaging and entertaining.
One need not be a baseball fan to enjoy this film, but as a lifelong fan of the game, I was hooked by the premise of it. 9 years ago, journalist Michael Lewis wrote a book called Moneyball in which he recorded how the Oakland Athletics of the American League were able to continue to put together winning teams despite a very low payroll. To sum up, the idea was that the general manager of the Athletics (Billy Beane, the main character both of the book and the film) was able to find "undervalued players" by reassessing the priorities of baseball statistics. In this world, getting on base is the most important thing a batter can do...how that happens is irrelevant. In the process he undermines the establishment and is able to succeed despite no one believing in him except a young Ivy League educated assistant. Take the baseball away, and what is left? A classic Hollywood underdog story of one crazy person taking on the status quo and, in his own way, winning.
Being a lover of baseball, there are many things that help me love the movie more. As I watched Billy Beane (played wonderfully by Brad Pitt) argue on the phone with Johnny Damon's agent "Scott", I knew who "Scott" was. Knowing who that was added texture to my experience, but would not detract from the experience of someone who didn't. Also, the film brilliantly recounts Beane's own history as a hot young prospect who simply doesn't pan out in the major leagues. As Billy Beane has another shot to compete in baseball in a a different way, he is forced to make decisions about what is important to him, and in a way, possibly right some of the wrongs from earlier in his life. The reason this film is so good is that it is able to tell Beane's own story, and we see him develop. That is the mark of good storytelling, whatever the setting and content of the story. The fact that one can walk away from this film happy for the decisions the Beane's character made speaks volumes on how engaging the story is, and how well it is told.
In the midst of the great storytelling, there are some great laughs, some good baseball, and wonderfully powerful performances from Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Johah Hill (as the Ivy League educated numbers cruncher mentioned above). Hoffman plays the Athletics' manager Art Howe, an old school baseball man who thinks that Beane's ideas are crazy, and fights him every step of the way on controlling the team. There is a moment of brilliance that I recall in the movie. At one point, Beane is having trouble with a certain lineup decision that Howe (Hoffman's character) has made. This continues to be a point of contention between the two of them. Eventually, Beane plays his trump card and trades away the player who was creating the issue without Howe's knowledge. The reaction Hoffman gives when he finds out that one of his favorite players has been traded is truly priceless.
As a father, I also related closely Beane's relationship with his daughter. There are some sweet moments here which show a very human side to this driven and competitive man. And that, in many ways, best demonstrates how good this movie is. To be able to cover the drama of a baseball season, the ups and down of one man's baseball career, and see him grow in stature as a father, and have that all be in one movie is something unique. I hope the sports content does not scare people away from a wonderfully dramatic and funny human story.
One need not be a baseball fan to enjoy this film, but as a lifelong fan of the game, I was hooked by the premise of it. 9 years ago, journalist Michael Lewis wrote a book called Moneyball in which he recorded how the Oakland Athletics of the American League were able to continue to put together winning teams despite a very low payroll. To sum up, the idea was that the general manager of the Athletics (Billy Beane, the main character both of the book and the film) was able to find "undervalued players" by reassessing the priorities of baseball statistics. In this world, getting on base is the most important thing a batter can do...how that happens is irrelevant. In the process he undermines the establishment and is able to succeed despite no one believing in him except a young Ivy League educated assistant. Take the baseball away, and what is left? A classic Hollywood underdog story of one crazy person taking on the status quo and, in his own way, winning.
Being a lover of baseball, there are many things that help me love the movie more. As I watched Billy Beane (played wonderfully by Brad Pitt) argue on the phone with Johnny Damon's agent "Scott", I knew who "Scott" was. Knowing who that was added texture to my experience, but would not detract from the experience of someone who didn't. Also, the film brilliantly recounts Beane's own history as a hot young prospect who simply doesn't pan out in the major leagues. As Billy Beane has another shot to compete in baseball in a a different way, he is forced to make decisions about what is important to him, and in a way, possibly right some of the wrongs from earlier in his life. The reason this film is so good is that it is able to tell Beane's own story, and we see him develop. That is the mark of good storytelling, whatever the setting and content of the story. The fact that one can walk away from this film happy for the decisions the Beane's character made speaks volumes on how engaging the story is, and how well it is told.
In the midst of the great storytelling, there are some great laughs, some good baseball, and wonderfully powerful performances from Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Johah Hill (as the Ivy League educated numbers cruncher mentioned above). Hoffman plays the Athletics' manager Art Howe, an old school baseball man who thinks that Beane's ideas are crazy, and fights him every step of the way on controlling the team. There is a moment of brilliance that I recall in the movie. At one point, Beane is having trouble with a certain lineup decision that Howe (Hoffman's character) has made. This continues to be a point of contention between the two of them. Eventually, Beane plays his trump card and trades away the player who was creating the issue without Howe's knowledge. The reaction Hoffman gives when he finds out that one of his favorite players has been traded is truly priceless.
As a father, I also related closely Beane's relationship with his daughter. There are some sweet moments here which show a very human side to this driven and competitive man. And that, in many ways, best demonstrates how good this movie is. To be able to cover the drama of a baseball season, the ups and down of one man's baseball career, and see him grow in stature as a father, and have that all be in one movie is something unique. I hope the sports content does not scare people away from a wonderfully dramatic and funny human story.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Hard Day's Night
Lately, I have been making my way through the Beatles' catalog with the help of the CD player in my brand new Subaru Outback. As I listen to these songs again (which never, ever grow old), I was reminded of this film, and it's place in my love of movies.
It might be that there would have been no "Monty Python" without this film. This movie has a sense of humor all its own, complete with the irony and surrealism that would eventually be front and center in the comedy of Monty Python. However, here there is very little iconoclasm. Instead, the spirit of the Beatles' early years is captured, almost as though it were a time capsule. We see the joy of the four of them in their early years. We see the distinct personalities of the Beatles (or at least, the images they wanted to portray). Also, for better or worse, we see in this film some very early music videos. The surrealism of "I Should Have Known Better" is a great example of an early music video. The four Beatles are playing cards in a train car, and voila, suddenly they are all playing instruments! Ringo's drums suddenly appear, the guitars pop out of thin air, and John sings the wonderfully vulnerable lyrics of this song.
The plot of the film is somewhat inconsequential. The four Beatles are suffering the slings and arrows of constant touring. Their unity is threatened by the presence of Paul's grandfather, who is a conniving "clean old man" who seeks to disrupt the unity of the group for no good reason.
All of the hijinks and separate paths the Beatles take culminate in the TV appearance at the end of the film. When I was young, I remember my dad instructing me to look at the girls in the TV audience and notice that all of them are calling out the name of their favorite Beatle. When one watches this film, one looks back beyond the brilliance and angst of the Beatles' later years and sees the freshness of the Beatles as they were first known.
As a movie, three things set this movie apart. First, the movie is filled with so much energy and creativity that the viewer simply cannot look away. This is really a tribute to the wonderful screenplay. The script gives the Beatles wonderful dialogue and situations in which to act. The film feels like a string of sketches which are brought together to form a story. Second, the acting is very good. True, the Beatles are playing themselves, but they are still able to deliver the dialogue and make the situations funny through timing and reactions. If one adds to this the great support they receive from the character actors in the movie, one has a show of greta acting in the film. Finally, the movie has great music. All of the songs are Beatles' songs, and they are all good. The Beatles truly were one of a kind, and this film brings that to the forefront. It is such a wonderful thing to have this period in the history of rock and roll captured on film forever.
It might be that there would have been no "Monty Python" without this film. This movie has a sense of humor all its own, complete with the irony and surrealism that would eventually be front and center in the comedy of Monty Python. However, here there is very little iconoclasm. Instead, the spirit of the Beatles' early years is captured, almost as though it were a time capsule. We see the joy of the four of them in their early years. We see the distinct personalities of the Beatles (or at least, the images they wanted to portray). Also, for better or worse, we see in this film some very early music videos. The surrealism of "I Should Have Known Better" is a great example of an early music video. The four Beatles are playing cards in a train car, and voila, suddenly they are all playing instruments! Ringo's drums suddenly appear, the guitars pop out of thin air, and John sings the wonderfully vulnerable lyrics of this song.
The plot of the film is somewhat inconsequential. The four Beatles are suffering the slings and arrows of constant touring. Their unity is threatened by the presence of Paul's grandfather, who is a conniving "clean old man" who seeks to disrupt the unity of the group for no good reason.
All of the hijinks and separate paths the Beatles take culminate in the TV appearance at the end of the film. When I was young, I remember my dad instructing me to look at the girls in the TV audience and notice that all of them are calling out the name of their favorite Beatle. When one watches this film, one looks back beyond the brilliance and angst of the Beatles' later years and sees the freshness of the Beatles as they were first known.
As a movie, three things set this movie apart. First, the movie is filled with so much energy and creativity that the viewer simply cannot look away. This is really a tribute to the wonderful screenplay. The script gives the Beatles wonderful dialogue and situations in which to act. The film feels like a string of sketches which are brought together to form a story. Second, the acting is very good. True, the Beatles are playing themselves, but they are still able to deliver the dialogue and make the situations funny through timing and reactions. If one adds to this the great support they receive from the character actors in the movie, one has a show of greta acting in the film. Finally, the movie has great music. All of the songs are Beatles' songs, and they are all good. The Beatles truly were one of a kind, and this film brings that to the forefront. It is such a wonderful thing to have this period in the history of rock and roll captured on film forever.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Conan O' Brien Can't Stop
I have been a Conan O' Brien fan for many years. I remember watching his very first program, and being somewhat unimpressed. However, as the years went on, I started to see some of his absurd humor, and I couldn't help but start to become a fan.
In January of 2010, something happened which polarized many in the country. Thankfully, it was inconsequential, but it did inflame a lot of passion, especially in people my age and younger. Jay Leno (who represented the establishment for many) got his job back on the Tonight Show, and Conan O' Brien was fired from his dream job as the host of the Tonight Show. I thought he got a bad deal, but knew he would be back on television eventually. Between the time that he left the Tonight Show and began his new program on basic cable, he took a live show on tour across the country and sold out every venue. Along the way, he allowed himself to be filmed, and the product of that was this documentary.
It is a very entertaining film for two reasons. First, Conan is a natural comedian. He is a very funny man, and that translates here as he jokes around with his crew and his coworkers on the road. Also, the clips from the live show itself are hilarious. In the same vein, Conan appears to be very friendly. He gives a lot to his fans in the film. He knows that many of his most rabid fans have come to see his show, and he does his best to accommodate them. He even does this at times when he is not thrilled about the prospect. His bitterness at the obligation leaks out a couple of times in the film. One wonders what it would be like to see yourself on screen (if you happened to be caught by the filmmaker's lens) adoring Conan right after he is honest about the draining nature of showing love to his fans.
This segues into the second reason this film is so entertaining. It shows us a human being and his struggle with fame. We live in a harsh culture that sees celebrities as our servants. True, Conan chooses to travel far away from his wife and children. No one makes him. The settlement he reached with NBC was so lucrative that I would imagine that he didn't need the money the tour provided. Obviously, he did it because he loves entertaining people. But after a few months on the road, it is clear that some of the obligations of the job were taking its toll. He still puts on a smile and greets his fans, but the camera away from his fans captures his true feelings as well. It is interesting to me why Conan would want for this side of him to be given to his fans. But it is also refreshing. It shows us the very human side to this man, and that celebrity of this level is unnatural. That is why near the end of his tour, he longs for the simplicity of driving his kids to school. He knows that is a more realistic life, and he yearns for it. But, he also loves the interaction he has while performing, and so he will live with the tension.
This film is so important. We as a culture must learn that celebrities are doing a job, and we don't really know them. Ironically, Conan gives us a chance to know him a little better here, and we see ourselves in him. Who amongst us wouldn't yearn for simplicity when millions of people demand your attention. How would I do if young women who were strangers to me began throwing themselves at me? It is a tall order to carry that well, and the moments when we see the weight of it become too much for him, we remember that O' Brien is a human like the rest of us. And, even with his frustrations, he comes out even more lovable. I wonder if that's what he wanted.
In January of 2010, something happened which polarized many in the country. Thankfully, it was inconsequential, but it did inflame a lot of passion, especially in people my age and younger. Jay Leno (who represented the establishment for many) got his job back on the Tonight Show, and Conan O' Brien was fired from his dream job as the host of the Tonight Show. I thought he got a bad deal, but knew he would be back on television eventually. Between the time that he left the Tonight Show and began his new program on basic cable, he took a live show on tour across the country and sold out every venue. Along the way, he allowed himself to be filmed, and the product of that was this documentary.
It is a very entertaining film for two reasons. First, Conan is a natural comedian. He is a very funny man, and that translates here as he jokes around with his crew and his coworkers on the road. Also, the clips from the live show itself are hilarious. In the same vein, Conan appears to be very friendly. He gives a lot to his fans in the film. He knows that many of his most rabid fans have come to see his show, and he does his best to accommodate them. He even does this at times when he is not thrilled about the prospect. His bitterness at the obligation leaks out a couple of times in the film. One wonders what it would be like to see yourself on screen (if you happened to be caught by the filmmaker's lens) adoring Conan right after he is honest about the draining nature of showing love to his fans.
This segues into the second reason this film is so entertaining. It shows us a human being and his struggle with fame. We live in a harsh culture that sees celebrities as our servants. True, Conan chooses to travel far away from his wife and children. No one makes him. The settlement he reached with NBC was so lucrative that I would imagine that he didn't need the money the tour provided. Obviously, he did it because he loves entertaining people. But after a few months on the road, it is clear that some of the obligations of the job were taking its toll. He still puts on a smile and greets his fans, but the camera away from his fans captures his true feelings as well. It is interesting to me why Conan would want for this side of him to be given to his fans. But it is also refreshing. It shows us the very human side to this man, and that celebrity of this level is unnatural. That is why near the end of his tour, he longs for the simplicity of driving his kids to school. He knows that is a more realistic life, and he yearns for it. But, he also loves the interaction he has while performing, and so he will live with the tension.
This film is so important. We as a culture must learn that celebrities are doing a job, and we don't really know them. Ironically, Conan gives us a chance to know him a little better here, and we see ourselves in him. Who amongst us wouldn't yearn for simplicity when millions of people demand your attention. How would I do if young women who were strangers to me began throwing themselves at me? It is a tall order to carry that well, and the moments when we see the weight of it become too much for him, we remember that O' Brien is a human like the rest of us. And, even with his frustrations, he comes out even more lovable. I wonder if that's what he wanted.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Waiting for Superman
Can one discuss the content of a movie with political implications without being political? I don't know if I will do that or not, and maybe it doesn't matter. Though I will say that if one looks honestly at this movie, whatever one's background or political philosophy, I think it does make its case well, and it is a terribly absorbing piece of work.
For the sake of clarity and honesty, I will provide a bit of background. I am a person with a relatively libertarian philosophy. As such, I tend to view the public sector with suspicion. While some spend time eschewing the greed of corporate America (a clear reality, I might add), I tend to fret more about the excesses of government. Maybe I do this because I believe that while corporations exist for profit and not to serve, the government exists to serve its citizens, and the bigger government becomes, the harder it seems that it is for it to serve its citizens well. Like any other entity, if someone or something can focus on what it does well and succeed at that, one thrives. The moment there is overreach (despite good motives), things fall apart.
While this may not be the view that Davis Guggenheim brings to his emotional film about the public schools in the United States, he does want to show what he sees as a problem with the public schools. He admits to being a leftist who simply cannot send his own child to his local public school. This is his decision in spite of his deep belief in the fairness and opportunity of public education. While he holds that ideal, he sees the quality of education his children would receive at the local public school, and he chooses to send his child to a private school, because he can afford it. This sounds like a happy ending. The problem is that many people don't have the same option as Mr. Guggenheim (including myself). Then, the gloves come off. Guggenheim indicts the system mainly by critiquing a system that doesn't hold teachers accountable. This is the most controversial part of the film, since it hits so many nerves. Many teachers feel under attack in our country right now, and the views in this movie could contribute to that. The question the movie poses is this: is the system that has been constructed more in the interest of the teachers and their union, or is it in the interest of the students? To many that is a false dichotomy. Many would argue that the better off the teachers are, the better off the students will be. However, as one sees some of the students who are praying to win a lottery to get out of their dead end school, it is hard to figure out why so much of the establishment (that is, the teachers unions) view any change that might help students with so much suspicion.
The film is confident that the future of these children comes down to the teachers. The great question is, how does it change? The film has received critique because it seems to glorify the charter school as the answer, even though critics show that charter schools' success rates are no different than public schools. This is an important point, but it sort of misses the point that the film is trying to make. Guggenheim wishes to show some specific instances of ideas and systems that are proven to work. The idea is, if we know what works, let's encourage it. No one should believe that a charter school is the answer. The film doesn't really make that claim. What the film does show is systems that do work, and how reticent the unions are to think outside the box. The fine Americans who do the hard work of teaching are part of a system that most people agree is failing our children. This film provokes thought. It points out the urgency of the situation. What are we going to do about the rampant inequity in a system whose whole point is to provide equal opportunity? There are hundreds of answers to that question. We can disagree about those answers. But one thing is certain, this film is honest with the fact that we have a big problem.
For the sake of clarity and honesty, I will provide a bit of background. I am a person with a relatively libertarian philosophy. As such, I tend to view the public sector with suspicion. While some spend time eschewing the greed of corporate America (a clear reality, I might add), I tend to fret more about the excesses of government. Maybe I do this because I believe that while corporations exist for profit and not to serve, the government exists to serve its citizens, and the bigger government becomes, the harder it seems that it is for it to serve its citizens well. Like any other entity, if someone or something can focus on what it does well and succeed at that, one thrives. The moment there is overreach (despite good motives), things fall apart.
While this may not be the view that Davis Guggenheim brings to his emotional film about the public schools in the United States, he does want to show what he sees as a problem with the public schools. He admits to being a leftist who simply cannot send his own child to his local public school. This is his decision in spite of his deep belief in the fairness and opportunity of public education. While he holds that ideal, he sees the quality of education his children would receive at the local public school, and he chooses to send his child to a private school, because he can afford it. This sounds like a happy ending. The problem is that many people don't have the same option as Mr. Guggenheim (including myself). Then, the gloves come off. Guggenheim indicts the system mainly by critiquing a system that doesn't hold teachers accountable. This is the most controversial part of the film, since it hits so many nerves. Many teachers feel under attack in our country right now, and the views in this movie could contribute to that. The question the movie poses is this: is the system that has been constructed more in the interest of the teachers and their union, or is it in the interest of the students? To many that is a false dichotomy. Many would argue that the better off the teachers are, the better off the students will be. However, as one sees some of the students who are praying to win a lottery to get out of their dead end school, it is hard to figure out why so much of the establishment (that is, the teachers unions) view any change that might help students with so much suspicion.
The film is confident that the future of these children comes down to the teachers. The great question is, how does it change? The film has received critique because it seems to glorify the charter school as the answer, even though critics show that charter schools' success rates are no different than public schools. This is an important point, but it sort of misses the point that the film is trying to make. Guggenheim wishes to show some specific instances of ideas and systems that are proven to work. The idea is, if we know what works, let's encourage it. No one should believe that a charter school is the answer. The film doesn't really make that claim. What the film does show is systems that do work, and how reticent the unions are to think outside the box. The fine Americans who do the hard work of teaching are part of a system that most people agree is failing our children. This film provokes thought. It points out the urgency of the situation. What are we going to do about the rampant inequity in a system whose whole point is to provide equal opportunity? There are hundreds of answers to that question. We can disagree about those answers. But one thing is certain, this film is honest with the fact that we have a big problem.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, Revisited
I just wrote on the "Star Wars" prequel trilogy a few months back on this blog, but I want to revisit "Episode 1" again, because recent events have caused me to rethink my views.
One of the most rewarding things about being a parent is the new eyes your kids give you as you revisit so many things from your own youth. "The Phantom Menace" didn't come out until I was 23, but "Star Wars" is so much a part of my childhood that it still seems like a part of my youth. With the arrival of the entire "Star Wars" saga on Blu-Ray last week, I am getting a chance to watch these films again, and begin to introduce the prequel trilogy (which includes "Phantom Menace") to my kids.
As I wrote a few months back, I was never a big detractor of this movie. It had its problems, but the day I saw it, I remember being happy with George Lucas' work. As the nay saying started to mount up, the bitterness started to seem overblown. Was this movie as good as episode 4, a classic in the movie pantheon? No, it wasn't. But, what it did do was add significant texture to the overall mythology of Star Wars. Here, you get to see C3PO meet R2D2 for the first time, and Anakin Skywalker meet Obi Wan Kenobi. Seeing the origins of some of the stories and conflicts with which I was so familiar felt good, and I appreciated the story, in spite of its weaknesses. One of the main weaknesses I felt was the character of Jar Jar Binks. Never in my movie going life had I ever heard an audible groan emerge from a crowd, but on the opening night of "Phantom Menace", I did hear one as soon as Jar Jar's first scene ended. I felt that the character was out of balance with the rest of the story. While Qui Gonn, Padme and ObiWan always seemed solemn and serious, the movie viewer had one character on whom it felt like Lucas was pinning all of the comic relief. This made a film where "Balance" was a big theme seem out of balance. However strongly I felt this, I couldn't help but wonder what would happen one day when I showed this movie to my own children.
That day has come folks. And I will say that watching "Phantom Menace" with my kids has put it in a different light. It helps that I have not watched it in years, as that added to the freshness of my perspective. As I was watching it with them, I realized that while the film is not as strong as Episodes 4-6, it still works quite well as storytelling. If one looks at it as simple mythological storytelling (the kind of storytelling kids relate so well to) it actually is good. The story is a little weird to explain to kids (what's a Trade Federation, after all?), but the overall visual impact and simple plot line is great for kids. Also, I felt totally comfortable sitting down with my 8, 6 and 4 year old and watching the movie.
This time, Jar Jar had worked better for me, since I watched him work for my kids. Jake Lloyd's Anakin also was less annoying in this light. All of the dialogue is still too wooden at times, but kids don't know that! They are so involved in the characters and stories that they don't have time to ask why the dialogue is so stuffy. I had goose bumps sitting and watching this film with my kids, as I watched them wonder at the sights and enjoy the mythology. So, I suppose I have two views on this movie now. The grown up part of me still picks out its weaknesses as I think critically about the film. But the part of me that lives in my kids can enjoy the sights and sounds that take place in this movie.
One of the most rewarding things about being a parent is the new eyes your kids give you as you revisit so many things from your own youth. "The Phantom Menace" didn't come out until I was 23, but "Star Wars" is so much a part of my childhood that it still seems like a part of my youth. With the arrival of the entire "Star Wars" saga on Blu-Ray last week, I am getting a chance to watch these films again, and begin to introduce the prequel trilogy (which includes "Phantom Menace") to my kids.
As I wrote a few months back, I was never a big detractor of this movie. It had its problems, but the day I saw it, I remember being happy with George Lucas' work. As the nay saying started to mount up, the bitterness started to seem overblown. Was this movie as good as episode 4, a classic in the movie pantheon? No, it wasn't. But, what it did do was add significant texture to the overall mythology of Star Wars. Here, you get to see C3PO meet R2D2 for the first time, and Anakin Skywalker meet Obi Wan Kenobi. Seeing the origins of some of the stories and conflicts with which I was so familiar felt good, and I appreciated the story, in spite of its weaknesses. One of the main weaknesses I felt was the character of Jar Jar Binks. Never in my movie going life had I ever heard an audible groan emerge from a crowd, but on the opening night of "Phantom Menace", I did hear one as soon as Jar Jar's first scene ended. I felt that the character was out of balance with the rest of the story. While Qui Gonn, Padme and ObiWan always seemed solemn and serious, the movie viewer had one character on whom it felt like Lucas was pinning all of the comic relief. This made a film where "Balance" was a big theme seem out of balance. However strongly I felt this, I couldn't help but wonder what would happen one day when I showed this movie to my own children.
That day has come folks. And I will say that watching "Phantom Menace" with my kids has put it in a different light. It helps that I have not watched it in years, as that added to the freshness of my perspective. As I was watching it with them, I realized that while the film is not as strong as Episodes 4-6, it still works quite well as storytelling. If one looks at it as simple mythological storytelling (the kind of storytelling kids relate so well to) it actually is good. The story is a little weird to explain to kids (what's a Trade Federation, after all?), but the overall visual impact and simple plot line is great for kids. Also, I felt totally comfortable sitting down with my 8, 6 and 4 year old and watching the movie.
This time, Jar Jar had worked better for me, since I watched him work for my kids. Jake Lloyd's Anakin also was less annoying in this light. All of the dialogue is still too wooden at times, but kids don't know that! They are so involved in the characters and stories that they don't have time to ask why the dialogue is so stuffy. I had goose bumps sitting and watching this film with my kids, as I watched them wonder at the sights and enjoy the mythology. So, I suppose I have two views on this movie now. The grown up part of me still picks out its weaknesses as I think critically about the film. But the part of me that lives in my kids can enjoy the sights and sounds that take place in this movie.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Schindler's List
There is little I can say to add to the gravity of this movie's content. But since this blog is mainly about my personal journey with movies, this movie has an important place in my journey with movies. It is an important one because it shows something about how I approach movies. I was thinking recently that this movie is a perfect way to describe my evolution regarding how I watch movies (not that any of you asked).
I first saw this film in the theater back when it was released in 1993. It was a homework assignment for a college class, so I did my duty and attended the movie. At the time, I remember feeling outraged. Of course I felt a rage at the atrocities I saw depicted on the screen. But furthermore, on a personal level, I felt angry that I had been made to watch this horror. At the time, I had a very different view on film and the arts. It seemed unnecessary and over the top for me to go to a movie theater and see the evil of the Holocaust put before me. I remember feeling offended by the notion that I would need to sit through the depiction of the Holocaust in order to better understand it.
It would be easy for me to look back on that event and judge myself and say how much I regret my feelings that day. I won't, and I don't. We all approach art as we are, not as we will be or were. A couple of years ago, I watched this film again with my wife, and I was stunned by its brilliance, its poignancy and its symbolism. The story involves a wealthy German man of questionable ethical standing who finds a way (through the loss of his own fortune) to save the lives of 1000 Jews during the reign of the Third Reich. Along the way, director Steven Spielberg challenges the viewers with horrible scenes from the concentration camps, and just a touch of the death and horror that most have been everywhere in those camps.
What I didn't realize when I was in college is that art is by its nature is totally unnecessary. To ask whether or not something needs to be shown is, in many ways, a misguided question. Of course the atrocities don't need to be shown, any more than any other art needs to be made. But artistic expression does satisfy a human desire to tell stories and express feelings. And many times, the worst of times produces some of the best art. The story of "Schindler's List" is a story that begs to be told, though it didn't need to be told for us to have a sense of the horror of the Holocaust. I just read Elie Wiesel's short memoir of the Holocaust, Night. That book uses only words, yet it is piercing. Is Wiesel's book necessary? It is no more necessary than Spielberg's film. The issue becomes not whether or not the film or the book are necessary, but how well does it do telling its story? In asking this question, we see Spielberg approaching this material with the same conviction of his storytelling that he had with "ET". In both of these films, the sad realities of life are brought to the forefront. With "ET", it is on a small scale, as we see a lonely boy befriend an alien as he copes with the breakdown of his parents' marriage. In "Schindler's List" , Spielberg shows human sorrow on a grand scale, as the dignity and humanity of millions is stripped away before our eyes. Sometimes that level of sorrow needs to be faced. I think of some of the horrors depicted in the Psalms, and the raw emotion that is expressed therein.
With this in mind, the question that I should have asked myself those many years ago in college was not, "Was this movie necessary?'" This question cannot truly be answered, since art is by nature an offshoot of humanity rather than humanity itself. Instead, I should have asked myself, "What can I learn?", or "Where is God here?" It is my hope that I can continue to do that. That is why a film like this, as bleak as it is, can be strangely inspiring and, in its own way, uplifting.
I first saw this film in the theater back when it was released in 1993. It was a homework assignment for a college class, so I did my duty and attended the movie. At the time, I remember feeling outraged. Of course I felt a rage at the atrocities I saw depicted on the screen. But furthermore, on a personal level, I felt angry that I had been made to watch this horror. At the time, I had a very different view on film and the arts. It seemed unnecessary and over the top for me to go to a movie theater and see the evil of the Holocaust put before me. I remember feeling offended by the notion that I would need to sit through the depiction of the Holocaust in order to better understand it.
It would be easy for me to look back on that event and judge myself and say how much I regret my feelings that day. I won't, and I don't. We all approach art as we are, not as we will be or were. A couple of years ago, I watched this film again with my wife, and I was stunned by its brilliance, its poignancy and its symbolism. The story involves a wealthy German man of questionable ethical standing who finds a way (through the loss of his own fortune) to save the lives of 1000 Jews during the reign of the Third Reich. Along the way, director Steven Spielberg challenges the viewers with horrible scenes from the concentration camps, and just a touch of the death and horror that most have been everywhere in those camps.
What I didn't realize when I was in college is that art is by its nature is totally unnecessary. To ask whether or not something needs to be shown is, in many ways, a misguided question. Of course the atrocities don't need to be shown, any more than any other art needs to be made. But artistic expression does satisfy a human desire to tell stories and express feelings. And many times, the worst of times produces some of the best art. The story of "Schindler's List" is a story that begs to be told, though it didn't need to be told for us to have a sense of the horror of the Holocaust. I just read Elie Wiesel's short memoir of the Holocaust, Night. That book uses only words, yet it is piercing. Is Wiesel's book necessary? It is no more necessary than Spielberg's film. The issue becomes not whether or not the film or the book are necessary, but how well does it do telling its story? In asking this question, we see Spielberg approaching this material with the same conviction of his storytelling that he had with "ET". In both of these films, the sad realities of life are brought to the forefront. With "ET", it is on a small scale, as we see a lonely boy befriend an alien as he copes with the breakdown of his parents' marriage. In "Schindler's List" , Spielberg shows human sorrow on a grand scale, as the dignity and humanity of millions is stripped away before our eyes. Sometimes that level of sorrow needs to be faced. I think of some of the horrors depicted in the Psalms, and the raw emotion that is expressed therein.
With this in mind, the question that I should have asked myself those many years ago in college was not, "Was this movie necessary?'" This question cannot truly be answered, since art is by nature an offshoot of humanity rather than humanity itself. Instead, I should have asked myself, "What can I learn?", or "Where is God here?" It is my hope that I can continue to do that. That is why a film like this, as bleak as it is, can be strangely inspiring and, in its own way, uplifting.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Singin' in the Rain
Here's another movie that almost everyone loves, but most have their own story regarding it. For me, it was watching it almost every year on KTLA 5 in LA. And every year, even as a young child, I loved watching it. As a child and a young man, I disliked musicals. I thought they were utterly preposterous. As an adult, I have come to appreciate and even love musicals. I realized somewhere along the way that musicals, just like any genre, have their good and their bad representatives. But this film was always the one musical I loved even in the years I claimed not to like musicals. As I have grown to love this genre, this movie still holds a special place for me.
What I have come to appreciate even more as I have grown older is how smart this movie is. It is a wicked satire. I would even say that a film like "This is Spinal Tap" works in its shadow. In this movie, we have an industry going through a Copernican style revolution, and there are skeletons in said industry's closet. The film is set in Hollywood at the end of the silent movie era. Don Lockwood and Lina Lamont (Gene Kelly and Jean Hagen) have been marketed as a Hollywood couple, and the release of each of their films is an event. They are the toast of Hollywood, and things couldn't be better, so it seems. Then, a wrench is thrown into everything with the arrival of talking pictures. Lina has a horrible voice, and Don's acting skills need refining. The contrast of what is seen on screen and what is real life becomes uproarious. Enter Cathy Seldon (Debbie Reynolds), a talented young actress who can act and sing. Don falls in love with her, endangering the cooked up Hollywood romance on which the studio is depending. Add Cosmo Brown (Doanld O' Connor), Don's old buddy, to the mix, and the chemistry is perfect.
Each musical number gets better, and then we reach the title number. The title number elicits goose bumps from me very time I watch it, and most of us have hummed it to ourselves at one time or another while walking in the rain. A month or so again, U2's Bono led the crowd here in Minneapolis in a sing along of this song, as all of us were caught in a summer downpour.
This movie stands as a cultural landmark. It could only have been made in America, and it shows us some of what is to be celebrated about the American culture, in spite of all the messiness of our culture. Put the film in the DVD player. Laugh out loud at the wonderful contrast between Don's spoken autobiography and the pictures telling us what actually happened. Howl watching Lina Lamont decimate the English language. Cringe watching Donald O' Connor making mince meat of his body in the "Make 'Em Laugh" number. And finally, let your heart glow as Gene Kelly twirls his umbrella and pounces on the lamp post. It just doesn't get much better than this.
What I have come to appreciate even more as I have grown older is how smart this movie is. It is a wicked satire. I would even say that a film like "This is Spinal Tap" works in its shadow. In this movie, we have an industry going through a Copernican style revolution, and there are skeletons in said industry's closet. The film is set in Hollywood at the end of the silent movie era. Don Lockwood and Lina Lamont (Gene Kelly and Jean Hagen) have been marketed as a Hollywood couple, and the release of each of their films is an event. They are the toast of Hollywood, and things couldn't be better, so it seems. Then, a wrench is thrown into everything with the arrival of talking pictures. Lina has a horrible voice, and Don's acting skills need refining. The contrast of what is seen on screen and what is real life becomes uproarious. Enter Cathy Seldon (Debbie Reynolds), a talented young actress who can act and sing. Don falls in love with her, endangering the cooked up Hollywood romance on which the studio is depending. Add Cosmo Brown (Doanld O' Connor), Don's old buddy, to the mix, and the chemistry is perfect.
Each musical number gets better, and then we reach the title number. The title number elicits goose bumps from me very time I watch it, and most of us have hummed it to ourselves at one time or another while walking in the rain. A month or so again, U2's Bono led the crowd here in Minneapolis in a sing along of this song, as all of us were caught in a summer downpour.
This movie stands as a cultural landmark. It could only have been made in America, and it shows us some of what is to be celebrated about the American culture, in spite of all the messiness of our culture. Put the film in the DVD player. Laugh out loud at the wonderful contrast between Don's spoken autobiography and the pictures telling us what actually happened. Howl watching Lina Lamont decimate the English language. Cringe watching Donald O' Connor making mince meat of his body in the "Make 'Em Laugh" number. And finally, let your heart glow as Gene Kelly twirls his umbrella and pounces on the lamp post. It just doesn't get much better than this.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Pinocchio
What is it about these early Disney movies that captures me so much more than the Pixar work? I have softened significantly toward Pixar movies, since for many years I thought all of them were overrated. I don't feel as strongly that way anymore, but I still feel that many of the classic Disney films overshadow the Pixar films, in spite of the technical wizardry of the newer films.
One of the main reasons I respect Pinocchio so much is the same reason the first Star Wars film is such a landmark. These movies had their filmmakers making things up as they went along. The first shot in Pinocchio was revolutionary at the time, as the camera pans over the Italian village, and then slowly makes its way into the story. The only thing comparable to Pinocchio these days is Toy Story, since it was the first movie to be 100% computer animated. But Toy Story relied on the voices of famous actors (albeit fine actors-Tom Hanks does become Woody), while Pinocchio even more fully relies on the power of its story and the imagination to realize it.
By now, the story is very much a part of our consciousness. A lonely old puppeteer constructs a little boy and wishes upon a star that his puppet would become a real boy. The blue fairy brings the puppet to life, but the wooden boy must decide for himself whether or not he will be a real boy. His adventures and temptations are what the movie is about.
But it is about so much more. There is a warmth and charm to this movie that I have never found anywhere else. The simple story is beautifully told, and in it I see myself-my struggles to deal with going the easy way and not following the more difficult path.
Not to spoil too much, but in the end, Pinocchio does become a real boy. But since he has spent the majority of the film as a selfish boy, it never to me seemed that he had quite proven himself. May I suggest that there is a tremendous grace to Pinocchio becoming a real boy? Could it be that Gepetto's faith in the wish is what gave Pinocchio the ability all along?
One of the main reasons I respect Pinocchio so much is the same reason the first Star Wars film is such a landmark. These movies had their filmmakers making things up as they went along. The first shot in Pinocchio was revolutionary at the time, as the camera pans over the Italian village, and then slowly makes its way into the story. The only thing comparable to Pinocchio these days is Toy Story, since it was the first movie to be 100% computer animated. But Toy Story relied on the voices of famous actors (albeit fine actors-Tom Hanks does become Woody), while Pinocchio even more fully relies on the power of its story and the imagination to realize it.
By now, the story is very much a part of our consciousness. A lonely old puppeteer constructs a little boy and wishes upon a star that his puppet would become a real boy. The blue fairy brings the puppet to life, but the wooden boy must decide for himself whether or not he will be a real boy. His adventures and temptations are what the movie is about.
But it is about so much more. There is a warmth and charm to this movie that I have never found anywhere else. The simple story is beautifully told, and in it I see myself-my struggles to deal with going the easy way and not following the more difficult path.
Not to spoil too much, but in the end, Pinocchio does become a real boy. But since he has spent the majority of the film as a selfish boy, it never to me seemed that he had quite proven himself. May I suggest that there is a tremendous grace to Pinocchio becoming a real boy? Could it be that Gepetto's faith in the wish is what gave Pinocchio the ability all along?
Monday, August 22, 2011
The Fantastic Mr Fox
Another Andersonish entry from Wes Anderson. Though this movie did not captivate me the way my favorite of his movies do, I still loved watching it. One of the things that is so great about it is that since it is animated, so many of Anderson's whimsical visions can be realized even better.
The story revolves around a sly fox who moves his family to a brand new home (in a tree) in order to be closer to three factories from which he wants to steal. Along the way, we get to know his family. We see how Mr. Fox relates to his wife and his child, and his nephew. In the end, the family is a little bit happier, the three factories are a bit poorer, and the viewer of the film is a little bit more cheery.
Wes Anderson is in love with film making, and this movie exhibits that yet again. I found his style of dialogue a little less effective without the actors' face actually attached to the dialogue, but it still worked. This film feels a bit like a pet piece for Anderson (though I'm sure it took enormous amounts of work). Other films of his strike more of a chord in their humor and drama, and this one is a simple, whimsical tale. The animation is amazing, and it is astounding to think about how much work must have gone into this project.
I admire the level of commitment to a story here. Having said that, I would also love to see what Wes Anderson has next. He is an extraordinary gifted film maker, and one of those artists that will always keep me interested.
The story revolves around a sly fox who moves his family to a brand new home (in a tree) in order to be closer to three factories from which he wants to steal. Along the way, we get to know his family. We see how Mr. Fox relates to his wife and his child, and his nephew. In the end, the family is a little bit happier, the three factories are a bit poorer, and the viewer of the film is a little bit more cheery.
Wes Anderson is in love with film making, and this movie exhibits that yet again. I found his style of dialogue a little less effective without the actors' face actually attached to the dialogue, but it still worked. This film feels a bit like a pet piece for Anderson (though I'm sure it took enormous amounts of work). Other films of his strike more of a chord in their humor and drama, and this one is a simple, whimsical tale. The animation is amazing, and it is astounding to think about how much work must have gone into this project.
I admire the level of commitment to a story here. Having said that, I would also love to see what Wes Anderson has next. He is an extraordinary gifted film maker, and one of those artists that will always keep me interested.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
The Help
In the span of 3 weeks, I both read the novel and saw the movie, "The Help." As such, I feel I was able to compare them even better than other film adaptations of books. As I watched, I saw a very good depiction of the characters in the novel. But the entire experience went beyond that. As I watched, I found myself reflecting on the larger issue of civil rights, as well as the prisons in which we all find ourselves.
The story focuses on three women. Two of them are African American maids, and one is a young white college student. The young white woman is an aspiring writer, and she begins to take an interest in the lives of the countless women who end up raising white children. The story shows how her interest in writing their stories leads to shared discovery...not only of the need for equality for the African American people, but also shedding a light on the prisons many of the the peoples of both colors are in. For example, the character of Minny is in a different kind of prison. She has gotten in trouble at work through her sass, and she loses her job. But a deeper prison in which she finds herself is the one at home, as she wearily deals with an abusive husband. The high society white ladies and men in the movie are in a prison of their own construction. They cannot question the status quo, so they go along with horrible realities. They pay other women to raise their children, and treat those women like rubbish since the are expendable. Since the African American women must be kept where they are, the delicate social construct must be maintained, so they find any way they can to maintain the status quo, or even dial it back a few years.
The key character to the story is Aibileen, played amazingly by Viola Davis. Mild mannered and gentle, she is also strong, and she becomes the first woman to stand up and tell her story to Skeeter (Emma Stone), who is compiling these stories into a revolutionary book about the lives of the women. This is a story that is small in focus, but makes one think about the world. Anytime a story with these themes in it is released, it elicits controversy. I think that is good. We must be able to deal with our history honestly, and art can do that, however imperfect the work of art may be. I thought it ironic that the two women (Aibileen and Minny) however oppressed they were, end the movie in a freer state than the racist community in Jackson. True, they are still second class citizens who are in the poorer class, but they have shared their story, and they have found a certain measure of dignity. The society women of Jackson, while more privileged and wealthy, are trapped in hate and fear.
The performances are all great, and the film is able to capture the characters on the screen very well. There are some amendments to the book, as well as some deletions. But the true strength of the adaptation is the ability to realize the characters in the book. And the pie story line was executed brilliantly. For those who have read the book, you know what I am talking about. For those who have no idea what I am talking about, you will not be disappointed in the pay off.
The story focuses on three women. Two of them are African American maids, and one is a young white college student. The young white woman is an aspiring writer, and she begins to take an interest in the lives of the countless women who end up raising white children. The story shows how her interest in writing their stories leads to shared discovery...not only of the need for equality for the African American people, but also shedding a light on the prisons many of the the peoples of both colors are in. For example, the character of Minny is in a different kind of prison. She has gotten in trouble at work through her sass, and she loses her job. But a deeper prison in which she finds herself is the one at home, as she wearily deals with an abusive husband. The high society white ladies and men in the movie are in a prison of their own construction. They cannot question the status quo, so they go along with horrible realities. They pay other women to raise their children, and treat those women like rubbish since the are expendable. Since the African American women must be kept where they are, the delicate social construct must be maintained, so they find any way they can to maintain the status quo, or even dial it back a few years.
The key character to the story is Aibileen, played amazingly by Viola Davis. Mild mannered and gentle, she is also strong, and she becomes the first woman to stand up and tell her story to Skeeter (Emma Stone), who is compiling these stories into a revolutionary book about the lives of the women. This is a story that is small in focus, but makes one think about the world. Anytime a story with these themes in it is released, it elicits controversy. I think that is good. We must be able to deal with our history honestly, and art can do that, however imperfect the work of art may be. I thought it ironic that the two women (Aibileen and Minny) however oppressed they were, end the movie in a freer state than the racist community in Jackson. True, they are still second class citizens who are in the poorer class, but they have shared their story, and they have found a certain measure of dignity. The society women of Jackson, while more privileged and wealthy, are trapped in hate and fear.
The performances are all great, and the film is able to capture the characters on the screen very well. There are some amendments to the book, as well as some deletions. But the true strength of the adaptation is the ability to realize the characters in the book. And the pie story line was executed brilliantly. For those who have read the book, you know what I am talking about. For those who have no idea what I am talking about, you will not be disappointed in the pay off.
Friday, August 12, 2011
10 Movies my wife and I can watch over and over
My wife Stephanie and I love watching movies together. Over the years, we have begun to watch certain movies over and over again, just like you look at old family photos. Here are ten movies my wife and I love watching--
10) Rear Window: A classic Hitchcock story. Maybe not his greatest work, but certainly terribly fun and entertaining-and my wife has always loved Jimmy Stewart.
9) Stranger Than Fiction: When we first saw this movie, we saw something rare. We saw something that seemed truly original to us. It still feels that way. Will Ferrell is wonderful in this movie, and he has Maggie Gyllenhaal, Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson to back him up. It is an unusual romantic comedy in that it is original. Romantic comedies can be tough to make original, but this one accomplishes that. Finally, seeing Chicago (our temporary home town) on screen is always wonderful.
8) Fargo: While there are always scenes that Steph would rather skip (a lot of blood is shed in this film), the simple decency of Marge Gunderson and her husband always brings Steph back, and the sharp Coen Brothers dialogue with a Minnesota touch gets me every time.
7) Babe: Simple, sweet storytelling with a slight edge. A great work of cinema that is fun to watch with kids.
6) Pride and Prejudice: This BBC miniseries really made Colin Firth a household name well before his glory in "The King's Speech". It is 5 hours long, but somehow it always seems to fly by (though we have never watched it in one sitting). The amount of lines we quote are numerous..."And yet I am unmoved.", "Are we to be murdered in our beds?!?" "By modest equipage", etc. The performances are great, and it shows the depth of Jane Austen's storytelling, as well as the drama that can come out of such seemingly mundane social meandering.
5) Steel Magnolias: Wayne and Garth dismissed this movie as a "chick movie" on "Wayne's World", and there is truth in that. But even though it is horribly sad at times and lacking in testosterone, it has some of the funniest dialogue and situations you can see on film. Witness Tom Skerrit attempting to frighten the birds in his tree with his gun, or listen to the sassy dialogue delivered by Olympia Dukakis ("If you don't have something nice to say, come sit by me.") It is the rare movie that evokes many different emotions because its characters are at so many stages in life. And the cast (Sally Field, Julia Roberts, Dolly Parton, Darryl Hannah, Shrley Mclane, Olympia Dukakis, etc...) is outstanding.
4) The Bourne Triology: Steph has a soft spot for Matt Damon, and I love watching because it's a great travel log. These movies all do a wonderful job of cranking up the action and never letting up. And each movie features not only Damon, but a wonderful cast of supporting actors which lend gravitas to the story, and make an otherwise standard action plot into something truly special.
3) Notting Hill: Another movie that may mean a lot to us because of when we first saw it. We saw it just after I had popped the question, and the dialogue written by Richard Curtis continues to make us laugh. Lately, this movie has sort of been replaced in our regular viewing by "Love Actually", but I think this one deserves a place on this list because it was more formative for us. Also, you simply cannot beat Hugh Grant surprising his friends by bringing the world's biggest movie star to dinner as his date.
2) Almost Famous: We saw this movie for the first time at a movie theater in Boston with an old friend, and we loved it. Since then, it has aged very well. Cameron Crowe's semi-autobiographical ode to rock music has so much nuance and poignance that it is always watchable. There is so much familiarity as well, even though my upbringing was so different.
AND NUMBER 1:
1) Good Will Hunting: I think we have watched this movie together more than any other. We took two trips to Boston early in our relationship, and so the setting is very evocative for both of us. Also, the movie shows characters that are on the verge of adulthood but still have a lot of residue from their adolescence. When we first saw this movie, Stephanie and I were in that stage. The stage of having a job, but spending evenings at diners or fast food restaurants chillin' with friends. Also, Robin Williams' monologue in the garden is one of the best written scenes of which I can think. We always love watching it together.
What are some of your special favs with your significant other or friends?
Read my blog entries on 3 of these movies:
Babe: http://joelsmovieblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/babe.html
Fargo: http://joelsmovieblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/fargo.html
Almost Famous: http://joelsmovieblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/rock-and-roll-part-2- almost-famous.html
10) Rear Window: A classic Hitchcock story. Maybe not his greatest work, but certainly terribly fun and entertaining-and my wife has always loved Jimmy Stewart.
9) Stranger Than Fiction: When we first saw this movie, we saw something rare. We saw something that seemed truly original to us. It still feels that way. Will Ferrell is wonderful in this movie, and he has Maggie Gyllenhaal, Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson to back him up. It is an unusual romantic comedy in that it is original. Romantic comedies can be tough to make original, but this one accomplishes that. Finally, seeing Chicago (our temporary home town) on screen is always wonderful.
8) Fargo: While there are always scenes that Steph would rather skip (a lot of blood is shed in this film), the simple decency of Marge Gunderson and her husband always brings Steph back, and the sharp Coen Brothers dialogue with a Minnesota touch gets me every time.
7) Babe: Simple, sweet storytelling with a slight edge. A great work of cinema that is fun to watch with kids.
6) Pride and Prejudice: This BBC miniseries really made Colin Firth a household name well before his glory in "The King's Speech". It is 5 hours long, but somehow it always seems to fly by (though we have never watched it in one sitting). The amount of lines we quote are numerous..."And yet I am unmoved.", "Are we to be murdered in our beds?!?" "By modest equipage", etc. The performances are great, and it shows the depth of Jane Austen's storytelling, as well as the drama that can come out of such seemingly mundane social meandering.
5) Steel Magnolias: Wayne and Garth dismissed this movie as a "chick movie" on "Wayne's World", and there is truth in that. But even though it is horribly sad at times and lacking in testosterone, it has some of the funniest dialogue and situations you can see on film. Witness Tom Skerrit attempting to frighten the birds in his tree with his gun, or listen to the sassy dialogue delivered by Olympia Dukakis ("If you don't have something nice to say, come sit by me.") It is the rare movie that evokes many different emotions because its characters are at so many stages in life. And the cast (Sally Field, Julia Roberts, Dolly Parton, Darryl Hannah, Shrley Mclane, Olympia Dukakis, etc...) is outstanding.
4) The Bourne Triology: Steph has a soft spot for Matt Damon, and I love watching because it's a great travel log. These movies all do a wonderful job of cranking up the action and never letting up. And each movie features not only Damon, but a wonderful cast of supporting actors which lend gravitas to the story, and make an otherwise standard action plot into something truly special.
3) Notting Hill: Another movie that may mean a lot to us because of when we first saw it. We saw it just after I had popped the question, and the dialogue written by Richard Curtis continues to make us laugh. Lately, this movie has sort of been replaced in our regular viewing by "Love Actually", but I think this one deserves a place on this list because it was more formative for us. Also, you simply cannot beat Hugh Grant surprising his friends by bringing the world's biggest movie star to dinner as his date.
2) Almost Famous: We saw this movie for the first time at a movie theater in Boston with an old friend, and we loved it. Since then, it has aged very well. Cameron Crowe's semi-autobiographical ode to rock music has so much nuance and poignance that it is always watchable. There is so much familiarity as well, even though my upbringing was so different.
AND NUMBER 1:
1) Good Will Hunting: I think we have watched this movie together more than any other. We took two trips to Boston early in our relationship, and so the setting is very evocative for both of us. Also, the movie shows characters that are on the verge of adulthood but still have a lot of residue from their adolescence. When we first saw this movie, Stephanie and I were in that stage. The stage of having a job, but spending evenings at diners or fast food restaurants chillin' with friends. Also, Robin Williams' monologue in the garden is one of the best written scenes of which I can think. We always love watching it together.
What are some of your special favs with your significant other or friends?
Read my blog entries on 3 of these movies:
Babe: http://joelsmovieblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/babe.html
Fargo: http://joelsmovieblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/fargo.html
Almost Famous: http://joelsmovieblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/rock-and-roll-part-2- almost-famous.html
Monday, August 8, 2011
Marley and Me
On our recent trip to the lake in Brainerd, Minnesota, Stephanie and I put our feet up and watched this movie. Great movies are often times described as being greater than the sum of their parts. To me, this movie had great parts that did not add up to a great sum. It follows the adventures of a newspaper columnist and his wife as they move to Florida and begin their newlywed life together. Along the way, they adopt an incorrigible Labrador and begin their family. The movie follows the life of the dog as this couple adjusts to the enormous challenges of raising children on one income. Unfortunately, it lacks direction and feels more like a slide show than a movie.
The movie has a lot going for it. Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston are both very good in their roles. Alan Arkin is hilarious as Owen Wilson's boss. The dog is cute. The kids are cute. And the depiction of adjusting to the grind of being a parent does indeed have some familiarity. What the movie seemed to be missing is a coherent narrative. In fact, it seemed like a group of newspaper columns, which I suppose it was. It seemed a bit disjointed, even though many moments rang true. I think it could have used some greater cohesion and it would have made it more unified. As it stands, the movie is not a deep movie. It doesn't need to be. But sometimes, movie masterpieces need not be deep at all, just done with cohesion (think "Airplane"). Here, by the time we get to the end of the movie, the dog seems to be the story again, just like he was at the beginning. The only problem is, the dog sat on the sidelines for the middle of the movie.
It is hard to pick this movie apart too much. It is out to warm the heart, not change the world. But I think my heart would have been warmer if there had been a story I was more involved in.
The movie has a lot going for it. Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston are both very good in their roles. Alan Arkin is hilarious as Owen Wilson's boss. The dog is cute. The kids are cute. And the depiction of adjusting to the grind of being a parent does indeed have some familiarity. What the movie seemed to be missing is a coherent narrative. In fact, it seemed like a group of newspaper columns, which I suppose it was. It seemed a bit disjointed, even though many moments rang true. I think it could have used some greater cohesion and it would have made it more unified. As it stands, the movie is not a deep movie. It doesn't need to be. But sometimes, movie masterpieces need not be deep at all, just done with cohesion (think "Airplane"). Here, by the time we get to the end of the movie, the dog seems to be the story again, just like he was at the beginning. The only problem is, the dog sat on the sidelines for the middle of the movie.
It is hard to pick this movie apart too much. It is out to warm the heart, not change the world. But I think my heart would have been warmer if there had been a story I was more involved in.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
ANSWERS!!!
THANKS TO ALL WHO PARTICIPATED...THE WINNER IS A FRIEND FROM TJ'S...SHE GOT 14 ANSWERS CORRECT. I'LL KEEP WORKING ON ORGANIZING SO THAT ON THE NEXT QUIZ YOU CAN'T SEE OTHERS' ANSWERS. :)
THANKS AGAIN!!!!
1. Truman Show
2. Psycho
3. Return of the Jedi
4. Good Will Hunting
5. Casablanca
6. Fargo
7. The Lives of Others
8. This is Spinal Tap( though the line is actually "What're the hours?"-hat tip to the winner on her correction)
9. Raising Arizona
10. The Princess Bride
11. City Lights
12. Hard Day's Night
13. Babe
14. What's Up Doc?
15. E.T.
Friday, August 5, 2011
MOVIE QUOTE CONTEST!!!!
Let's have some fun! These are 15 last lines from some of my favorite movies...get your answers to me via comments or face book. Whoever gets the most right wins a prize I will later reveal. I am trusting my readers to not cheat by looking on the internet for answers-I knew all these by heart, though on one or two I did look them up to get them exactly right....have fun!! And, if I got one or two words wrong, please, have mercy :)
1. "Let's see what else is on...yeah, where's the TV Guide?"
2. "She wouldn't hurt a fly"
3. "He's my brother"
4. "Son of a b***h, he stole my line."
5. "Louie, this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
6. "Two more months..."
7. "No, it's for me."
8. "How much does it pay?"
9. "Maybe it was Utah..."
10. "As you wish."
11. "Yes...I can see now."
12. "You're a swine."
13. "That'll Do..."
14. "That's The Dumbest Thing I've ever heard."
15. "I'll be right here."
1. "Let's see what else is on...yeah, where's the TV Guide?"
2. "She wouldn't hurt a fly"
3. "He's my brother"
4. "Son of a b***h, he stole my line."
5. "Louie, this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
6. "Two more months..."
7. "No, it's for me."
8. "How much does it pay?"
9. "Maybe it was Utah..."
10. "As you wish."
11. "Yes...I can see now."
12. "You're a swine."
13. "That'll Do..."
14. "That's The Dumbest Thing I've ever heard."
15. "I'll be right here."
Monday, August 1, 2011
The Lord Of the Rings
We were home from Chicago for Christmas in 2001. It was 3 months after the World Trade Center had been destroyed, and Stephanie and I had made our way to LA to see our family. We had been awaiting the opening of "Lord of the Rings" with great interest, and we decided to watch the new movie with our families. As a venue, we chose a new annex to Hollywood's classic Chinese Theater. As we made our way into that theater, we left Hollywood and were transported elsewhere.
Awhile back, I wrote an entry about "Jane Eyre," and I began to talk a little bit about how one can rate a film that is based on a book. Coming to "The Lord of the Rings", this question obviously pops up again. What I found fascinating as I watched the three parts and then read the novel again was how well these movies did justice to the novel, even though they actually made some significant plot changes. I think that speaks volumes about how well Peter Jackson and company nailed the spirit of the characters first and foremost. The elements of the plot of any story are relatively easy to capture, since they are already written down for the filmmaker. But anytime you have to capture the spirit of a character on film, that is where the great test lies for the filmmaker attempting to translate a book into a movie.
The other thing these movies allowed me to do was have a new appreciation for JRR Tolkien's work. I am not a passionate fan of the verbose work of Tolkien, and the first time I read The Lord of the Rings, I found it difficult to follow the plot due to the overwhelming detail with which I was coming into contact. In a way, the films gave me the skeleton of the plot, so I understood it. Therefore, the next time I sat down to read the novel, I was thoroughly engrossed in the work, as I should have been the first time.
This epic tale has so much to say about what can go right with film making. First, the director found a distributor who was willing to pay up front for all three parts to be made at once, which turns out to be over 10 hours of movie. That kind of production is a huge risk, but it paid off. There are no cast changes, no changes in the writing or directing. Instead, you have one epic vision of this great novel. Second, the director clearly loves the material. We can all argue about certain elements that did not get their due in the film (I for one would have loved to see more of the restful elements of the novel to counteract the intensity), but one cannot argue that Peter Jackson and company cared deeply about the material with which they were working. Third, though the cast is made up of fine actors, there is not a superstar among them. This film is not a star vehicle, and the movie was cast as such. Because of that, each actor can more fully inhabit their character, and what we see on screen is an incarnation of the the spirit of the novel. Finally, and most importantly, it is amazing just how well each character was cast and realized. Take the character of Aragorn/Strider. In order for this character to work, the filmmaker has to find an actor who can portray a man who is at once good and mysterious, an outcast yet destined to be king. Somehow, Viggo Mortenson personifies this character so fully that we never doubt that we are watching Aragorn on screen. These four elements are just part of why this movie works so well.
And despite the unconventional nature of the film's production, it is classic Hollywood storytelling. It has an enormous canvas, and the movie reminds us of great epics like "Ben Hur" or "Lawerence of Arabia". These are movies that are works of imagination, yet also works that are realized by using exquisite locations in our world. In "Lawerence", David Lean used the desert. In this movie, Peter Jackson uses his home country of New Zealad to such a great effect that one almost doubts that we are looking at a real place. These settings seem so much like Middle Earth that it is hard to remember that they exist on our planet.
The film also is a tribute to vision and hard work. The set designs are amazing, and every detail of makeup and special effects help tell the story. The sets and effects don't become the point, but they lend veracity to the whole story.
So as we left the Chinese theater some 10 years ago, we all felt tired. We had just been through an ordeal, and we knew that the action only got more intense with the next 2 parts. Seldom have I left a theater so overwhelmed by the vision and excitement of one film. I felt that I had seen something truly groundbreaking in scope and imagination. I had.
Awhile back, I wrote an entry about "Jane Eyre," and I began to talk a little bit about how one can rate a film that is based on a book. Coming to "The Lord of the Rings", this question obviously pops up again. What I found fascinating as I watched the three parts and then read the novel again was how well these movies did justice to the novel, even though they actually made some significant plot changes. I think that speaks volumes about how well Peter Jackson and company nailed the spirit of the characters first and foremost. The elements of the plot of any story are relatively easy to capture, since they are already written down for the filmmaker. But anytime you have to capture the spirit of a character on film, that is where the great test lies for the filmmaker attempting to translate a book into a movie.
The other thing these movies allowed me to do was have a new appreciation for JRR Tolkien's work. I am not a passionate fan of the verbose work of Tolkien, and the first time I read The Lord of the Rings, I found it difficult to follow the plot due to the overwhelming detail with which I was coming into contact. In a way, the films gave me the skeleton of the plot, so I understood it. Therefore, the next time I sat down to read the novel, I was thoroughly engrossed in the work, as I should have been the first time.
This epic tale has so much to say about what can go right with film making. First, the director found a distributor who was willing to pay up front for all three parts to be made at once, which turns out to be over 10 hours of movie. That kind of production is a huge risk, but it paid off. There are no cast changes, no changes in the writing or directing. Instead, you have one epic vision of this great novel. Second, the director clearly loves the material. We can all argue about certain elements that did not get their due in the film (I for one would have loved to see more of the restful elements of the novel to counteract the intensity), but one cannot argue that Peter Jackson and company cared deeply about the material with which they were working. Third, though the cast is made up of fine actors, there is not a superstar among them. This film is not a star vehicle, and the movie was cast as such. Because of that, each actor can more fully inhabit their character, and what we see on screen is an incarnation of the the spirit of the novel. Finally, and most importantly, it is amazing just how well each character was cast and realized. Take the character of Aragorn/Strider. In order for this character to work, the filmmaker has to find an actor who can portray a man who is at once good and mysterious, an outcast yet destined to be king. Somehow, Viggo Mortenson personifies this character so fully that we never doubt that we are watching Aragorn on screen. These four elements are just part of why this movie works so well.
And despite the unconventional nature of the film's production, it is classic Hollywood storytelling. It has an enormous canvas, and the movie reminds us of great epics like "Ben Hur" or "Lawerence of Arabia". These are movies that are works of imagination, yet also works that are realized by using exquisite locations in our world. In "Lawerence", David Lean used the desert. In this movie, Peter Jackson uses his home country of New Zealad to such a great effect that one almost doubts that we are looking at a real place. These settings seem so much like Middle Earth that it is hard to remember that they exist on our planet.
The film also is a tribute to vision and hard work. The set designs are amazing, and every detail of makeup and special effects help tell the story. The sets and effects don't become the point, but they lend veracity to the whole story.
So as we left the Chinese theater some 10 years ago, we all felt tired. We had just been through an ordeal, and we knew that the action only got more intense with the next 2 parts. Seldom have I left a theater so overwhelmed by the vision and excitement of one film. I felt that I had seen something truly groundbreaking in scope and imagination. I had.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2
The Harry Potter film saga comes to a close at long last. If you are interested, here's my blog entry in July of '07 when I read the last book in the series:
http://the-salad-days.blogspot.com/2007/07/long-journey.html
Today, after Steph and I went to the movie, my daughter asked if she could start reading the books. So this afternoon, I saw her trying to pronounce Dumbledore's name for the first time, and I smiled as I realized how much fun and adventure she has in store.
What I have always loved about these stories/movies is their ability to tell a classic story. Here, in the 8th film, we finally see the resolution to the epic story. As a film, it is very effective. Watching the images on the screen were more of a walk down memory lane, since the events were already known to me. But, to see them realized on screen was special. Even more, to see key parts of the book realized so well was very satisfying.
The three principal actors have done an amazing job of inhabiting their roles. They have created convincing characters. They have been supported by a legendary cast of British acting royalty. Read this list: Richard Harris, Micheal Gambon, Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, Emma Thompson, Immelda Staunton, Maggie Smith, Jim Broadbent, Rhys Ifans, John Cleese, Ralph Fiennes, Kenneth Branagh, Helena Bonham Carter, Cirian Hinds, Kelly MacDonald, Bill Nighy, and more (this is just what I can call up from memory-I am not intentionally leaving anyone out). The gravitas that these actors have brought to the production has helped the already legendary stories, and have made for solid narrative entertainment.
This final chapter sees the final showdown between Harry Potter and the evil Lord Voldemort. It also sees the final destiny of all of its remaining character, and finally reveals important secrets involving its most important characters. It is a great conclusion.
Did these films break new cinematic ground? Hardly. However, not all work needs to, and the best way to measure these films is how confident all of them have been in the narrative, and an utter consistency in tone and production. This made it possible for all 8 films to run together very well. I cannot give my favorite scenes without giving anything away. I will simply say that I thought casting Alan Rickman as Snape seemed perfect 10 years ago, and it has proven to be perfect. The scenes in which this mysterious character are illuminated are truly special, and one cannot help but think that having the right actor in place truly sold it.
The stories will live on. We will watch them again, and we will introduce them to our children as they grow older. They will always be a testament to the simply power of storytelling and imagination. JK Rowling has given to the world a gift: she has created and nurtured a literary world, and then patiently overseen it's translation to the big screen. I have a lot of admiration for all of it.
http://the-salad-days.blogspot.com/2007/07/long-journey.html
Today, after Steph and I went to the movie, my daughter asked if she could start reading the books. So this afternoon, I saw her trying to pronounce Dumbledore's name for the first time, and I smiled as I realized how much fun and adventure she has in store.
What I have always loved about these stories/movies is their ability to tell a classic story. Here, in the 8th film, we finally see the resolution to the epic story. As a film, it is very effective. Watching the images on the screen were more of a walk down memory lane, since the events were already known to me. But, to see them realized on screen was special. Even more, to see key parts of the book realized so well was very satisfying.
The three principal actors have done an amazing job of inhabiting their roles. They have created convincing characters. They have been supported by a legendary cast of British acting royalty. Read this list: Richard Harris, Micheal Gambon, Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, Emma Thompson, Immelda Staunton, Maggie Smith, Jim Broadbent, Rhys Ifans, John Cleese, Ralph Fiennes, Kenneth Branagh, Helena Bonham Carter, Cirian Hinds, Kelly MacDonald, Bill Nighy, and more (this is just what I can call up from memory-I am not intentionally leaving anyone out). The gravitas that these actors have brought to the production has helped the already legendary stories, and have made for solid narrative entertainment.
This final chapter sees the final showdown between Harry Potter and the evil Lord Voldemort. It also sees the final destiny of all of its remaining character, and finally reveals important secrets involving its most important characters. It is a great conclusion.
Did these films break new cinematic ground? Hardly. However, not all work needs to, and the best way to measure these films is how confident all of them have been in the narrative, and an utter consistency in tone and production. This made it possible for all 8 films to run together very well. I cannot give my favorite scenes without giving anything away. I will simply say that I thought casting Alan Rickman as Snape seemed perfect 10 years ago, and it has proven to be perfect. The scenes in which this mysterious character are illuminated are truly special, and one cannot help but think that having the right actor in place truly sold it.
The stories will live on. We will watch them again, and we will introduce them to our children as they grow older. They will always be a testament to the simply power of storytelling and imagination. JK Rowling has given to the world a gift: she has created and nurtured a literary world, and then patiently overseen it's translation to the big screen. I have a lot of admiration for all of it.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Winnie the Pooh
"Some day you will be old enough to start reading fairy tales again"
-CS Lewis, to his Goddaughter, in the dedication of "The Lion the Witch and the
Wardrobe."
Sometimes movies are about a feeling. When I was 6 or 7 years old, I had the flu pretty bad, and my mother decided to take me to the video store to rent some movies to help me through being sick. One of the movies we rented was "The Many Adventures of WInnie the Pooh", and I loved it. Many years later, as I watched that same movie with my children, it evoked a nostalgia in me that is rare. So as I went to see "Winnie the Pooh" with my wife and kids, it had an unusual effect on me. This was the first time all 5 of us have gone to a movie in a theater, and it is fun to see it through their eyes.
As the same old theme song played (sung by a different artist), I was right back to my childhood, though I had my 8 year old sitting next to me. What this movie does very well is evoke the feeling I had as a kid, and it is gentle and sweet enough that no child would find anything troubling in it. In this way, it is a throw back. This is a hand drawn film, and it differs in almost every way from the Pixar films. There are no A-list movie stars providing voices, no too-cool-for school double entendres, and no bells, whistles, or loud explosions. No, this is a film that shows that simple, sweet story telling still can have a place in the arts. Furthermore, when it is done well, it has an effect on adults that it could never have an kids. This is part of what CS Lewis was saying, I think, in the quote above. Once one reaches a certain age (especially when one has children) all of the stories of one's childhood come back, and they return with more power than ever.
This movie pieces together parts from AA Milne's books. The one strength I thought the first film has was the way it told 3 different stories. This movie pieces many plots together to form one story, and I think the narrative suffers a bit, but the story itself is cute and innocent, so it doesn't suffer much. The main plot arc involves Eeyore losing his tail, and Christopher Robin and his friends trying to find him a new one. As the story moves on, one thing I will say is that this film shows the animals being totally lost without Christopher Robin, which shows a sweetness to their world that the original film didn't have.
My world is immersed in Winnie the Pooh right now. The children are devouring the audio books and audio dramas, and they are in love with this world. I'm glad. The children need simple and imaginative fables just like they need grand drama and adventures in their lives. The sight of little Christopher Robin in his school uniform evokes something. It invokes the fleeting nature of childhood, and the stuffed animals signify that as well. School signifies an end to Christopher Robin's endless world of play and doing nothing. That time will end for my children soon enough. Until then, I'm glad I have stories like this to share with them.
-CS Lewis, to his Goddaughter, in the dedication of "The Lion the Witch and the
Wardrobe."
Sometimes movies are about a feeling. When I was 6 or 7 years old, I had the flu pretty bad, and my mother decided to take me to the video store to rent some movies to help me through being sick. One of the movies we rented was "The Many Adventures of WInnie the Pooh", and I loved it. Many years later, as I watched that same movie with my children, it evoked a nostalgia in me that is rare. So as I went to see "Winnie the Pooh" with my wife and kids, it had an unusual effect on me. This was the first time all 5 of us have gone to a movie in a theater, and it is fun to see it through their eyes.
As the same old theme song played (sung by a different artist), I was right back to my childhood, though I had my 8 year old sitting next to me. What this movie does very well is evoke the feeling I had as a kid, and it is gentle and sweet enough that no child would find anything troubling in it. In this way, it is a throw back. This is a hand drawn film, and it differs in almost every way from the Pixar films. There are no A-list movie stars providing voices, no too-cool-for school double entendres, and no bells, whistles, or loud explosions. No, this is a film that shows that simple, sweet story telling still can have a place in the arts. Furthermore, when it is done well, it has an effect on adults that it could never have an kids. This is part of what CS Lewis was saying, I think, in the quote above. Once one reaches a certain age (especially when one has children) all of the stories of one's childhood come back, and they return with more power than ever.
This movie pieces together parts from AA Milne's books. The one strength I thought the first film has was the way it told 3 different stories. This movie pieces many plots together to form one story, and I think the narrative suffers a bit, but the story itself is cute and innocent, so it doesn't suffer much. The main plot arc involves Eeyore losing his tail, and Christopher Robin and his friends trying to find him a new one. As the story moves on, one thing I will say is that this film shows the animals being totally lost without Christopher Robin, which shows a sweetness to their world that the original film didn't have.
My world is immersed in Winnie the Pooh right now. The children are devouring the audio books and audio dramas, and they are in love with this world. I'm glad. The children need simple and imaginative fables just like they need grand drama and adventures in their lives. The sight of little Christopher Robin in his school uniform evokes something. It invokes the fleeting nature of childhood, and the stuffed animals signify that as well. School signifies an end to Christopher Robin's endless world of play and doing nothing. That time will end for my children soon enough. Until then, I'm glad I have stories like this to share with them.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Unstoppable
The grizzled veteran, the untested rookie, the feisty person in the trenches, the rich suits who make the calls but don't know anything, the pushy press corp, the brainiac with amazingly convenient knowledge and the big problem no one can solve. Almost every action movie has these parts, but only a few end up being greater than the sum of their parts. "Unstoppable" is such an action movie.
For me, as I watched this one a few weeks ago, I came to a realization. A lot of action movies try to bring in human elements, but spend so much time on the human stories that the pace of the action is lost or the stories are inane (one type of Michael Bay movie). Some action movies have no human element, so in the midst of all the chases and explosions, it can be difficult to care about the characters (the other type of Michael Bay movie). This movie gives us enough of a glimpse into the character's lives to care, but manages to juggle that within the context of the action of the movie.
The movie deals with a train that has accidentally been throttled and left unmanned. As it careens through Pennsylvania, the folks back at the station have to figure out a way to stop the train. They must stop the train before it reaches a particular town which has such a sharp turn on the track that there is no way the train will make the turn at full speed without derailing. Also, the train is carrying copious amounts of harmful chemicals, so any crash would result in mass destruction. On the other side of the state, Frank and Will (a classic duo played by Denzel Washington and Chris Pine) are heading straight for the runaway train, and for reasons I won't go into, they are unable to get out of the way.
Sometimes, bad material is made better by good actors. In this movie, good material is made great by good acting. Denzel Washington has been given all the appropriate accolades over the course of his career, but this movie has his wonderful skill and charisma on display yet again. Chris Pine is also quite good, and the two of them are able to take some cliched dialogue ("I've been driving trains for 28 years...what do you know?") and make it very believable. Rosario Dawson plays Connie at the control center, and her performance reminds me of Ed Harris in "Apollo 13". She knows when to take over, and when to delegate. And Chris Dunn plays the ultimate stuffed shirt. He is Connie's supervisor, and he makes all the wrong calls, while the less paid peons come up with all the right ideas. The viewer even gets the satisfying scenes of watching Connie, Will and Frank all tell off their supervisor, something about which most of us have dreamed at one time or another. All of this is overseen by Tony Scott, who brings it all together with great skill.
So here it is, proof that the big studios can make wonderful entertainment. Pop some corn, grab a friend and put this one in...and then get ready for a great ride.
For me, as I watched this one a few weeks ago, I came to a realization. A lot of action movies try to bring in human elements, but spend so much time on the human stories that the pace of the action is lost or the stories are inane (one type of Michael Bay movie). Some action movies have no human element, so in the midst of all the chases and explosions, it can be difficult to care about the characters (the other type of Michael Bay movie). This movie gives us enough of a glimpse into the character's lives to care, but manages to juggle that within the context of the action of the movie.
The movie deals with a train that has accidentally been throttled and left unmanned. As it careens through Pennsylvania, the folks back at the station have to figure out a way to stop the train. They must stop the train before it reaches a particular town which has such a sharp turn on the track that there is no way the train will make the turn at full speed without derailing. Also, the train is carrying copious amounts of harmful chemicals, so any crash would result in mass destruction. On the other side of the state, Frank and Will (a classic duo played by Denzel Washington and Chris Pine) are heading straight for the runaway train, and for reasons I won't go into, they are unable to get out of the way.
Sometimes, bad material is made better by good actors. In this movie, good material is made great by good acting. Denzel Washington has been given all the appropriate accolades over the course of his career, but this movie has his wonderful skill and charisma on display yet again. Chris Pine is also quite good, and the two of them are able to take some cliched dialogue ("I've been driving trains for 28 years...what do you know?") and make it very believable. Rosario Dawson plays Connie at the control center, and her performance reminds me of Ed Harris in "Apollo 13". She knows when to take over, and when to delegate. And Chris Dunn plays the ultimate stuffed shirt. He is Connie's supervisor, and he makes all the wrong calls, while the less paid peons come up with all the right ideas. The viewer even gets the satisfying scenes of watching Connie, Will and Frank all tell off their supervisor, something about which most of us have dreamed at one time or another. All of this is overseen by Tony Scott, who brings it all together with great skill.
So here it is, proof that the big studios can make wonderful entertainment. Pop some corn, grab a friend and put this one in...and then get ready for a great ride.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Cars 2
I have a feeling that the conception of this movie revolved around how many more toys Disney would be able to sell. This movie plays like an amazing looking two hour toy commercial. It was entertaining, to be sure, but it lacked much of the heart of the original, and continues to illustrate what can fall short at time in Pixar films. Now, before everyone comes screaming at me with knives for saying that every Pixar film is nothing but total genius, I want to say I like Pixar movies. I have begun to like them even more now that I have kids, and I can see them through their eyes. But here also lies the problem...kids cannot possibly comprehend the Pixar movies totally, since they are riddled with inside jokes and double entendres. The innocence of other Disney movies can be lost in that. That doesn't mean these films don't work well for what they are, but it does mean that some of them fall short of classic story telling. "Finding Nemo" succeeded, "Wall-E" showed a Chaplinesque brilliance, and "Toy Story 3" worked well for adults, since it is mainly about a child growing up. But "Cars 2" is simply ordinary. That's hard to do, because the animation here is amazing, and the visual imagination continues to impress me. But the story is flat. My kids had almost no interaction with the movie (Corrie wept when she first saw "Nemo", and I heard nothing from her during this one).
Such as it is, this movie's plot revolves around Lightning McQueen taking part in an international Grand Prix, and how Tow-Mater gets caught up in a James Bondesque international intrigue. There is the obligatory shot at big oil, and then we are off on an international spy caper. McQueen shows little sensitivity to Mater, and somehow they have to patch up their friendship. All this gives the animators the chance to showcase some truly brilliant visuals of Tokyo, the Italian Riviera, Paris, and London.
What the Pixar movies sometimes do very well is evoke emotion and heart ("Up" did this very well). The original "Cars" also did this effectively by showing us the bygone era of Route 66 and making it universal by making its audience remember places in all of our hearts that have gone away. This movie does not try to evoke much emotion. In so doing, it loses the texture of storytelling. Also, as a parent, one of the things that always is slightly off putting with Pixar films is just how geared toward grownups these films really are. Before "Cars 2", we saw a trailer for the new "Winnie the Pooh" film, and both Steph and I saw a movie we know our kids will love. That trailer elicited more of a response in minutes from the kids than "Cars 2" did in hours. The Pooh movies are able to entertain adults by chiefly appealing to the inner child in adults rather than to them as adults. Steph and I aren't as interested in all the bells and whistles as much as we are interested in simple storytelling for our kids. Having said that, our kids have seen nearly all of the Pixar movies, and we will continue to watch them. Further, some of the films do indeed have traits of classic storytelling. This movie lacks childlike storytelling, but has all the bells and whistles to keep the kids entertained. The hatred of the critics that I have seen directed toward this movie sort of baffles me. Since Pixar films are such darlings of the critics, this one is getting roasted since it doesn't measure up. Folks, this is a fun movie with very little depth that is amazing to look at. If you're up for an entertaining, somewhat forgettable 2 hours, see the movie. If you want a deeper emotional experience as well, I suggest you rent "Finding Nemo".
Such as it is, this movie's plot revolves around Lightning McQueen taking part in an international Grand Prix, and how Tow-Mater gets caught up in a James Bondesque international intrigue. There is the obligatory shot at big oil, and then we are off on an international spy caper. McQueen shows little sensitivity to Mater, and somehow they have to patch up their friendship. All this gives the animators the chance to showcase some truly brilliant visuals of Tokyo, the Italian Riviera, Paris, and London.
What the Pixar movies sometimes do very well is evoke emotion and heart ("Up" did this very well). The original "Cars" also did this effectively by showing us the bygone era of Route 66 and making it universal by making its audience remember places in all of our hearts that have gone away. This movie does not try to evoke much emotion. In so doing, it loses the texture of storytelling. Also, as a parent, one of the things that always is slightly off putting with Pixar films is just how geared toward grownups these films really are. Before "Cars 2", we saw a trailer for the new "Winnie the Pooh" film, and both Steph and I saw a movie we know our kids will love. That trailer elicited more of a response in minutes from the kids than "Cars 2" did in hours. The Pooh movies are able to entertain adults by chiefly appealing to the inner child in adults rather than to them as adults. Steph and I aren't as interested in all the bells and whistles as much as we are interested in simple storytelling for our kids. Having said that, our kids have seen nearly all of the Pixar movies, and we will continue to watch them. Further, some of the films do indeed have traits of classic storytelling. This movie lacks childlike storytelling, but has all the bells and whistles to keep the kids entertained. The hatred of the critics that I have seen directed toward this movie sort of baffles me. Since Pixar films are such darlings of the critics, this one is getting roasted since it doesn't measure up. Folks, this is a fun movie with very little depth that is amazing to look at. If you're up for an entertaining, somewhat forgettable 2 hours, see the movie. If you want a deeper emotional experience as well, I suggest you rent "Finding Nemo".
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Super 8
What a great summer movie! It reminds me so much of ET, but stands on its own as well for all that it brings. JJ Abrams, this film's director, has become a favorite of mine because he loves making movies. His movies have that sense to them. He is in love with movie making, and he loves making movies for the audience. I was a big fan of his version of "Star Trek", and this movie is another entertaining entry from him.
When I first saw ET when I was 7, the thing I loved about it was that the kids in the movie had enormous power. How did those kids on bikes elude the entire police department? "Super 8" is at its best when it evokes that same sense. When the kids making their super 8 movie and when it concentrates on the elements of being their age, the movie shines. The kids are old enough to start to be aware of the opposite sex, but young enough to be clumsy and full of wonder. The movie stumbles a bit with a somewhat run of the mill sci-fi plot, but the scenes of the kids and the human interest story more than carry the day.
The plot is relatively simple. Joe has lost his mother. He is reeling from the loss. Months later, his friend Charles includes him in the making of his zombie movie. Joe's dad is a local deputy who doesn't know how to relate to his son. The movie crew heads to the train station to film a climactic scene. As the scene is being shot, an actual train goes by, and a car runs onto the tracks and derails the train. As the young film crew seeks cover, the super 8 camera still runs, and it picks something up on film that is truly remarkable.
The movie is also at its best when the mystery regarding what is on the train still remains. Once that mystery is revealed, the film becomes more pedestrian. However, it still is great because the characters have given us buy in, and we care about them and love seeing their ups and downs. These are the scenes that remind me of classic Spielberg films. Steven Spielberg produced this film, and JJ Abrams seems to be a worthy protege for his kind of filmmaking. Here, we have an engaging story delightfully realized and told. We also have a movie with a heart. We care very much about how Joe and his father will get along, and we also care about what will happen between Joe and the girl. I am so happy that Abrams is making movies like this. We need some solid escapist entertainment at times, and Abrams is serving it up so well. The closing credits only solidify what we already knew-JJ Abrams makes wonderfully entertaining movies.
When I first saw ET when I was 7, the thing I loved about it was that the kids in the movie had enormous power. How did those kids on bikes elude the entire police department? "Super 8" is at its best when it evokes that same sense. When the kids making their super 8 movie and when it concentrates on the elements of being their age, the movie shines. The kids are old enough to start to be aware of the opposite sex, but young enough to be clumsy and full of wonder. The movie stumbles a bit with a somewhat run of the mill sci-fi plot, but the scenes of the kids and the human interest story more than carry the day.
The plot is relatively simple. Joe has lost his mother. He is reeling from the loss. Months later, his friend Charles includes him in the making of his zombie movie. Joe's dad is a local deputy who doesn't know how to relate to his son. The movie crew heads to the train station to film a climactic scene. As the scene is being shot, an actual train goes by, and a car runs onto the tracks and derails the train. As the young film crew seeks cover, the super 8 camera still runs, and it picks something up on film that is truly remarkable.
The movie is also at its best when the mystery regarding what is on the train still remains. Once that mystery is revealed, the film becomes more pedestrian. However, it still is great because the characters have given us buy in, and we care about them and love seeing their ups and downs. These are the scenes that remind me of classic Spielberg films. Steven Spielberg produced this film, and JJ Abrams seems to be a worthy protege for his kind of filmmaking. Here, we have an engaging story delightfully realized and told. We also have a movie with a heart. We care very much about how Joe and his father will get along, and we also care about what will happen between Joe and the girl. I am so happy that Abrams is making movies like this. We need some solid escapist entertainment at times, and Abrams is serving it up so well. The closing credits only solidify what we already knew-JJ Abrams makes wonderfully entertaining movies.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Tree of Life
Sometimes a movie is bigger than a plot. Roger Ebert compared this movie to 2001: A Space Odyssey, and I think it is a worthy comparison. Both films use the universe as their canvas. What makes them different is the humanity portrayed. In 2001, the most interesting character in the film is HAL 9000, a computer. Here, Terence Malick uses a Texas family to serve as either a focus of his reflections on creation or as a exemplification of creation.
For the first time that I can remember, I actually had an emotional response to a film even though I didn't quite know why I was having an emotional response to it. The film certainly evokes much emotion as it depicts the conflicting parenting styles of the mother and father in the family (Jessica Chastain and Brad Pitt). Here, we see heartbreaking contradictions. We have Malick having the courage to show us a father who clearly loves his sons, but simply cannot go easy on them. Add to that a mother figure who never partners with him in his sternness, and it makes for an explosive home. All of this is seen through the eyes of the grown oldest son (Sean Penn), looking back on his life and dealing with his regrets
But the basics of the plot seem almost beside the point. This is a visual symphony. It has all the abstractness of an instrumental work of music, but since it is visual, it finds itself in a different category. In this vein, the film also is drenched in classical music, both choral and instrumental. There is a scene near the end when the strains of the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) give greater texture to the film. The ups and downs of this family are mirrored in nature, and even man made creations are used as meditations to evoke a sense of tone. All of the visual, natural and musical elements are brought together to make an experience unlike any other. Add to that a strong undercurrent of meditation on faith and the problem of evil, and you you have film that is extraordinary in its scope. The film opens with the famous reprimand of Job by Yahweh..."Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth." As the film reveals itself, the character of Job comes up again, and we sense that the film is somehow attempting to deal with the issue of evil in the world. However, since the family has been drenched in conflict, the evil hits so close to home, and the film also ends up exploring forgiveness, love and redemption.
If my thoughts seem disjointed, that can be explained by how difficult this movie is to nail down. This is not a popcorn film. It is a challenge. Honestly, I cannot imagine seeing it anywhere except in a movie theater. Only in a movie theater can these extraordinary images be given their due, and the sound system can give us the nuances of the music that Malick uses for his film. There are so many images in the film that it was difficult for me to see how all the images worked together. That's fine. Even though I have seen Van Gogh's "Starry Night" once, I know that I could go back, see it again, and have a similar yet different experience. It is difficult to go to the movies and truly see something unique. "Tree of Life" is such a movie.
For the first time that I can remember, I actually had an emotional response to a film even though I didn't quite know why I was having an emotional response to it. The film certainly evokes much emotion as it depicts the conflicting parenting styles of the mother and father in the family (Jessica Chastain and Brad Pitt). Here, we see heartbreaking contradictions. We have Malick having the courage to show us a father who clearly loves his sons, but simply cannot go easy on them. Add to that a mother figure who never partners with him in his sternness, and it makes for an explosive home. All of this is seen through the eyes of the grown oldest son (Sean Penn), looking back on his life and dealing with his regrets
But the basics of the plot seem almost beside the point. This is a visual symphony. It has all the abstractness of an instrumental work of music, but since it is visual, it finds itself in a different category. In this vein, the film also is drenched in classical music, both choral and instrumental. There is a scene near the end when the strains of the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) give greater texture to the film. The ups and downs of this family are mirrored in nature, and even man made creations are used as meditations to evoke a sense of tone. All of the visual, natural and musical elements are brought together to make an experience unlike any other. Add to that a strong undercurrent of meditation on faith and the problem of evil, and you you have film that is extraordinary in its scope. The film opens with the famous reprimand of Job by Yahweh..."Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth." As the film reveals itself, the character of Job comes up again, and we sense that the film is somehow attempting to deal with the issue of evil in the world. However, since the family has been drenched in conflict, the evil hits so close to home, and the film also ends up exploring forgiveness, love and redemption.
If my thoughts seem disjointed, that can be explained by how difficult this movie is to nail down. This is not a popcorn film. It is a challenge. Honestly, I cannot imagine seeing it anywhere except in a movie theater. Only in a movie theater can these extraordinary images be given their due, and the sound system can give us the nuances of the music that Malick uses for his film. There are so many images in the film that it was difficult for me to see how all the images worked together. That's fine. Even though I have seen Van Gogh's "Starry Night" once, I know that I could go back, see it again, and have a similar yet different experience. It is difficult to go to the movies and truly see something unique. "Tree of Life" is such a movie.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Kiewsloski's Three Colors Trilogy: Red
I have seldom felt the kind of exhilaration that I felt as I watched the last frames of "Red". Since this is the last film of a trilogy, I felt that I had been swept away into a totally different place. Though the 3 films of the 3 Colors Trilogy take place in different places and focus on different characters, it is clear that Kiewsloski is telling 3 related stories. What amazed me in watching this film is that even though "Blue" and "White" were so good, this film still went to a different level. Why? I think it is because this movie feels the most hopeful. None of the 3 films end sadly or tragically. In all three films, there is a clear resolution. But what makes this film different is its protagonist.
I once read that when Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote "The Idiot", it was his aim to depict a perfectly upright man. In many ways, it feels as though Kiewsloski is doing that with the character of Valentine. She is sensitive, lovely, compassionate and selfless. In a movie with constant red imagery, here Kiewsloski names his character something that evokes the color. One night, Valentine is driving and hits a dog. She locates the dog's owner Joseph, and finds him to be a retired judge. He now spends his days using fancy equipment to spy on the phone conversations of other residents of Geneva. As this relationship plays it self out, another parallel story is playing itself out. A young law student who is on the verge of passing his exams lives on the same block as Valentine. As we find out more about Joseph and is background, we begin to see remarkable parallels between Joseph and the young law student who lives near Valentine. Since the three films have depicted the three values of France (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity), this film concerns itself with the broader implications of brotherly love and caring for mankind. I don't want to give anything away, but there is an identical image in all 3 films which ends differently in "Red", and I think in that scene we see a great deal about what Kiewsloski is trying to say in this film.
All three of these films evoke great excitement for me. Kiewsloski (who passed away in 1996 at age 54) creates 3 films that celebrate what cinema has to offer. In my years of watching movies, I don't know if I have ever watched movies that are so purely cinematic as his films. He seems to show through his work that there are certain things that can be communicated through this medium which simply cannot be communicated any other way. The combination of music, story, visual images, clever dialogue and drama that can only come through in cinema is on full display. And yet, the films do not spoon feed the viewer. These movies challenge us with moral ambiguity, but then have the audacity to then challenge us with absolutes as well.
The last images of this film sum up the trilogy well. Here, we have a vast work of imagination that reminds us that we are all connected as humans. What connects us are ideals and our common humanity. But it doesn't end there. It also seems that Kiewsloski leaves us wanting to ask one final question: Where do we go from here?
I once read that when Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote "The Idiot", it was his aim to depict a perfectly upright man. In many ways, it feels as though Kiewsloski is doing that with the character of Valentine. She is sensitive, lovely, compassionate and selfless. In a movie with constant red imagery, here Kiewsloski names his character something that evokes the color. One night, Valentine is driving and hits a dog. She locates the dog's owner Joseph, and finds him to be a retired judge. He now spends his days using fancy equipment to spy on the phone conversations of other residents of Geneva. As this relationship plays it self out, another parallel story is playing itself out. A young law student who is on the verge of passing his exams lives on the same block as Valentine. As we find out more about Joseph and is background, we begin to see remarkable parallels between Joseph and the young law student who lives near Valentine. Since the three films have depicted the three values of France (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity), this film concerns itself with the broader implications of brotherly love and caring for mankind. I don't want to give anything away, but there is an identical image in all 3 films which ends differently in "Red", and I think in that scene we see a great deal about what Kiewsloski is trying to say in this film.
All three of these films evoke great excitement for me. Kiewsloski (who passed away in 1996 at age 54) creates 3 films that celebrate what cinema has to offer. In my years of watching movies, I don't know if I have ever watched movies that are so purely cinematic as his films. He seems to show through his work that there are certain things that can be communicated through this medium which simply cannot be communicated any other way. The combination of music, story, visual images, clever dialogue and drama that can only come through in cinema is on full display. And yet, the films do not spoon feed the viewer. These movies challenge us with moral ambiguity, but then have the audacity to then challenge us with absolutes as well.
The last images of this film sum up the trilogy well. Here, we have a vast work of imagination that reminds us that we are all connected as humans. What connects us are ideals and our common humanity. But it doesn't end there. It also seems that Kiewsloski leaves us wanting to ask one final question: Where do we go from here?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)