Nebraska

I have become something of a fan of Alexander Payne, who directed this slightly eccentric slice of Midwestern life.  While there is at least one of this movies that I did not like ("Sideways", for those keeping score), even that film had a lot of great substance to it.  His last three films ("About Schmidt", "The Descendants", and "Nebraska") have all had significant things to say regarding parental relationships, particularly with fathers.  All three of them also dwell in the shadow of death.  In "About Schmidt" and "The Descendants", the principle character is a widower dealing with the death of his wife.  Here, death plays a more subtle role, but it is no less present as the main characters in the film are living their lives knowing that time is growing short.

Woody Grant (Bruce Dern) is a Korean War Vet who has lived a blue collar life tainted by alcoholism.  The beginning of the film depicts scenes which make clear that he is beginning to lose his faculties.  Woody becomes convinced that he has won $1 million in a publisher's sweepstakes, and is continuing to try to make the trip to Lincoln, Nebraska, to claim his prize.  The problem is that Woody lives in Billings, Montana, which is hundreds of miles from Lincoln.  After many failed attempts at thwarting his dad, Woody's son David (Will Forte, who makes a nice transition here away from comedy) finally agrees to humor his old man and drive him to Lincoln.  On the way to Lincoln, they end up stopping for a visit in Hawthorne, Nebraska, the town where Woody grew up.  Much of Woody's family is still there, as well as old friends and business partners.  The residents of Hawthorne come to believe that Woody has actually won the money, and many of Woody's family and friends begin to scheme ways to get a piece of his supposed wealth.

The premise of the movie is a simple one.  The movie ends up being a study of its characters.  It is mostly a study of David, and his journey to not only discover more about his father, but also about the dynamics of his whole family.  For example, at first, Woody's wife comes across as nagging and abrasive.  While David's and our journey don't totally change her personality, her behavior begins to make more sense as we see not only Woody's alcoholism, but also how he has been treated by the people in his past.  In the end, it is clear that even though theirs isn't a marriage of bliss, the partnership does have deep loyalties and history that is only seen better as the complexities of Woody's life become more clear.  As David makes the journey with his father, he ends up having to come to grips with some of his own frustrations with his father, but he also learns to appreciate his father more.  There is a famous line from the book (and the movie) "To Kill a Mockingbird" wherein the protagonist, Atticus Finch, tells her daughter that no one can really judge anyone else until they get inside their skin and walk around in it.  As David looks at life more through his father's eyes, there only seems to be a sense of appreciation mixed with regret.  His father was distant and fallible, but David does seem to have some kind of appreciation for him.  As Woody's entire nuclear family (which becomes complete when David's news anchor brother Ross shows up in Hawthorne) comes together, the bond that is between them (however distant and different they are as people) is felt palpably by the viewer. 

The choice to shoot the film in black and white works on many levels.  The starkness of the landscape creates a reflective picture of the lives of the people in the story.  The Midwest is a part of the country that has a character and culture all its own, and the black and white photography bring out the feel of that classic American culture that is found in the Midwest.  Finally, the particular lives of the people in the film have stark realities that black and white help bring out.  Part of the reality of Woody's life is that his time is growing short, and there is a lot of regret not only to his own life, but his family clearly have regrets as well.  Payne's last three movies have all dealt with uncomfortable family dynamics, and that conflict is skillfully executed.  They remind us of our common humanity and common struggles, but also of some of the comforts we find in family.

New Wes Anderson Movie Today

A new movie opens in limited release from one of my favorite directors!  Here's a link to the website:

http://www.grandbudapesthotel.com/

Here's hoping it makes it the us peons in the middle of the country soon!

Saving Mr. Banks

It is a credit to this movie that even though it is totally Disney-fied (after all, Disney made it and it is about Disney), it still works pretty well, and even has something of an edge to it.  It follows two paths.  One path follows the young PL Travers (the author of the popular "Mary Poppins" books) as she grows up in Australia.  The second path follows PL Travers as an adult (played by Emma Thompson), as she negotiates terms with Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) to make a movie based on the Mary Poppins books.  One of the interesting things in reading the reviews of this movie was how varied the opinions were, not simply as to whether or not the film had quality, but what it was trying to say.  Some writers thought it worshiped at the feet of Disney, and that it showed the world of Travers being gutted by the Disney machine.  There was also plenty of banter regarding the "negative portrayal" of Travers.  Amazingly, even though the movie was indeed made by the Disney machine, with all of the accompanying bells and whistles, I actually thought it told a good story, and even made some moving statements about why we make art and how little we know about what is behind the art of others.

What makes the business of making "Mary Poppins" so difficult for Walt Disney is the author of the books upon which he wants to base his film.  PL Travers is only considering allowing this adaptation because she is hurting for money.  As she begins the meetings with the screenwriter and the song composers, she makes it very clear that what is to follow will be a battle.  She even goes so far as to insist that each of their meetings be taped in their entirety.  Upon her arrival in Southern California, Travers has no intention of being seduced by the Disney spell.  Her hotel room has been decorated with mountains of Disney memorabilia,which she promptly shoves into her closet.  She dislike the heat in Southern California.  She bristles at the familiar tone all of the Americans take with her.  As the work on the film begins, the film's director parallels that action with vignettes from Travers' childhood.  Her father (Colin Farrel) is a banker (sound familiar?), but he has trouble holding down a job due to is unreliability and his alcoholism.  Many of the details seen in Travers childhood come back to inform her eccentricities as an adult.  The poignancy of these scenes is palatable, but they are made even more so as we see the more modern day story play out.

Walt Disney eventually gets his movie made, after countless hours of haggling and complaining.  There are tremendous scenes as Travers watches the film, and some of the themes she sees on screen hit too close to home for her.  From historical anecdotes about the film's making, it is clear that Travers never liked the finished product.  What I found touching about the movie was how it gave the Travers character reasons for being the difficult person she was.  It would be easy to make a film and depict her as a stuck up prima donna.  Instead, this film shows the pain of her childhood, and how some of the details Disney wants to change in her story were informed by deep memories of her own father.  The depth of emotion that accompanies those details make tinkering with them very difficult for Travers.  This nuance is lost on Disney and his cohorts, and they are left frustrated.  The film also shows Disney as a playful showboat/conman, who is obsessed with creating his movies.  There was a dark side to this kind of creative imperialism, and that underbelly is not lost in this movie.  The performances are all great, and even when the story veers into the saccharine realms where only Disney can go, it still works pretty well.

"About Time" To Write Again

It has been a long time since I have written.  I have been off of Facebook, and, in general, have been amazed at how little that decision has changed my life.  If anything, it has made my day to day existence a little more peaceful.  At the same time, something inside of me still wants to write about movies and that same feeling wants to share my thoughts with as many people as possible.  One of the mediums that makes that possible is Facebook, so I guess I will reenter that world.

The movie that brings me back is "About Time."  This is a movie that was directed by Richard Curtis, who either wrote or directed some of the finest romantic comedies I can bring to mind ("Notting Hill", "Love Actually", "Four Weddings and A Funeral").  It does something I have never seen before in a romantic comedy.  It never presents a significant obstacle toward its principals getting together.  Instead, the story is more existential.  It wants to make greater points about the nature of life, in all of its joys and heartbreaks.

The movie follows a young man named Tim (Domhnall Gleeson).  As Tim turns 21, his father (Bill Nighy) informs him that the men in the family all have the ability to travel back in time to events in their own life.  Of course, Tim is doubtful at first, but quickly learns that he does indeed have this unusual ability.  He uses this talent to woo the woman of his dreams (Rachel McAdams), and settles into his life.  Only after that does he begin to become aware of how complicated life can be.  Crises emerge in his life, and he comes to realize, for various reasons, that his talent cannot fix much of anything.  Instead, he is left with a big question as to what he will do with this talent.

This is a great movie to watch as one returns from vacation.  I am returning to work today after being gone for 2 weeks.  One of the universally applicable messages of this movie is to embrace each day with all of its ups and downs.  This is a valuable message to people like me, who see work as something of a distraction from time with my family.  One valuable thing that Tim does in this movie is commit to live days twice.  In so doing, he is able to "redo" a day that was not a good one.  When he takes the time to redo his day, he sees many of the small joys of life that he had missed the first time around.  At the end of the day the second time, he is able to see what a great day he truly had, and how much he had missed that the first time around.

Richard Curtis has made some great movies with some great universal themes.  His characters clearly have different lives and different beliefs than I do, but his stories tap into some of the things that are true for all of us.  Each day does indeed have so much joy and glory to it.  I miss so much of that as I get bogged down in stress and the everyday grind.  True, there are some days none of us would ever want to live again (if we're sane), but most days have a lot to offer if we simply give them a chance.  I also love how this movie depicts the life together of two people who marry, have a family, and who truly love and like each other.  So many romantic comedies are either about the hunt for or the dissolution of relationships.  This story shows us a somewhat healthy relationship, and some of the true pleasure and joy that such a relationship can bring.

My wife Stephanie and I watched this movie on the plane back from LA, and we watched it again a couple of days later at home.  We both loved it, partly because we both feel that good romantic comedies are very hard to find.  As with other Curtis movies, there are wonderful, quirky minor characters, as well as a story that wears its heart on its sleeve.  He is able to balance cynicism and sentimentality quite well.  As I reenter the work force today, I would do well to let the lessons from this movie and (more importantly) the lessons from my faith go with me.

Movie Trivia Answers

Sorry this is late...the winner was my friend John from SoCal, who not only one, but got a perfect score of 25, answering every question correctly and guessing the connection.  Hats off to John!

Here are the quotes with the answers...the connection is that all of the quotes come from Steven Spielberg films...

1. "We're going to need a bigger boat" – Roy Scheider Jaws

2. "The list is life." Ben Kingsley Schindler’s List

3. "Give us free..." Djimon Honsou Amistad

4. "I'm keeping him..." Henry Thomas E.T.

5. "Bad form!!!' Dustin Hoffman Hook

6. "It's not the age, it's the mileage." Harrison Ford Raiders of the Lost Ark

7. "He better be worth it. He better go home and cure a disease, or invent a longer lasting light bulb."
Tom Hanks Saving Private Ryan

8. "You know why the Yankees always win? 'Cause the other teams can't stop looking at those damn pinstripes!" Christopher Walken Catch Me if You Can

9. "Your scientists we're so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should." Jeff Goldblum Jurassic Park

10. "This means something. This is important." Richard Dreyfuss Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Movie quote contest: Connections

 Let's have some summer fun.  Here are ten movie quotes.  They have a specific connection.  The name of the movie that the quote comes from will be worth one point, and the name of the actor or actress who spoke the line is worth 1 point.  The connection is worth 5 points.  Please e-mail your answers to losbascoms@mac.com...DO NOT PUT YOUR ANSWERS IN THE COMMENTS, OR OTHERS WILL SEE THEM...I WILL HAVE TO DELETE THEM.

Prize for the winner to be determined.  The contest will run until July 25 at 10PM Central Time.  Good luck!


1. "We're going to need a bigger boat"

2. "The list is life."

3.  "Give us free..."

4.  "I'm keeping him..."

5.  "Bad form!!!'

6.  "It's not the age, it's the mileage."

7.  "He better be worth it.  He better go home and cure a disease, or invent a longer lasting light bulb."

8.  "You know why the Yankees always win?  'Cause the other teams can't stop looking at those damn pinstripes!"

9.  "Your scientists we're so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

10.  "This means something.  This is important."

Man Of Steel

Maybe this is because I was so young when I first saw it, but I have always measured every comic book film I have ever seen against Richard Donner's "Superman: The Movie", wherein Christopher Reeve played the famous superhero from Krypton.  The reason I still feel this way is that version was able to perfectly balance the fun and seriousness that came with the territory.  Reeve's Superman is able to be at once funny and serious, and the movie could be both a lark and an epic.  The other crucial element to that film was Gene Hackman's perfectly executed Lex Luthor.  His Luthor is hell bent on both world domination and on the perfect burn to his idiot side kicks.  Having said that, "Man of Steel", does not measure up to Donner's version.  There are lots of reasons why this is, but even with that in mind, this movie has a lot to bring to the Superman mythology.  It is a great summer popcorn movie.

The plot is well known by now.  Jor-el (Russell Crowe) is a scientist on the doomed planet of Krypton.  He and his wife have just brought a baby son into the world named Kal-el, and they devise a way to get him off the planet before their planet implodes.  At the same time, military traitor General Zod has been convicted of treason and been placed with his cohorts into the Phantom Zone (a comic book version of suspended animation).  Since Zod also is off the planet, he vows to Kal-el's mother that he will seek and find Kal-el and exact his revenge upon his old nemesis Jor-el, whom he has murdered.  (On a side note, why didn't Jor-el just leave Zod in jail on the planet to be blown to bits with the rest of the planet?  Nitpicking, I know).

Kal-el is found on earth by Jonathon and Martha Kent, and brought up as their own son.  He ends up growing up knowing he is different, and his schoolmates think of him as a freak.  His father Jonathon (Kevin Costner, in a role perfectly suited for him), advises him to not use his extraordinary powers-powers that he has from his Kryptonian body on earth.  As Kal-el (whom his earth parents name Clark) grows, he finds it increasingly difficult to hide his powers from others, particularly at times when he is bullied, or at times when people around him are in trouble.  As a young man, Clark/Kal-el ends up shuttling around doing odd jobs here and there.  He always ends up having to leave due to some feat of strength he performs, which in turn forces him to hide again.  Eventually, when an alien craft is discovered at the arctic, Daily Planet reporter Lois Lane begins researching this man who has done incredible things, and the trail reaches Clark.  Just as this happens, General Zod arrives at earth to seek his revenge, and the great showdown between Zod and Kal-el begins.

There is a lot about this movie to admire.  The "fish out of water" syndrome (complete with Christ imagery without any nuance) is played very well in this film.  In the end, the human (or Kryptonian) element is the movie's strongest point.  The film does a wonderful job of depicting how difficult it would be to be in the situation Clark is in, but it also shows how hard it would be for others as well (his parents, his classmates, etc.).  The movie also plays some great new angles on the mythology that I hadn't seen before, particularly involving the interaction between Clark and Lois Lane.  The performances of all the actors are great.  Henry Cavill brings a great inner strength and sensitivity to Kal-el.  Amy Adams proves here that she can make even the most canned dialogue sound great.  Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are both note perfect as Superman's adoptive parents.  The other bit roles are also well played, though I could have used some more humor in the dialogue for Laurence Fishburne's Perry White (Fishburne is great, but his dialogue needed to lighten his character up a bit).  Russell Crowe brings a healthy dose of gravitas to Jor-el.

I had two problems with the movie.  I felt that Michael Shannon's performance as General Zod was fine, but that the character itself lacked the kind of depth we saw in the Terence Stamp version, or the depth we found in Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor.  The villain in comic book movies is key, and here, I felt more of a caricature than a real substance in the Zod character.  The second problem I had was that after a very strong first 2/3 of the movie, most of the last 1/3 is tedious fighting.  A lot of punches are thrown, and while watching the two Kryptonians hurtle through corn fields looked impressive, the fighting went on too long and got boring to me.  I think that the way the film ended sets the franchise up very well, and I hope that this movie does well enough to be able to build on the strengths of this movie and leave behind some of the tedium.

All in all, this movie could be a great restart to this franchise after the tedious and boring "Superman Returns" of 2006.  What I hope is that the makers of the sequel build on the characters more and use elaborate visual effects to bolster characters and story.  This movie has a lot to chew on, and the viewer can tell that Christopher Nolan's (the director of all three masterful Batman movies of the last 10 years) fingerprints are on this movie.  But, the substance and grappling he brought to the Dark Knight films outshone what happens in this movie.  Here's hoping that this movie is only the beginning of great things.  But even if it isn't, get ready for a good time at the movies!