I can't think of too many actors I have spent more time watching in my life than Leonard Nimoy. He was always the best part of Star Trek for me. His character was the most interesting, and his willingness to come back for the JJ Abrams reboots really added gravitas to the films. The character of Spock was, for me, a wonderful meditation (ironically) on what it means to be human. Sometimes we feel out of place. Sometimes we are not sure which part of us we should listen to. Nimoy inhabited this role, and gave us all something to remember with it.
His best scene? It has to be the end of Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan. After saving the Enterprise from the crazed rampage of Kirk's old enemy Khan, Spock is exposed to lethal radiation while affecting repairs of the ship. His death scene with William Shatner is fascinating because it gets at the core relationship of the entire Original Series-this unlikely friendship between Kirk and Spock. The scene was (in my opinion) effectively hat tipped in "Star Trek: Into Darkness" many years later, but the original scene stands out as the most emotionally evocative scene in any of the shows or movies of the Original Series. It shows us Spock as he is: human and vulnerable, but also Vulcan and unapologetically logical.
Nimoy also directed the wonderful 4th entry in the film series. Of course, by that point, the gyrations that had been made to keep Spock alive bordered on the inane. But no matter, Spock lived on to give us more of the great character.
So much of the wonderful art that I love I do so because of the shared experience with my father. Since my dad left this earth, there have been a few instances where things have happened that immediately bring him back to mind. I think of the hours and hours at the dinner table watching Star Trek. I think of my dad's unswerving goal of capturing all of the original episodes on video cassette (ironic to think how easy it was for me to procure the Blu-Ray set a few years ago). And I think of the time in 2009 when I saw the "Star Trek" reboot with dad (which Nimoy anchored ever so effectively) and he burst into applause the moment the closing credits rolled.
Art does that. It gives us appreciation for the artist. But it also brings us as people closer together. Thanks for all the ways you did that Mr. Nimoy.
Showing posts with label Essays. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Essays. Show all posts
Friday, February 27, 2015
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Robin Williams
I have been out of town for a few days, but I did hear about Robin Williams' death while away. When I returned home today, I was somewhat surprised by the outpouring on the social media. So many people my age were profoundly affected by his life and work, and it showed as I scanned through the tributes on Facebook and Twitter. Through this little blog of mine, I wanted to add my voice to the chorus.
I can't comment much on the issue of depression. I have very little experience with it, so anything I would say would be sophomoric and throw away. Many others have shared their thoughts on depression, and there are lots of helpful and sympathetic words floating around that speak to that angle on this. His death was shocking (as almost any early death is), but not surprising at the same time.
What I can comment on is my reaction to him as an audience member and as one who observed some of his work. His finest films, to me, were his dramatic ones. "Awakenings" is a wonderful film, and his performance in it (as an introverted, left-brained research doctor who ends up aiding patients with a nervous system disorder) is heartfelt and true. "Good Will Hunting" is hardly a unique work, but it feels like it is, partly because of his presence in it. "Good Morning Viet Nam" is great not only because one sees his comic largesse, but also because it is a story rooted in the tragic realities of war and his character's reaction to that.
Where he always truly shined, to me, was in talk show interviews, particularly when he visited Johnny Carson. It was only there that the confines not only of the medium but also of the host could be truly obliterated by his comic genius. The reason he was at his best with Carson is that Johnny was the best host at truly being a spectator along with the rest of us. When Jonathan Winters died last year, I watched the clip of him and Robin Williams together on Carson several times. My wife truly got sick of it.
There was a searching for God in his humor as well. Whether he mocked religion or merely toyed with some of its implications, it always seemed like he had a mind that was partly focused on the spiritual.
As my own little tribute, I will share that clip of him and Winters which aired in 1991...
I can't comment much on the issue of depression. I have very little experience with it, so anything I would say would be sophomoric and throw away. Many others have shared their thoughts on depression, and there are lots of helpful and sympathetic words floating around that speak to that angle on this. His death was shocking (as almost any early death is), but not surprising at the same time.
What I can comment on is my reaction to him as an audience member and as one who observed some of his work. His finest films, to me, were his dramatic ones. "Awakenings" is a wonderful film, and his performance in it (as an introverted, left-brained research doctor who ends up aiding patients with a nervous system disorder) is heartfelt and true. "Good Will Hunting" is hardly a unique work, but it feels like it is, partly because of his presence in it. "Good Morning Viet Nam" is great not only because one sees his comic largesse, but also because it is a story rooted in the tragic realities of war and his character's reaction to that.
Where he always truly shined, to me, was in talk show interviews, particularly when he visited Johnny Carson. It was only there that the confines not only of the medium but also of the host could be truly obliterated by his comic genius. The reason he was at his best with Carson is that Johnny was the best host at truly being a spectator along with the rest of us. When Jonathan Winters died last year, I watched the clip of him and Robin Williams together on Carson several times. My wife truly got sick of it.
There was a searching for God in his humor as well. Whether he mocked religion or merely toyed with some of its implications, it always seemed like he had a mind that was partly focused on the spiritual.
As my own little tribute, I will share that clip of him and Winters which aired in 1991...
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Ben Hur Revisited
I wrote an entry on "Ben Hur" 3 years ago. I still have not watched it again, though the time may well be prime to watch it with my kids. Two years ago, we celebrated Easter in Southern California with my family, and we did not know then how significant it would be. My father died two months later, leaving me with an emotional resonance during this holiday that has begun to supersede other holidays. Dad loved this movie, so I think I will always associate this movie with Easter and with him. I rejoice in the hope we have in the resurrection of Christ. This movie can remind us of how great an impact Christ's life had on one family. This is the type of impact He has on all those who follow Him. Here's my entry:
I remember watching this movie every year growing up, and I always loved it. Whether you are religious or not, the epic scope of the film and the wonderful story certainly carry the day. The film tells the story of two young men: Judah Ben-Hur, a young Jew from Jerusalem, and his boyhood friend Masala, a loyal Roman soldier who attempts to recruit his old friend in an attempt to bring the Jewish people into allegiance with the Roman Empire. When Judah refuses to turn his back on his faith and his people, Masala casts off any loyalty to his old friend, and allows his to suffer in an almost Job-like manner. Most of the film is Judah's story of how he survives imprisonment to come back and seek his revenge on Masala. All of this takes place at the same time that a young teacher from Nazereth is beginning to gain a following.
The Christ of this film is seen as a powerful moral example. The filmmakers make a decision of never showing his face, only shooting him from the back or from a distance. This is a very effective portrayal of Christ. One of the most powerful scenes in the film is a foreshadowing piece. As Judah is being led off to imprisonment through the desert, he staggers and falls in weakness. There, he is met by Christ, who gives him a miraculously endless supply of water. Judah never forgets this act of kindness, and when he sees this same man who gave him water fall under the weight of a heavy cross near a well in Jerusalem, there is only one thing he can do.
The film preaches the power of Christ's teaching of forgiveness. Judah has to learn what he should do to Masala in the face of horrible injustice. The injustice that has been done to Judah is enormous, and Masala does deserve recompense. The question Judah has to come to grips with as his bitterness increases is what is he to do with the teachings of this young man from Nazereth? Should he hold onto his anger, or should he let it go before it consumes him?
As a Christian myself, it is always wonderful to see elements of my faith brought to the screen well. It seems that many times, elements of the faith are brought to the screen that are far too didactic. In other words, why make a movie when the filmmaker would rather just deliver a lecture? It has been years since I have seen this film, and I noticed that a new Blu-Ray is on its way this fall...maybe it's time to take another look. Happy Easter.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Argo
This movie is the best kind of conventional entertainment. It has a good story, good characters, a story that a lot of us know about, and it is executed very well. So, how did it get to be Best Picture? Don't get me wrong, this is an extraordinarily crafted piece of work, much like "Lincoln". If anything, "Lincon" and "Argo" show two directors from different generations who are doing very well crafted entertainment. Personally, I would say that the last movie Ben Affleck made (2010's "The Town") was a better movie, because I felt that it had a more interesting plot and had more to say about the plight of humanity. "Argo" is a typical "against all odds" story with a wonderful cast of character actors, and a plot constructed so well that it keeps the viewer on the edge of their seat.
The movie involves a CIA agent named Tony Mendez who comes up with a way to get 6 American hostages out of Iran during the famous Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 and 1980. The only alternative he can come up with is to crate a story whereby he and the 6 Americans pose as a film crew shooting on location in Tehran. Once their identities have been given and fake passports have been given, they can attempt to got to the airport and get through the checkpoints so they can get back to America. In order to make the plot work, Mendez (played with skill by Ben Affleck himself) enlists the help of two Hollywood pros (Alan Arkin and John Goodman). They give the plot credibility and are able to support Mendez's mission from Hollywood. Once all the pieces of the plot are in place, the story is ready to unfold, and it is very engaging.
Maybe part of the reason this film won Best Picture was that Ben Affleck was snubbed in the Best Director category by not even being nominated. There are always reasons besides aesthetics that people vote for Oscars, and it seems like that happened this year. This is a very good movie, but when it is boiled down to its essence, it is pretty standard stuff. It actually reminded me a little bit of another action type movie that was nominated for Best Picture back in 1993. That movie was called "The Fugitive", and while it was a well crafted action/adventure movie, it didn't stand a chance against another movie that year called "Schindler's List". "Schindler's List" not only had quality going for it. It also had an outstanding cause as well as a director who had gotten snubbed at the Oscars in the past. For the 2012 Oscars, I have now seen 4 of the 9 movies that were nominated ("Les Miserables", "Zero Dark Thirty", "Lincoln", and this movie), and I would vote for all three of the other films before this one for Best Picture. My wife put it very well...this movie is the "Bourne" films combined with "Apollo 13". All of those movies are of a high quality, but the "Bourne" films were never even considered Oscar worthy. Any great film should be considered, but since the Oscars usually don't consider them, it is a mystery to me why "Argo" got such a following. Perhaps the sensibilities of the Academy are changing, and we will see more action oriented movies considered for these types of honors. Other movies of this genre are even better, and while this one is very good, it doesn't exactly stand out as the unique achievement in film making that a Best Picture winner is supposed to be. To compare apples to apples a bit more, "Lincoln" was able to take better advantage of its marvelous character actor ensemble. That was due to its amazing script. Meanwhile, in "Argo", there are several great actors who are not given as much upon which to chew.
For the third or fourth time, this was a great movie. This essay is not meant to criticize Affleck or anyone on the movie, who all did an outstanding job on it. More than anything, the philosophical question as to what makes a good film, and why do certain people vote the way they do is always interesting. In the case of "Argo", similar films to it have not been considered as much in the past. Maybe some day I will attempt to wrestle with the question of aesthetics (the judgment of the quality of art), but I don't know a whole lot about it. For now, I will simply comment that while this movie is praiseworthy, I would not have gotten my vote for "Best Picture." I am still a big "Les Miserables" advocate, and until I see the other five movies that were nominated, I may stay that way
The movie involves a CIA agent named Tony Mendez who comes up with a way to get 6 American hostages out of Iran during the famous Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 and 1980. The only alternative he can come up with is to crate a story whereby he and the 6 Americans pose as a film crew shooting on location in Tehran. Once their identities have been given and fake passports have been given, they can attempt to got to the airport and get through the checkpoints so they can get back to America. In order to make the plot work, Mendez (played with skill by Ben Affleck himself) enlists the help of two Hollywood pros (Alan Arkin and John Goodman). They give the plot credibility and are able to support Mendez's mission from Hollywood. Once all the pieces of the plot are in place, the story is ready to unfold, and it is very engaging.
Maybe part of the reason this film won Best Picture was that Ben Affleck was snubbed in the Best Director category by not even being nominated. There are always reasons besides aesthetics that people vote for Oscars, and it seems like that happened this year. This is a very good movie, but when it is boiled down to its essence, it is pretty standard stuff. It actually reminded me a little bit of another action type movie that was nominated for Best Picture back in 1993. That movie was called "The Fugitive", and while it was a well crafted action/adventure movie, it didn't stand a chance against another movie that year called "Schindler's List". "Schindler's List" not only had quality going for it. It also had an outstanding cause as well as a director who had gotten snubbed at the Oscars in the past. For the 2012 Oscars, I have now seen 4 of the 9 movies that were nominated ("Les Miserables", "Zero Dark Thirty", "Lincoln", and this movie), and I would vote for all three of the other films before this one for Best Picture. My wife put it very well...this movie is the "Bourne" films combined with "Apollo 13". All of those movies are of a high quality, but the "Bourne" films were never even considered Oscar worthy. Any great film should be considered, but since the Oscars usually don't consider them, it is a mystery to me why "Argo" got such a following. Perhaps the sensibilities of the Academy are changing, and we will see more action oriented movies considered for these types of honors. Other movies of this genre are even better, and while this one is very good, it doesn't exactly stand out as the unique achievement in film making that a Best Picture winner is supposed to be. To compare apples to apples a bit more, "Lincoln" was able to take better advantage of its marvelous character actor ensemble. That was due to its amazing script. Meanwhile, in "Argo", there are several great actors who are not given as much upon which to chew.
For the third or fourth time, this was a great movie. This essay is not meant to criticize Affleck or anyone on the movie, who all did an outstanding job on it. More than anything, the philosophical question as to what makes a good film, and why do certain people vote the way they do is always interesting. In the case of "Argo", similar films to it have not been considered as much in the past. Maybe some day I will attempt to wrestle with the question of aesthetics (the judgment of the quality of art), but I don't know a whole lot about it. For now, I will simply comment that while this movie is praiseworthy, I would not have gotten my vote for "Best Picture." I am still a big "Les Miserables" advocate, and until I see the other five movies that were nominated, I may stay that way
Thursday, April 11, 2013
In Memory of Roger Ebert
I must say that I would be remiss if I did not at least mention Roger Ebert's death on my blog. I read him quite regularly my entire adult life, and I remember my mom and dad watching "Gene and Roger" back when I was a child when Siskel and Ebert had a show on PBS. I disagreed and agreed with his writings, as is the case with any writer's opinion. At the same time, much of his writings and many of his ideas about movies have stuck with me though the years. I remember how much I respected his thoughts on Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ, even though I was not a big fan of that film. He understood the point the film was trying to make, and respected it as a work of art, even though he seems to have left behind his Catholic faith (or so it seemed to me in his writings). I always felt that even though I was just reading his reviews, I was sort of having a conversation with him, and much of his writing ended up sharpening my own ability to observe movies.
He wrote many things that stuck with me, but nothing he ever wrote stuck with me more than this quote, and it has become my philosophy of movie watching as well:
"It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it."
He wrote many things that stuck with me, but nothing he ever wrote stuck with me more than this quote, and it has become my philosophy of movie watching as well:
"It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it."
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Best Actor?
My obsessive fair-mindedness keeps me from being too critical of the Oscar winners, since I have not seen all of the movies which were nominated for Best Picture. Also, I did not see all the performances which were nominated in the acting categories. Of the 9 nominated films this year, I have only seen 3: "Lincoln", "Les Miserables" and "Zero Dark Thirty." The other 6 films will be on my Netflix queue, and I look forward to seeing all of them.
There was one oversight, however, about which I have an opinion, and I have shared it with my wife constantly since Sunday night. My vote for best actor would have gone to Hugh Jackman over Daniel Day Lewis in a heart beat. I say this for two main reasons. First, since we all know that there is no objective measurement of acting greatness, the Oscar sometimes becomes symbolic, or a way to honor certain kinds of work. In that light, since Daniel Day Lewis has already won two Oscars for best actor, the academy passed up an opportunity to honor a special kind of performance. They missed this opportunity when they gave Daniel Day Lewis an Oscar for his fine work in "Lincoln." Now, I have not seen the other 3 performances that were nominated. Bradley Cooper, Joaquin Phoenix and Denzel Washington are all fine actors, and I am sure that their work was worthy of an award as well. However, my question to Academy voters would be this...why does Daniel Day Lewis automatically win this award? He has now won an Oscar for his last two performances...should we simply assume that he will win each time he makes a film, or did the cool beard and stove pipe hat hypnotize the voters into such a trance that an unprecedented third best Oscar simply was the only choice?
Second, it is my contention that Hugh Jackman's work deserved the award because his was the harder performance, and it was more uniquely suited to him. Another way to put it would be this: Hugh Jackman could have played Lincoln, but Daniel Day Lewis could not have played Jean Valjean. The unique achievement of Hugh Jackman in "Les Miserables"should not have been overlooked as it was. Daniel Day Lewis' work was outstanding, but it was not unique. Many actors have been enveloped by an historic figure. This has required them to change their appearance, voice, and "become" that figure. To be fair, there is no question that when I saw "Lincoln", I felt that I was watching Abraham Lincoln. Day Lewis' true gift in the role was somehow to take what I would have imagined Lincoln to be like and somehow capture that on screen. This is great work. But Hugh Jackman not only does the same thing with his role, but his entire role is sung! I once heard a writer say that one can never compare Babe Ruth to anyone else in baseball history because he was not only one of the greatest hitters of all time, but also one of the all time great pitchers. As such, his talents are unique in baseball history. In the best actor category this year, there is simply no comparison to the work that Hugh Jackman did. Not only did he sing his entire role, but he sang it all live. None of the performances seen on screen (save one) were prerecorded, and every moment of the performance feels fresh and as if Jackman had never spoken the words before.
Sometimes one gets the feeling that the voters have already made up their mind, based either on preconceived notions of greatness or on the desire to hear certain someone's acceptance speech. It was a lapse in judgement on the academy's part to overlook a performance this year that was not only great, but also completely unique in the history of movie making. "Les Miserables" as a whole was a unique experiment in movie making, and I don't think it got the accolades it deserved. Maybe once I see the other 6 movies on the Best Picture list, I will feel differently. However, even if I feel differently about the film as a whole, Jackman's performance outshone Daniel Day Lewis, and I was disappointed to not see that reflected on Oscar night.
There was one oversight, however, about which I have an opinion, and I have shared it with my wife constantly since Sunday night. My vote for best actor would have gone to Hugh Jackman over Daniel Day Lewis in a heart beat. I say this for two main reasons. First, since we all know that there is no objective measurement of acting greatness, the Oscar sometimes becomes symbolic, or a way to honor certain kinds of work. In that light, since Daniel Day Lewis has already won two Oscars for best actor, the academy passed up an opportunity to honor a special kind of performance. They missed this opportunity when they gave Daniel Day Lewis an Oscar for his fine work in "Lincoln." Now, I have not seen the other 3 performances that were nominated. Bradley Cooper, Joaquin Phoenix and Denzel Washington are all fine actors, and I am sure that their work was worthy of an award as well. However, my question to Academy voters would be this...why does Daniel Day Lewis automatically win this award? He has now won an Oscar for his last two performances...should we simply assume that he will win each time he makes a film, or did the cool beard and stove pipe hat hypnotize the voters into such a trance that an unprecedented third best Oscar simply was the only choice?
Second, it is my contention that Hugh Jackman's work deserved the award because his was the harder performance, and it was more uniquely suited to him. Another way to put it would be this: Hugh Jackman could have played Lincoln, but Daniel Day Lewis could not have played Jean Valjean. The unique achievement of Hugh Jackman in "Les Miserables"should not have been overlooked as it was. Daniel Day Lewis' work was outstanding, but it was not unique. Many actors have been enveloped by an historic figure. This has required them to change their appearance, voice, and "become" that figure. To be fair, there is no question that when I saw "Lincoln", I felt that I was watching Abraham Lincoln. Day Lewis' true gift in the role was somehow to take what I would have imagined Lincoln to be like and somehow capture that on screen. This is great work. But Hugh Jackman not only does the same thing with his role, but his entire role is sung! I once heard a writer say that one can never compare Babe Ruth to anyone else in baseball history because he was not only one of the greatest hitters of all time, but also one of the all time great pitchers. As such, his talents are unique in baseball history. In the best actor category this year, there is simply no comparison to the work that Hugh Jackman did. Not only did he sing his entire role, but he sang it all live. None of the performances seen on screen (save one) were prerecorded, and every moment of the performance feels fresh and as if Jackman had never spoken the words before.
Sometimes one gets the feeling that the voters have already made up their mind, based either on preconceived notions of greatness or on the desire to hear certain someone's acceptance speech. It was a lapse in judgement on the academy's part to overlook a performance this year that was not only great, but also completely unique in the history of movie making. "Les Miserables" as a whole was a unique experiment in movie making, and I don't think it got the accolades it deserved. Maybe once I see the other 6 movies on the Best Picture list, I will feel differently. However, even if I feel differently about the film as a whole, Jackman's performance outshone Daniel Day Lewis, and I was disappointed to not see that reflected on Oscar night.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Idea for Future Posts
Over the last couple of days, I have had a couple of friends suggest movies that they would like to hear my thoughts on...I would love to start a list of some ideas of movies on which to write. I wondered if some of my readers would mind leaving requests for me in the comment section. If you are not on blogspot, go ahead and e-mail me at losbascoms@mac.com. I'm looking forward to hearing from you!
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Les Miserables
2012 will always be always be remembered by me as a very complicated year. But one thing stayed with me almost the whole year. In May, I decided to begin the task of reading Victor Hugo's colossal novel Les Miserables. I cannot remember if I knew at the time that a movie version of the musical was being made, but I knew that I wanted to read this book that I had heard so much about. As I began the book, the opening pages were both verbose and beautiful. They recount the life and character of a Bishop in a French village called Digne. The opening chapters go into tremendous detail about this Bishop, but he does not figure at all in most of the story. Instead, it is essential to the greater arc of Hugo's narrative that he show this Bishop's character so that when Hugo's protagonist (the paroled thief Jean Valjean) comes to him, we already know how he will treat him.
As I found myself enthralled in the beginnings of this story back in May, I called my dad to tell him how much I was enjoying this book. He was very aware of the book and the musical, but had never read the book or seen the play. I was so excited to share this work with him, and I hoped that some day he too would read the book and we could discuss it, as we had discussed so many works of art over the years. When I finally finished the novel in October, I no longer had my dad with me to discuss the work. Also, I had begun to await the arrival of the movie version of the musical with great anticipation. I am confident that any time I return to this story, whether I see it on the stage, the screen, or read the book again, I will be reminded of this time in my life, and how the story of suffering and grace that Hugo gave us all became a soothing balm for me in a troubling time.
The story of Les Miserables is a story that touches me for many different reasons. The primary reason I find it so moving is its understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The movie which Tom Hooper directed does very little to water down that element of both the musical and the book. I want to here issue a SPOILER ALERT...some of the thematic elements upon which I will reflect involve plot point from the end of the story. As I mentioned before, the character of the Bishop at the beginning of the story is key. He figures in this way: as Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) leaves his life as a prisoner, he is given papers by a French officer named Javert (Russell Crowe) to show that he is an ex-convict. As such, no one will hire him for work, nor take him in. When the Bishop of Digne is the only one who takes him in, Valjean repays him by stealing his silver dishes and heading out of town. Unfortunately for Valjean, he is caught trying to escape, and when the police bring him to the Bishop, the Bishop merely states that Valjean had forgotten to also take the silver candlesticks that he had given him as well. As the police leave, the Bishop charges Valjean to become an honest man with the silver.
Valjean does indeed accomplish this, but Javert never trusts him. Many years later, Jean Valjean is a mayor in a town as well as a factory owner who employs a woman name Fantine. Fantine has had a daughter out of wedlock, and when that becomes known, she is thrown out by the foreman of the factory without Valjean's knowledge. As Fantine's life unravels, eventually she dies, but not before Valjean promises to raise her child. The story continues to involve itself with uprisings of the working class poor in Paris as well as the ongoing struggle between grace and law that is symbolized by Javert (law) and Jean Valjean (grace). The film is a musical, and there are several memorable musical moments along the way which are stunning.
As a film, this movie is a remarkable accomplishment on many levels. Each musical number was recorded live on camera, while most musicals have had actors or actresses recording songs beforehand and lip synching on camera. Modern technology made it possible for director Tom Hooper to digitally remove the microphones on the performers, thereby lending an authenticity to the musical numbers that I have never seen in a musical before. The photography and visual imagination of the film is also great. The scenery gives us the rough streets of Paris in all of their poverty and filth.
On another front, I think this musical works better as a movie than on the stage. For instance, in one of the the most popular numbers in the musical, "One Day More", each character can sing their parts in their actual place in the story, rather than all the characters standing next to each other on the stage. The film allows them to be singing separately, and I think it works better.
The cast of this movie does great work. I cannot think of a more harrowing scene in almost any film than Anne Hathaway's interpretation of the show stopping "I Dreamed A Dream" number toward the beginning of the movie. Tom Hooper's use of silence in this scene was also quite effective, as the desolation Fantine feels comes across on the screen. As Javert, Russell Crowe evokes an effective presence. Even though he doesn't have the finest singing voice, he does a great job of inhabiting the character. Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter are perfect as the bottom feeding Thenaldeiers. Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne are very good in their roles as young lovers Cosette and Marius. Daniel Huttlestone is pitch perfect as the street waif Gavroche. And Hugh Jackman anchors the whole film with a remarkable presence as Jean Valjean. He does not have the best singing voice, but his ability to evoke true emotion from these songs and to show this character as the world weary man that he is is truly remarkable. I quite admired Daniel Day Lewis as Abraham Lincoln, but I think Hugh Jackman's work moved me even more. The film (and the musical for that matter) have drawn criticism from some for being too over the top and emotional. It is fair to say that this movie is not nuanced. It is a "pull out all the stops", weepy, emotional experience. Since that is not everyone's cup of tea, that should be kept in mind. On the other hand, a story which wears both its heart and its message on its sleeve can be quite refreshing. I love a good, challenging art house movie as much as anyone, but I also have lots of room in my heart for a overwrought spectacle such as this. Tom Hooper delivers a movie musical with a distinct style and vision, and he should be considered for his second best director award in three years (he won for "The King's Speech" two years ago). This film is at least worthy of appreciation, whether one likes the overwrought romanticism or not.
But beyond the technical and artistic greatness of this film version, it is the thematic elements of the story that touch me. The depiction of those themes is done very well here, so that makes the experience that much more moving. With all of these wonderful performances and music, there is much to be seen as well from the depth of the story. As Jean Valjean attempts to leave behind his past, Javert will not let him forget his sins. Javert is a true legalist, and he cannot abide the thought that a man should not be punished to the full extent of the law. He is, in the end, completely unable to live once he is in turn shown grace, and the struggle between these two men and what they stand for is the heart of the story. This is what I would have loved to share with my dad. As a believer in the Christian message, the appeals in this movie to the grace and freedom of the cross are rich. Dad would have been truly moved by those images as they flickered across the screen. Ironically, this is also a movie about suffering and how we go to death, and these two issues were brought home to me in a real way last year. As Jean Valjean's life comes to an end, he sees death very much as St. Paul does in 2 Timothy. Death is the end of a long race and struggle, and the rest that he can find in death is apparent, especially as he can rest in the salvation of his soul. I don't know why dad died last year, and I never will. But I do know that the longer I live, the more I see how much suffering and weariness there is in this world. There is a certain comfort that can be taken in the possibility of peace beyond the grave. Jean Valjean has that in his faith, and so, I believe, does anyone who comes under the grace of God through Christ. This powerful reality does not negate the horrible suffering of this world, but it can redeem it, and that truth became real to me this year more than ever as I buried my father and immersed myself in this powerful story. Maybe it is not an accident that I saw this movie in the first days of 2013. Maybe this year will be one wherein I can move forward. However, I am given no such guarantee. Things could get worse this year for all I know. But one thing I know...like Jean Valjean, I hope in the grace of Christ. The beauty of this message flashes across the screen in this movie with such richness. This story will always occupy a special place in my life not only due to its content, but when I encountered it on my journey. To see these truths come across the screen in an ordinary multiplex in an ordinary suburb was truly an extraordinary experience.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Charles Durning
I do not claim to be an aficionado of the work of Charles Durning. What I can say is this...whenever I saw him in a movie, he was utterly believable. I suppose with most character actor we all seem to remember how much they did rather than one role. But for me, I can only think of him in his role as the crooked cop in "The Sting". He played that role so well. He was convincing as a mercenary cop, and any scene that he was in was made immeasurably better.
I also remember his fine work in the brilliant comedy "Tootsie." He was lovable and vulnerable as a widower who has his heart broken by a cross dresser. That sentence on its own seems like an oddity, but he made the role truly heartfelt. And, he was hilarious as the vicious owner of a frog legs franchise determined to hire Kermit as his spokesman in "The Muppet Movie".
Anyhow, he was a great actor, and also an American hero. He stormed the beaches at Normandy and lived to tell about it.
I'm going to have to watch "The Sting" again sometime soon.
I also remember his fine work in the brilliant comedy "Tootsie." He was lovable and vulnerable as a widower who has his heart broken by a cross dresser. That sentence on its own seems like an oddity, but he made the role truly heartfelt. And, he was hilarious as the vicious owner of a frog legs franchise determined to hire Kermit as his spokesman in "The Muppet Movie".
Anyhow, he was a great actor, and also an American hero. He stormed the beaches at Normandy and lived to tell about it.
I'm going to have to watch "The Sting" again sometime soon.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Joel's 5 Favorite Coen Brother Films
I have seen every film that Joel and Ethan Coen have directed. One of the interesting things about the Coen Brothers' films is that most of them take more than one viewing to really sink in. For instance, I remember being almost repelled the first time I saw Fargo, but it has ended up being one of my favorite films not only by the Coens, but also one of my favorite films ever. Their films have ranged greatly in theme, setting and tone, but they do all have some idiosyncrasies that bind them. Above all, the Coen Brothers love film making. When they received an Oscar for Best Picture for "No Country For Old Men", one of the brothers said that they see their film making as playing in the sand box. The work that they have done exhibits that. It is entertaining, never overly sentimental, and always concerned with craft. Here's my list, in no particular order:
Fargo
Though they achieved their glory with "No Country for Old Men", this film, to me, is the quintessential Coen Brothers movie. It has everything. It has quirky dialogue, wonderfully realized characters, an engaging plot, and a wonderful setting. Setting is always very important in the films of the Coen Brothers. The place in which their films are set often takes on a character of its own. Perhaps one of the reasons this film works so well is that it is set in the place of their birth. Minneapolis provides the backdrop for this blood soaked murder tale. What breaks through in this movie that sometimes doesn't break through in some of the Coens' work is the subtle sentimentality made manifest in the character of Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand). It is her simple Midwestern decency which is the heart of this movie. As Jerry Lundegaard (a wonderfully inept character brought to life by William H. Macy) makes a bigger and bigger mess of his plot, her cleverness solves the mystery. She is constantly being underestimated, and even though there is tragedy in the film, Gunderson's hard work does indeed pay off.
Fargo is one of those films that makes you marvel. The characters are so real, so funny, and so true to life. The movie has popularized the Minnesota accent, but the longer I live here, the more I see how affectionate the portrayal is. While the body count continues to grow in the film thanks to Steve Buscemi's loose cannon cut rate criminal, Frances McDormand continues to work to solve the case, and she continues to live her simple, lovely life. The scenes between her and her husband are among the most poignant I can ever remember seeing on film, and they provide a welcome relief from the blood shed in the movie. They remind us that the people who execute justice have very normal lives. The love that the two of them share is comfortable, decent love. You just don't see that portrayed in films very often. Stories like this come along so rarely.
True Grit
The Coens' most recent effort may be their least offbeat work, but it is a highly satisfying and engaging western. It is clear that they loved the novel upon which the film is based, and the result is a good film with great characters and an exciting story. The setting is important in this film as well. With many westerns, beautiful vistas and stunning sunsets enhance the film and give them an almost dream like quality. The sparse landscapes and harsh realities of the West in this film are a noteworthy contrast. There is still a beauty to the landscape in the film, but one that is much more harrowing and desolate.
When Mattie Ross (a great performance by newcomer Hailee Steinfeld) loses her father, she goes on a quest to avenge her father. This leads her to hire U.S. Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to help her track down the man who killed her father, Tom Cheney. The movie is a classic western very well told. In the end, it does have some distinctly Coen Brothers stamps, but over all it is a simple narrative very well told. Jeff Bridges is the cornerstone of the movie, making a drunken washed up Marshall truly sympathetic. Matt Damon is also good as a Texas Ranger who joins in the hunt, and who has more to him than meets the eye. There is not a lot to really ponder in this movie. It is simply a great western that reminds all of us that sometimes in a film, story is everything. This is a great story.
Raising Arizona
One of the most uproarious comedies I have ever seen. Nicholas Cage plays Hi, an ex con who is trying to get back to the straight and narrow. When he marries police officer Ed, they learn that they cannot have children, and they kidnap one of the Arizona quintuplets. This sets off a series of mad events which make for a hilarious roller coaster ride.
A lot of times, comedies can be best remembered for certain scenes. We all end up quoting these scenes to others, and a certain bond takes place. For me, the scene in which Nathan Arizona is being questioned regarding the disappearance of his son is gold. I cannot think of any 5 minutes of screen time wherein more huge laughs are stuffed. Every performance in this movie is note perfect, and it gets funnier each time you see it.
A Serious Man
The last two films on my list are films that I have only seen once, but they each made a big impact on me. This film seems like a very personal work, as it was filmed partly in the suburb wherein the Coens acutally grew up. I worked in St. Louis Park, MN for 3 years, and the synagogue used for part of the filming was very close to the Trader Joe's where I worked. This film has a lot going for it, primarily an almost Job-like meditation on suffering and what happens when things go terribly wrong for a man. It follows a professor named Larry whose entire life is in a state of chaos. The film does not have much closure to it, but it does offer a fascinating look at a cultural enclave.
One of the reasons this film made such an impact on me was a single moment in the film. I have no idea what the film makers intended with the scene, and that might not matter. During the bar-mitzvah of Larry's son, there is a moment wherein one of the participants on the platform is carrying a heavy scroll. As he trips due to the scroll's weight, he utters the curse, "Jesus Christ!" There is an irony in that utterance. The Christian belief is that Jesus Christ took upon himself the weight of the law...the sight of a person being crushed by the weight of the law and uttering Christ's name is a rich and ironic sight. This film will demand further viewings, but my first viewing of it made a big impact.
Miller's Crossing
Though I have only seen it once, this film's narrative really captured me. It is a lot like True Grit, because it emphasizes story over anything else. The story of mob right hand man Tom (Gabriel Byrne) navigating his way through the double crosses and triple crosses of organized crime is highly engaging. What has always stuck with me, however, is the veracity in the voice of John Turturro's desperate criminal. It is amazing to think that he is not genuine, but the story of the film shows otherwise. This movie also makes amazing use of story along with music to create some amazing scenes. I must watch it again.
Fargo
Though they achieved their glory with "No Country for Old Men", this film, to me, is the quintessential Coen Brothers movie. It has everything. It has quirky dialogue, wonderfully realized characters, an engaging plot, and a wonderful setting. Setting is always very important in the films of the Coen Brothers. The place in which their films are set often takes on a character of its own. Perhaps one of the reasons this film works so well is that it is set in the place of their birth. Minneapolis provides the backdrop for this blood soaked murder tale. What breaks through in this movie that sometimes doesn't break through in some of the Coens' work is the subtle sentimentality made manifest in the character of Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand). It is her simple Midwestern decency which is the heart of this movie. As Jerry Lundegaard (a wonderfully inept character brought to life by William H. Macy) makes a bigger and bigger mess of his plot, her cleverness solves the mystery. She is constantly being underestimated, and even though there is tragedy in the film, Gunderson's hard work does indeed pay off.
Fargo is one of those films that makes you marvel. The characters are so real, so funny, and so true to life. The movie has popularized the Minnesota accent, but the longer I live here, the more I see how affectionate the portrayal is. While the body count continues to grow in the film thanks to Steve Buscemi's loose cannon cut rate criminal, Frances McDormand continues to work to solve the case, and she continues to live her simple, lovely life. The scenes between her and her husband are among the most poignant I can ever remember seeing on film, and they provide a welcome relief from the blood shed in the movie. They remind us that the people who execute justice have very normal lives. The love that the two of them share is comfortable, decent love. You just don't see that portrayed in films very often. Stories like this come along so rarely.
True Grit
The Coens' most recent effort may be their least offbeat work, but it is a highly satisfying and engaging western. It is clear that they loved the novel upon which the film is based, and the result is a good film with great characters and an exciting story. The setting is important in this film as well. With many westerns, beautiful vistas and stunning sunsets enhance the film and give them an almost dream like quality. The sparse landscapes and harsh realities of the West in this film are a noteworthy contrast. There is still a beauty to the landscape in the film, but one that is much more harrowing and desolate.
When Mattie Ross (a great performance by newcomer Hailee Steinfeld) loses her father, she goes on a quest to avenge her father. This leads her to hire U.S. Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to help her track down the man who killed her father, Tom Cheney. The movie is a classic western very well told. In the end, it does have some distinctly Coen Brothers stamps, but over all it is a simple narrative very well told. Jeff Bridges is the cornerstone of the movie, making a drunken washed up Marshall truly sympathetic. Matt Damon is also good as a Texas Ranger who joins in the hunt, and who has more to him than meets the eye. There is not a lot to really ponder in this movie. It is simply a great western that reminds all of us that sometimes in a film, story is everything. This is a great story.
Raising Arizona
One of the most uproarious comedies I have ever seen. Nicholas Cage plays Hi, an ex con who is trying to get back to the straight and narrow. When he marries police officer Ed, they learn that they cannot have children, and they kidnap one of the Arizona quintuplets. This sets off a series of mad events which make for a hilarious roller coaster ride.
A lot of times, comedies can be best remembered for certain scenes. We all end up quoting these scenes to others, and a certain bond takes place. For me, the scene in which Nathan Arizona is being questioned regarding the disappearance of his son is gold. I cannot think of any 5 minutes of screen time wherein more huge laughs are stuffed. Every performance in this movie is note perfect, and it gets funnier each time you see it.
A Serious Man
The last two films on my list are films that I have only seen once, but they each made a big impact on me. This film seems like a very personal work, as it was filmed partly in the suburb wherein the Coens acutally grew up. I worked in St. Louis Park, MN for 3 years, and the synagogue used for part of the filming was very close to the Trader Joe's where I worked. This film has a lot going for it, primarily an almost Job-like meditation on suffering and what happens when things go terribly wrong for a man. It follows a professor named Larry whose entire life is in a state of chaos. The film does not have much closure to it, but it does offer a fascinating look at a cultural enclave.
One of the reasons this film made such an impact on me was a single moment in the film. I have no idea what the film makers intended with the scene, and that might not matter. During the bar-mitzvah of Larry's son, there is a moment wherein one of the participants on the platform is carrying a heavy scroll. As he trips due to the scroll's weight, he utters the curse, "Jesus Christ!" There is an irony in that utterance. The Christian belief is that Jesus Christ took upon himself the weight of the law...the sight of a person being crushed by the weight of the law and uttering Christ's name is a rich and ironic sight. This film will demand further viewings, but my first viewing of it made a big impact.
Miller's Crossing
Though I have only seen it once, this film's narrative really captured me. It is a lot like True Grit, because it emphasizes story over anything else. The story of mob right hand man Tom (Gabriel Byrne) navigating his way through the double crosses and triple crosses of organized crime is highly engaging. What has always stuck with me, however, is the veracity in the voice of John Turturro's desperate criminal. It is amazing to think that he is not genuine, but the story of the film shows otherwise. This movie also makes amazing use of story along with music to create some amazing scenes. I must watch it again.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Where Have I Been?
After a good break, I think it's time to start writing again. Almost everyone who reads this blog would already know this, but for those who don't, my dad died suddenly at the end of June. Before I get back to the movie reviews, I felt the need to write one entry about dad and this whole process. The healing process is continuing, and I have left the state of shock and have more entered a state of poignancy. It is appropriate that it should be this way. Dad was a great father and a good friend, and I love him very much. For me to not feel this way would be odd.
This is my first encounter with deep grief. Yes, I have had other people I love pass away, but no one this close to me, and no one this suddenly. As I made my way to California in June, nothing could have been more real, but it all felt so surreal. For the ensuing days, weeks and months, there was a constant mantra in my head, whether I liked it or not. It kept saying, "Dad is dead." I didn't choose that mantra, but there it was. We went through the customary services both at the school where he worked and at the grave side. We saw hundreds of people who came to pay their respects. My family and I stayed in California another week to be with my Mom and my sister and her family. Then, all too quickly, things had to get back to normal.
My first day back at work was challenging. It all proved difficult for me, and I left that day wondering how I things could ever be normal again. I knew this whole time that things would get better, but having never been where I was before, I simply had to trust that fact rather than know it for sure.
During this whole process, movies and other art forms have proven to be a Godsend. At times, they have provided a way of escape. Other times, they have been a source of comfort and identification. Watching "Moonrise Kingdom" shortly after his death provided a nice distraction. Watching "Steel Magnolias" and "About Schmidt" gave my grief more of a frame of reference. "Singing in the Rain" provided great reminders of the many times we watched that movie together as a family. As I, Lord willing, live the days, months and years ahead, I will revisit many other movies as well that I shared with him, and they will be more rich and more textured than ever.
So these days, I live with a sense of loss. It is a much more manageable feeling to deal with then the brutal shock when dad first died. However, it still is a new experience for me. I realize now that how much I love(d) dad is directly proportional to the heart ache I feel now. I also have such a burden in my heart for my mom and sister, who have lost so much. Finally, I see the lost opportunity for the ongoing relationships that my kids would have had with him. As I begin writing again, Dad will continue to pop up in these entries. This blog is one of my outlets, and since dad's death is so close to me, it affects my writing and what I want to write about. I know this loss will be with me from now on, and as I encounter more works of art, more elements of art will jog new or forgotten memories of dad, and I will write them.
Dad is in a glorious state now, I am quite sure. I think he also is somehow pulling for us all in this ordeal, all the while enjoying a new life that is devoid of so much of the pain of life on this earth. To the extent that God gives us his glory in his Word, in his creation, and in the wonderful works of man in the arts, we have a piece of eternity here on earth. Maybe that is why it is in those moments of experiencing art that I still feel close to dad, and both the loss and God's glory seem magnified.
SOLA GLORIA DEI
This is my first encounter with deep grief. Yes, I have had other people I love pass away, but no one this close to me, and no one this suddenly. As I made my way to California in June, nothing could have been more real, but it all felt so surreal. For the ensuing days, weeks and months, there was a constant mantra in my head, whether I liked it or not. It kept saying, "Dad is dead." I didn't choose that mantra, but there it was. We went through the customary services both at the school where he worked and at the grave side. We saw hundreds of people who came to pay their respects. My family and I stayed in California another week to be with my Mom and my sister and her family. Then, all too quickly, things had to get back to normal.
My first day back at work was challenging. It all proved difficult for me, and I left that day wondering how I things could ever be normal again. I knew this whole time that things would get better, but having never been where I was before, I simply had to trust that fact rather than know it for sure.
During this whole process, movies and other art forms have proven to be a Godsend. At times, they have provided a way of escape. Other times, they have been a source of comfort and identification. Watching "Moonrise Kingdom" shortly after his death provided a nice distraction. Watching "Steel Magnolias" and "About Schmidt" gave my grief more of a frame of reference. "Singing in the Rain" provided great reminders of the many times we watched that movie together as a family. As I, Lord willing, live the days, months and years ahead, I will revisit many other movies as well that I shared with him, and they will be more rich and more textured than ever.
So these days, I live with a sense of loss. It is a much more manageable feeling to deal with then the brutal shock when dad first died. However, it still is a new experience for me. I realize now that how much I love(d) dad is directly proportional to the heart ache I feel now. I also have such a burden in my heart for my mom and sister, who have lost so much. Finally, I see the lost opportunity for the ongoing relationships that my kids would have had with him. As I begin writing again, Dad will continue to pop up in these entries. This blog is one of my outlets, and since dad's death is so close to me, it affects my writing and what I want to write about. I know this loss will be with me from now on, and as I encounter more works of art, more elements of art will jog new or forgotten memories of dad, and I will write them.
Dad is in a glorious state now, I am quite sure. I think he also is somehow pulling for us all in this ordeal, all the while enjoying a new life that is devoid of so much of the pain of life on this earth. To the extent that God gives us his glory in his Word, in his creation, and in the wonderful works of man in the arts, we have a piece of eternity here on earth. Maybe that is why it is in those moments of experiencing art that I still feel close to dad, and both the loss and God's glory seem magnified.
SOLA GLORIA DEI
Monday, August 6, 2012
Citizen Kane
This movie is regularly found at or near the top of lists of the greatest films of all time. Though few can argue with how great the story is, it can be hard to see what all the fuss is about. The fuss is worth it. There are so many things to love about this movie. Every time I write on a bona fide classic, I am standing on the shoulders of many other people who know a lot more about movies than I do. Here I stand on those shoulders, yet I hope to contribute something unique as well.
For those who don't know, the film tells the story of a young boy who is taken away from his home, given a great education, and ultimately goes into the newspaper business. He becomes and enormously successful newspaper mogul, and with all of the wealth and power we see a fragile existence underneath it all. The film begins with Kane's death, and Kane's story is told in flashbacks by people who knew him.
One of the things that is always the case with a trailblazing work of art is that it's imitated so much that it can be hard to remember how special the original is. "Star Wars" comes to mind. Here, one of the things that stands out is the visual imagination of the film. Many of the visual effects in the movie which seem mundane now were quite new at the time. For instance, there is a shot in which the camera pans into a night club and focuses in on Kane's ex wife. It is a shot with tremendous visual imagination and passion for the cinematic medium. An example might help. In Wes Anderson's latest film, "Moonrise Kingdom", there's a scene which echoes one of Citizen Kane's signature moments. As Bill Murray and Frances McDormand end their day, they come to rest in their bedroom. As the debate, Anderson's camera stays focused on their faces as they debate about their daughter. It is only after several exchanges that Anderson pulls back his camera to show that the two of them are sleeping in double beds. I thought of "Citizen Kane" when I saw this. As the character of Kane begins his first marriage, we see the couple sitting at dinner. At first, the couple sits close together in an intimate fashion. Then, director Orson Wells uses visuals to depict the passing of years of time in only minutes of film time. With each shot, we see the couple growing more distant. They become more and more annoyed with each other. This whole time, the only thing Wells shows is the faces of the characters. After the characters become completely exasperated with each other, Wells shows us the new reality of the couple. They are now dining far away from each other, sitting at an enormous dining table metaphorical miles apart. All of this is simply communicated visually.
There are so many scenes like that in the movie that an encyclopedia could be written about it. But all of the visual imagination in the world would amount to nothing without a story told well. The story is a great story, and it is told in a nonlinear fashion which brings an artistic quality to the storytelling. Movies as far away in content as "Pulp Fiction" work in the shadow of "Citizen Kane." The mystery of the opening line is never totally solved, but the famous final shot does give us a wonderful enigma upon which to chew.
As I write, "Citizen Kane" has finally been dethroned in the Sight and Sound movie. For 50 years, this movie stood at the top of this poll that is taken every ten years. The poll asks critics and directors to nominate their ten best films, and when the votes are tallied, the film that appears on the most polls wins the poll. "Citizen Kane" was finally dethroned by Hitchcock's "Vertigo". They are both fine films, but "Kane" always won the poll, I suspect, due to its influence. As a younger generation of critics begin taking the poll, it makes sense that the films that were closer to them may rise on the list, though "Kane" only dropped one spot to number 2. I suspect that "Kane" will continue to be on the list for years to come, simply due to its scope and influence. But, it could not be more fitting to see that with the passage of time, other films rise in younger viewers' estimation. Though I love "Kane", it would not appear in a personal top 10. I think that it really gets at how important influence is as people perceive greatness. If I had to try to measure greatness, I suppose "Kane" would be in a top ten of mine. But that would only be if art were as measurable as a person's foot. Instead, art is a confluence of many things. It touches on individual experiences and emotions that make no two people's experience the same. The reason a poll like this is so interesting is that it shows the enormous influence of the films on the list. People from different walks of life all felt "Kane" still deserved a spot on this list. That is noteworthy, and when one looks at "Citizen Kane" for the first time, digests it, and watches it again, it becomes clear what all the fuss is about.
For those who don't know, the film tells the story of a young boy who is taken away from his home, given a great education, and ultimately goes into the newspaper business. He becomes and enormously successful newspaper mogul, and with all of the wealth and power we see a fragile existence underneath it all. The film begins with Kane's death, and Kane's story is told in flashbacks by people who knew him.
One of the things that is always the case with a trailblazing work of art is that it's imitated so much that it can be hard to remember how special the original is. "Star Wars" comes to mind. Here, one of the things that stands out is the visual imagination of the film. Many of the visual effects in the movie which seem mundane now were quite new at the time. For instance, there is a shot in which the camera pans into a night club and focuses in on Kane's ex wife. It is a shot with tremendous visual imagination and passion for the cinematic medium. An example might help. In Wes Anderson's latest film, "Moonrise Kingdom", there's a scene which echoes one of Citizen Kane's signature moments. As Bill Murray and Frances McDormand end their day, they come to rest in their bedroom. As the debate, Anderson's camera stays focused on their faces as they debate about their daughter. It is only after several exchanges that Anderson pulls back his camera to show that the two of them are sleeping in double beds. I thought of "Citizen Kane" when I saw this. As the character of Kane begins his first marriage, we see the couple sitting at dinner. At first, the couple sits close together in an intimate fashion. Then, director Orson Wells uses visuals to depict the passing of years of time in only minutes of film time. With each shot, we see the couple growing more distant. They become more and more annoyed with each other. This whole time, the only thing Wells shows is the faces of the characters. After the characters become completely exasperated with each other, Wells shows us the new reality of the couple. They are now dining far away from each other, sitting at an enormous dining table metaphorical miles apart. All of this is simply communicated visually.
There are so many scenes like that in the movie that an encyclopedia could be written about it. But all of the visual imagination in the world would amount to nothing without a story told well. The story is a great story, and it is told in a nonlinear fashion which brings an artistic quality to the storytelling. Movies as far away in content as "Pulp Fiction" work in the shadow of "Citizen Kane." The mystery of the opening line is never totally solved, but the famous final shot does give us a wonderful enigma upon which to chew.
As I write, "Citizen Kane" has finally been dethroned in the Sight and Sound movie. For 50 years, this movie stood at the top of this poll that is taken every ten years. The poll asks critics and directors to nominate their ten best films, and when the votes are tallied, the film that appears on the most polls wins the poll. "Citizen Kane" was finally dethroned by Hitchcock's "Vertigo". They are both fine films, but "Kane" always won the poll, I suspect, due to its influence. As a younger generation of critics begin taking the poll, it makes sense that the films that were closer to them may rise on the list, though "Kane" only dropped one spot to number 2. I suspect that "Kane" will continue to be on the list for years to come, simply due to its scope and influence. But, it could not be more fitting to see that with the passage of time, other films rise in younger viewers' estimation. Though I love "Kane", it would not appear in a personal top 10. I think that it really gets at how important influence is as people perceive greatness. If I had to try to measure greatness, I suppose "Kane" would be in a top ten of mine. But that would only be if art were as measurable as a person's foot. Instead, art is a confluence of many things. It touches on individual experiences and emotions that make no two people's experience the same. The reason a poll like this is so interesting is that it shows the enormous influence of the films on the list. People from different walks of life all felt "Kane" still deserved a spot on this list. That is noteworthy, and when one looks at "Citizen Kane" for the first time, digests it, and watches it again, it becomes clear what all the fuss is about.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Movie Memories of Dad
I have been in CA for a week and a half saying goodbye to my dad. He died last week, and my family and I have been here putting together services and taking care of the necessary business that will make life a bit easier for my mother. Since film is a passion of mine, it is hard to think of films and not remember some of the ones I shared with dad. Dad loved the arts. Interestingly enough, he and I had an interesting back and forth over films. He read this blog and I'm sure he was interested in my points of view on the things I was writing. However, he and I did differ on the kinds of films a person of our faith should watch. No matter, I have several wonderful memories of him and some of the films we enjoyed together.
Just a few months ago, I showed Dad one of my latest favorites, "Moneyball". I loved finding films that I could watch with him. Sharing another piece of art that meant something to me has always been meaningful for me. Finding something to share with my dad carried even more significance. A couple of weeks ago, I posted a list of some of the most underrated movies that I love. One of the ones was a movie called "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty." I remember him showing that one to me at a very young age. Even then, I knew that it meant something special to laugh with him and share this piece of work with him.
When I was 8 years old, dad and mom decided they would take me to the premiere of "Return of the Jedi." There had been some debate as to whether or not I would be allowed to go, since my parents made a habit of screening most movies for my sister and I before we saw them. My parents gave me the thumbs up, and I went to the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood to see it. I remember sitting next to my dad in the crowded and wild movie theater waiting for the movie to start. At that point, I didn't know whether or not Darth Vader was Luke's father, or any of the plot points. The anticipation was great, and I sat in the theater with my heart pounding. As my excitement grew, I leaned over to my dad and whispered to him, "I'm nervous." Dad responded, "Me too."
I have made numerous references on this blog about the love my family has for the movie "What's Up Do?" with Barbara Streisand and Ryan O' Neal. Dad always quoted from that. He loved the little inside jokes he could share with other people who knew this movie so well. He loved to tell the story about seeing this movie for the first time at Grauman's Chinese Theater and how he literally fell out of his chair laughing. Dad was quite serious a lot of the time, but when he laughed, you could hear it from another county.
Another great movie memory with Dad was a "double date" he and mom had with my wife and I. I don't think Steph and I were married yet, but the four of us drove into Hollywood to an art house and saw a brand new print of "Citizen Kane". It was great because Stephanie had never seen it, and we went out for dessert afterwards and reflected on this great work of cinema after seeing it as it was intended to be seen.
When a film he cared about came out, it was an event. We had to see it opening night. It was ideal if we could see it in a special place as well. When "Star Wars Episode 1, The Phantom Menace" came out, we didn't simply go see the movie. We went and saw the movie opening night, stood in line, and the whole family wore matching shirts. I don't remember whose idea the shirts were, but I know that if he hadn't been on board, it might not have flown.
Other memories include:
-Watching "Ben Hur" at Easter time.
-Him introducing me to the "Make 'Em Laugh" routine in "Singing in the Rain"
-Danny Kaye films
-Watching the George C. Scott version of "A Christmas Carol" every Christmas Eve
-Debating with him about which movies a disciple of Christ should watch, and why
-Watching the old animated version of "Gulliver's Travels"
-Going to Hollywood to see premieres of Disney animated films
Dad respected my opinions on the arts. He was patient listening to me go on and on about certain movies that he would never see. I think he may have realized that I had found a niche in which he would never really operate that much. I will miss sharing some of those movies with him. I will think of him when I watch some of the old favorites he introduced me to. More than anything, I feel that cinema (like any art form) was a way in which he and I could connect. Art is like that after all. It brings a timelessness which can bring old memories to light and connect us with people long gone. See you at the movies Dad.
Just a few months ago, I showed Dad one of my latest favorites, "Moneyball". I loved finding films that I could watch with him. Sharing another piece of art that meant something to me has always been meaningful for me. Finding something to share with my dad carried even more significance. A couple of weeks ago, I posted a list of some of the most underrated movies that I love. One of the ones was a movie called "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty." I remember him showing that one to me at a very young age. Even then, I knew that it meant something special to laugh with him and share this piece of work with him.
When I was 8 years old, dad and mom decided they would take me to the premiere of "Return of the Jedi." There had been some debate as to whether or not I would be allowed to go, since my parents made a habit of screening most movies for my sister and I before we saw them. My parents gave me the thumbs up, and I went to the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood to see it. I remember sitting next to my dad in the crowded and wild movie theater waiting for the movie to start. At that point, I didn't know whether or not Darth Vader was Luke's father, or any of the plot points. The anticipation was great, and I sat in the theater with my heart pounding. As my excitement grew, I leaned over to my dad and whispered to him, "I'm nervous." Dad responded, "Me too."
I have made numerous references on this blog about the love my family has for the movie "What's Up Do?" with Barbara Streisand and Ryan O' Neal. Dad always quoted from that. He loved the little inside jokes he could share with other people who knew this movie so well. He loved to tell the story about seeing this movie for the first time at Grauman's Chinese Theater and how he literally fell out of his chair laughing. Dad was quite serious a lot of the time, but when he laughed, you could hear it from another county.
Another great movie memory with Dad was a "double date" he and mom had with my wife and I. I don't think Steph and I were married yet, but the four of us drove into Hollywood to an art house and saw a brand new print of "Citizen Kane". It was great because Stephanie had never seen it, and we went out for dessert afterwards and reflected on this great work of cinema after seeing it as it was intended to be seen.
When a film he cared about came out, it was an event. We had to see it opening night. It was ideal if we could see it in a special place as well. When "Star Wars Episode 1, The Phantom Menace" came out, we didn't simply go see the movie. We went and saw the movie opening night, stood in line, and the whole family wore matching shirts. I don't remember whose idea the shirts were, but I know that if he hadn't been on board, it might not have flown.
Other memories include:
-Watching "Ben Hur" at Easter time.
-Him introducing me to the "Make 'Em Laugh" routine in "Singing in the Rain"
-Danny Kaye films
-Watching the George C. Scott version of "A Christmas Carol" every Christmas Eve
-Debating with him about which movies a disciple of Christ should watch, and why
-Watching the old animated version of "Gulliver's Travels"
-Going to Hollywood to see premieres of Disney animated films
Dad respected my opinions on the arts. He was patient listening to me go on and on about certain movies that he would never see. I think he may have realized that I had found a niche in which he would never really operate that much. I will miss sharing some of those movies with him. I will think of him when I watch some of the old favorites he introduced me to. More than anything, I feel that cinema (like any art form) was a way in which he and I could connect. Art is like that after all. It brings a timelessness which can bring old memories to light and connect us with people long gone. See you at the movies Dad.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Star Wars Philosophy
I had a lively conversation with a coworker a few weeks ago at work. We were talking about something of vital importance. The effect this topic has on the world cannot be overstated. Here it comes. What's the deal with George Lucas tinkering with the Star Wars movies?
If anyone googles this topic, one can find endless debating. For those of you not in the know (be thankful first of all), when George Lucas released the first Star Wars movie in 1977, he was dissatisfied with the special effects in the movie. He had made his pet project on a relatively low budget, and he had to cut some corners to get the film released. Fast forward to 1997. After the enormous success of the Star Wars trilogy, George Lucas rereleased the Star Wars trilogy in a "Special Edition." In this special edition, many scenes are enhanced in order to realize Lucas' actual vision. As the movies have been released on DVD and Blu-Ray, and as the prequel trilogy added still more texture to the original 3 films, further changes were made by Lucas. Many Star Wars fans consider these changes to have ruined the integrity of the original films. There has been a movement among some so called purists to only watch the original versions of these films.
Now, I suppose by even taking the time to write on this debate, I am becoming a geek myself. Fair enough. I will admit that Star Wars has been a major movie in my life, and I know way too much about it. But what I find fascinating about the outcry I hear every time Lucas makes another change is the aesthetic questions which arise. Does an artist have the write to make changes to his or her own work? Further, does the artist have an obligation to his or her audience to not make changes to his work?
Personally, I think the answer is twofold. First, I think that any viewer of any film has the right to their own opinion regarding the quality of a film. Hence, if a particular viewer finds the new editions of the Star Wars movies to not be as enjoyable, they have the absolute right to that opinion. Therefore, it is not the fact that people don't like these new versions that prompts my reflection. Instead, my argument is with the notion that many fans have that George Lucas "should leave the films alone". If Leonardo Da Vinci wanted to cut the "Mona Lisa" in half with a machete, that's his business. He is the artist, it is his work, and as much as his action may pain his audience, he has the right to do it. The audience has the right to ask the artist to leave it alone (as the legions of Star Wars fans have), but in the end, it is the artist's work, and his or her actions can therefore be judged by his audience, but the right to alter it must belong to the artist and the artist alone. The audience can even call into question the relevance of the artist. But the decision to alter the work of art lies solely with the artist. As such, the viewer should never criticize the action of changing the work, but the viewer has every right to criticize the result of the change. Hence, if a viewer hates the new dialogue that Lucas inserts near the end of "Return of the Jedi", that is his or her right. Every viewer should remember that artists, like all of us, may have parts of their work which they wish had gone better. I know I feel that way about the work I do sometimes.
So, in closing, while I may sympathize with the critics of George Lucas, the argument as to whether or not he "should" make changes is dead on arrival. The real question that fans can debate is the quality of the changes. As far as I am concerned, that is fair game. But to criticize the action itself robs the artist of the right to control their work.
Thoughts?
If anyone googles this topic, one can find endless debating. For those of you not in the know (be thankful first of all), when George Lucas released the first Star Wars movie in 1977, he was dissatisfied with the special effects in the movie. He had made his pet project on a relatively low budget, and he had to cut some corners to get the film released. Fast forward to 1997. After the enormous success of the Star Wars trilogy, George Lucas rereleased the Star Wars trilogy in a "Special Edition." In this special edition, many scenes are enhanced in order to realize Lucas' actual vision. As the movies have been released on DVD and Blu-Ray, and as the prequel trilogy added still more texture to the original 3 films, further changes were made by Lucas. Many Star Wars fans consider these changes to have ruined the integrity of the original films. There has been a movement among some so called purists to only watch the original versions of these films.
Now, I suppose by even taking the time to write on this debate, I am becoming a geek myself. Fair enough. I will admit that Star Wars has been a major movie in my life, and I know way too much about it. But what I find fascinating about the outcry I hear every time Lucas makes another change is the aesthetic questions which arise. Does an artist have the write to make changes to his or her own work? Further, does the artist have an obligation to his or her audience to not make changes to his work?
Personally, I think the answer is twofold. First, I think that any viewer of any film has the right to their own opinion regarding the quality of a film. Hence, if a particular viewer finds the new editions of the Star Wars movies to not be as enjoyable, they have the absolute right to that opinion. Therefore, it is not the fact that people don't like these new versions that prompts my reflection. Instead, my argument is with the notion that many fans have that George Lucas "should leave the films alone". If Leonardo Da Vinci wanted to cut the "Mona Lisa" in half with a machete, that's his business. He is the artist, it is his work, and as much as his action may pain his audience, he has the right to do it. The audience has the right to ask the artist to leave it alone (as the legions of Star Wars fans have), but in the end, it is the artist's work, and his or her actions can therefore be judged by his audience, but the right to alter it must belong to the artist and the artist alone. The audience can even call into question the relevance of the artist. But the decision to alter the work of art lies solely with the artist. As such, the viewer should never criticize the action of changing the work, but the viewer has every right to criticize the result of the change. Hence, if a viewer hates the new dialogue that Lucas inserts near the end of "Return of the Jedi", that is his or her right. Every viewer should remember that artists, like all of us, may have parts of their work which they wish had gone better. I know I feel that way about the work I do sometimes.
So, in closing, while I may sympathize with the critics of George Lucas, the argument as to whether or not he "should" make changes is dead on arrival. The real question that fans can debate is the quality of the changes. As far as I am concerned, that is fair game. But to criticize the action itself robs the artist of the right to control their work.
Thoughts?
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Raison d'etre
The French saying from which this entry takes its title is literally translated "reason for being." I wonder sometimes, why do I write this blog? I enjoy writing on the films, but many in the blogosphere and in newspapers do that. I am a small voice in an internet world that is vast. So, why do I do it? Furthermore, why do I write about movies, of all things?
First of all, I write my blog because I have a longing to express myself to others. Movies are important to me, and so I feel that this is one way that I can interact with other people, whatever their background. But, again, why movies? I write about movies because I believe that they are an important common language of our time. Sure, we still have the written word, the sung word, and other forms of communication. In spite of that, I really do believe that this art form is the theater for our age. It reaches nearly everyone. It combines almost every other art form into one art form (music, written word, drama and visual artistry). And, as a simple observation, it starts more discussions than any other art form. I am much more likely to have someone ask me, "Have you seen any good movies lately?", than what kind of music I am listening to.
That is why I write this blog. It is not because I think my opinion holds great weight. The appeal of a blog is that even if very few read it, it still can be one's own. I like to think that I bring a unique perspective. I am a disciple of Jesus, and yet I watch things which clearly depict people and actions that are outside of my beliefs. Why do I do this? This goes back to my title for this entry. The raison d'etre for this blog is to attempt, in a small way, to talk about something that I have in common with other people, whatever their background may be. As such, I want to expand it. I want it to be a place where not only do I talk about movies, but I share some things that have helped me find more great movie experiences. I want to be able to share resources, share laughs, do more quizzes/trivia contests, and share more of how I interact with these movies as a person of faith in Jesus Christ. I do not want to change very much...but I do want to expand this place and try to post more frequently. I want it to be a place where I can embrace and celebrate this art form myself, but also with others. I hope you enjoy what is to come!
First of all, I write my blog because I have a longing to express myself to others. Movies are important to me, and so I feel that this is one way that I can interact with other people, whatever their background. But, again, why movies? I write about movies because I believe that they are an important common language of our time. Sure, we still have the written word, the sung word, and other forms of communication. In spite of that, I really do believe that this art form is the theater for our age. It reaches nearly everyone. It combines almost every other art form into one art form (music, written word, drama and visual artistry). And, as a simple observation, it starts more discussions than any other art form. I am much more likely to have someone ask me, "Have you seen any good movies lately?", than what kind of music I am listening to.
That is why I write this blog. It is not because I think my opinion holds great weight. The appeal of a blog is that even if very few read it, it still can be one's own. I like to think that I bring a unique perspective. I am a disciple of Jesus, and yet I watch things which clearly depict people and actions that are outside of my beliefs. Why do I do this? This goes back to my title for this entry. The raison d'etre for this blog is to attempt, in a small way, to talk about something that I have in common with other people, whatever their background may be. As such, I want to expand it. I want it to be a place where not only do I talk about movies, but I share some things that have helped me find more great movie experiences. I want to be able to share resources, share laughs, do more quizzes/trivia contests, and share more of how I interact with these movies as a person of faith in Jesus Christ. I do not want to change very much...but I do want to expand this place and try to post more frequently. I want it to be a place where I can embrace and celebrate this art form myself, but also with others. I hope you enjoy what is to come!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)