The Savages (2007)

The Savages (2007). Directed by Tamara Jenkins. Written by Tamara Jenkins. Release Date: January 17, 2008. Country of Production: United States. Key Cast: Laura Linney (Wendy Savage), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Jon Savage), Philip Bosco (Lenny Savages).

The Savages had an ad campaign that was very effective. It was marketed as a quirky, independent dark comedy. The commercials integrated a few clever jokes and Philip Seymour Hoffman (whom I know is funny).

So I bought the DVD blind. It was at Blockbuster and I needed one more film to round out my 3 for 2 deal.

Not surprisingly, and I’m sure several people can back me up on this, the film did not follow the patterns of the genre it had been advertised to belong to. Dark comedy is dark in subject matter, but still features jokes/writing that is comedic.

The Savages was never funny. It was clever at times, but there was nothing humorous about the characters or their situation. The film is about a brother and sister who are forced to take care of their father who had abandoned them when they were young. The situation—although I can see in some aspects how humor can be worked in—was serious. It wasn’t about coping with death, so much as coping with the stage every person goes through right before death—the decay.

The film took time to build up interestingly flawed characters in Hoffman and Laura Linney. The plot was very character driven…it was simple and slow, and watched like a short story (I always have trouble describing this—I think in this film it was mostly because of the simple plot and the multi-dimensional characters). The writing was strong, and my roommate pointed out that the main characters had the same names as the kids from Peter Pan…which was really excellent.

So, if you are still with me, picture this simple, clean movie with really beautiful, awful moments in these two characters’ lives with an overlay of ‘50’s crooner songs.

The opening song is “You Make Me Feel So Young…”

Point being—you cannot make a movie into something that it is not through scoring…at least not in this case. When you have a flat-out dramatic piece of work, the ironic music doesn’t “highlight the darkness of the situation in a humorous way.” It doesn’t. It just creates a sort of incongruity that is neither funny nor sensible. It’s a square peg. I’m not one to call out anything for not following form, but the difference is, I believe, The Savages scoring felt like a mistake…a miswrite…a break down in communication between two people along the way. “Track 9” was misread as “Track 4.”

Waterworld (1995) and The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)

In this double-feature entry, I wanted to go over a couple of movies I saw recently that demonstrate a profound social awareness that I believe is lacking in contemporary Hollywood.  Thus, here is Waterworld and The Mummy 3.

Waterworld. Directed by Kevin Reynolds. Written by Peter Rader & David Twohy. Release Date: July 28, 1995. Country of Production: USA. Key Cast: Kevin Costner (Mariner), Chaim Girafi (Drifter), Jeanne Tripplehorn (Helen), Tina Ma

jorino (Enola), Dennis Hopper (Deacon), Jack Black (Pilot).

Remember, if you can, a time when summer blockbusters were more than just sequels; when movies that were released had more to offer than a rehash or remake of a movie that was probably already sub-par to begin with; when movies were not afraid to "say something".  Now get past the awkward sexual tension between the Mariner and Enola, and I'm sure that you will be able to appreciate Waterworld, too.

Here's a movie with some really badass special effects, cool fight scenes, and a main character who is an Icthyo Sapien!  You can't make movies like this anymore, especially if all you're making is sequels.  But the real reason I wanted to bring up this movie was because it has held a special place in my heart ever since I first saw it 

on VHS on the mini TV that my parents would bring into the car when we were road-tripping up to NJ, and for more reasons than Jeanne Tripplehorn's butt-shot (which is also very nice).  This is a movie that first implanted into the social consciousness the horrible repercussions of a world after a global-warming disaster.  Sure everyone scoffed at this ridiculous notion when the movie was released, but you just watch the presidential debates, my friends, and see how many times alternative energy sources, greenhouse gases, and global warming are brought up, and then you tell me that this movie is not clairvoyant.

I have heard Waterworld referred to as one of the worst movies of all time, and yet until very recently, the Mariner's catamaran was sitting in the lagoon in Universal Studios, Orlando, alongside such timeless memerobilia as the JAWS ride, Back the the Future, the Indiana Jones stunt show, the Star Wars motion simulator (or wh

atever you wanna call that thing), and many others.  Why, if this movie was so terrible, did we cling onto its memory so nostalgically?  

Perhaps, because in spite of it's terrible dialogue, and misunderstanding of the mechanics of respiration, this movie had heart and imagination, like The Postman.  Or maybe because even though we were all sad to see the Mariner leave at the end, and couldn't understand why he couldn't just start a new like on Dryland with the rest of the survivors of the atoll, I mean, it's not like he had any problems living above water, and besides, after teaching Enola how to swim, he kind of became like a father-figure for her, and God knows that in this fucked up new world, a strong masculine presence would be really important for someone who is probably going to be responsible for eventually repopulating the Earth...  What was I talking about?  Oh yeah, because as far-fetched as the idea seemed at 

the time, this was a rare case in which a science fiction film actually started to come true, and unfortunately, this was a dystopian one.

For better or worse, Waterworld has been on people's minds and tongues since its release, and I choose to believe that this has at least some influence on focusing the world's attention on environmental changes.  We all owe Kevin Costner a huge debt of gratitude.  He may very well have saved us all from becoming Icthyo Sapiens.

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor. Directed by Rob Cohen. Written by Alfred Gough & Miles Millar. Release Date: August 1, 2008. Country of Production: USA. Key Cast: Brendan Fraser (Rick O'Connell), Jet Li (Emperor Han), Maria Bello (Evelyn O'Connell), John Hannah (Jonathan Carnahan), Michelle Yeoh (Zi Juan), Luke Ford (Alex O'Connell), Isabella Leong (Lin).

Even if you haven't seen the two other movies in the series, you should still drag yourself to the theater to watch TTOTDE.  As a matter of fact, the plot is more or less detached from the first two movies, and the only thing you may be missing out on are the clever meta-movie references, such as when they introduce the "new" Evelyn (a welcome change from the dreadful Rachel Weisz) Maria Bello, fielding questions about Evelyn's new novel utters something to the effect of "I feel like a different person completely", or when she is discussing this new novel with Rick later on, she infers that the first two novels in the series came so easily, but now she's come down with some serious writer's block.

I digress, the film was pivotally released around the inception of the 2008 Summer Olympics, which leads me to believe that there is more to this movie than meets the eye.  Indeed, Chinese culture has often gotten shanghaied from American cinema in favor of base stereotypes.  Cohen bravely takes the burden upon himself to show the world that there is more to China than the Great Wall, Karate, fireworks or Jet Li.  There are mummies, too.

That's right, finally the rich cultural heritage of China makes it's way to the silver screen without having to go through all the trouble of reading subtitles (yech!).  The newest installment bravely tackles more issues than just mummies. (Spoiler Alert!) There are the elements, yetis, Sangri La, a dragon, and a mysterious temporal paradox that seriously complicates Rick's relationship with his son.

The visual effects team really outdid themselves, too.  The sweeping epic shots of the ancient Chinese architecture are nearly suffocating, and there is some fantastic pyrotechnic work in the scene of a downtown Chinese city where Jonathan runs his nightclub.  As for the non-CG fight scenes, Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh need almost no instruction, their moves flow like smoke on the water.  This is a welcome relief from the other garbage sequels of the summer.  Here is a progressive movie that is not constrained by such Philistine concepts as using the same actors for the same character, analogous to the concept of I'm Not There. and I will be awaiting the Academy's response to this movie with bated breath.

The Manchurian Candidate (2004)

The Manchurian Candidate. Directed by Jonathan Demme. Written by George Axelrod (1962 screenplay), Daniel Pyne (screenplay), and Dean Georgaris (screenplay). Produced by Scott Aversano. Release Date: July 30, 2004. Country of Production: United States of America. Key Cast: Denzel Washington (Ben Marco), Live Schreiber (Raymond Shaw), Meryl Streep (Eleanor Shaw), and Jeffrey Wright (Al Melvin).


An army unit during the Gulf War is ambushed while on a recon mission. The sergeant of the unit, Raymond Shaw, miraculously saves the unit. After the incident, Captain Ben Marco, who was the leader of the unit, has several break downs after the incident, and constantly has dreams about an alternate reality that took place during the ambush. Marco tries to figure out what these dreams mean by talking to Shaw. Shaw, at this time, is running for Vice President. As the truth unfolds, Marco discovers that the entire unit had been brainwashed by a secret organization. Marco was destined to assassinate the president when he is elected, so that Shaw can take over. Marco stops himself in time, and shoots Shaw and his mother, one of the orchestrators of the plan.

The Manchurian Candidate is a remake of a film of the same name, which was considered the first political thriller. The original film played on the audience’s fear of communism during the cold war. The remake uses the setting of the Gulf War and works with fears and paranoia of the military-industrial complex.

The obvious political messages behind the film reference to Dick Chaney’s connections with the Halliburton Company. Manchurian (the Halliburton stand-in) receives exclusive no-bid government contracts and is accused of price gouging. The film emphasizes the horrifying consequences of such a union by employing the torture-horror scenes. Not only is the military-industrial complex threatening on the level of political corruption, it also presents a physical threat.

Manchuria’s goal is to destroy the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Instead of doing this in an obtrusive way, the idea is that Manchuria works inside the system to subvert all of our rights.
To make the film as relevant as possible, though set in the Gulf War, several current events are referenced. In the world of the film, there are many terrorist attacks that take place. Shaw’s VP campaign focuses on the need to be “tough on terrorism.”

I believe that the reason the film is effective in pinpointing the paranoia of the society is because it uses several visual cues to suggest the present time. There are constant news clips that feature things like a debate about touch-screen voting and an election where one candidate wins by 70% of the vote. Even though these news clips are not real, all news pieces (even if it is subconscious) are perceived as having some kind of merit.

The film’s stylistic elements become less visible as the film progresses, and as Captain Marco shakes off his brainwashing. In the beginning of the movie, the flashback scenes are very saturated, and stylish. The scene jumps are quick, and there are scenes that are spliced together (the quick jumps between the hotel scene and the closet). The camera is also constantly moving and shifting (the first scene where Shaw and Marco are talking to each other in the conference room). When Shaw is drowning Senator Thomas Jordan the camera switched to the point of view of Jordan.

As Marco wises up to the situation, the stylistic elements become less obvious, and in the end pretty much fade away altogether. The camera becomes steady and stops shifting around.
The acting in the film on the part of Denzel Washington also does its best to keep this same concept of becoming steadier as things are revealed to the character. The beginning of the film is so promising because of the questions the audience has about the sanity of the Ben Marco character. Yet he goes from being a half-crazed man, who is unsure of himself and unsteady, to a Jack Bauer character. Suddenly he’s able to outsmart anything and break all the rules for the greater good. I’m not sure weather this is intentional or not, but it ends up subverting a lot of the films messages. While the film encourages paranoia about the threat of a military-industrial complex, by having the main character overcome the plot against the American people almost single handedly, it weakens the threat.

Also, in the film Denzel somehow makes his eyes go slightly different directions in the begining. It's the lazy eye! Sadly, as the "Jack Bauer" in him takes over, his eyes line up again.

The film does not live up to the multidimensional meanings that are found in the original Manchurian Candidate. The plot feels flat by comparison.

Thirteen Days (2001)

Thirteen Days. Directed by Roger Donaldson. Produced by Marc Abraham. Written by David Self. Release Date: January 12, 2001. Country of Production: United States of America. Key Cast: Kevin Costner (Kenny O’Donnell), Bruce Greenwood (John F. Kennedy), and Steven Culp (Robert F. Kennedy).

Thirteen Days follows the progress of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the actions taken in the White House. It begins with President Kennedy first receiving the U-2 surveillance photos of the Soviet missiles, and ends with the agreement with the Soviets to withdraw.

Major themes in the film include brothers/brotherhood, man love (President Kennedy and Kenny O’Donnell), community (nationality), integrity/honor, war and the effects of war, diplomacy, family values, and liberalism.

The film opens with shots of atomic bombs. Many presidential films open with pictures of “presidential objects” (like the title sequence of The American President). In any film, the title sequence, if it contains visuals other than text, is usually used to introduce the subject matter. The title sequence, therefore, establishes that the film is not a “presidential” movie in the traditional sense; rather it focuses on the threat that the Cuban Missile Crisis presented.

The next scene is Kenny O’Donnell at the breakfast table with his family. If one is following the traditional reading of film/literature of the first character/problems introduced are the most important, then this scene would represent the second utmost concern of the film—the American families. In many films about presidencies and presidents, it is the president’s own family that is used to represent the American family that must be preserved or defended (The American President and The West Wing). In Thirteen Days, I believe the president’s family is not featured or discussed heavily because the film does not focus on the king’s two bodies. Instead, it focuses on the role of the president during a historical event. Director Roger Donaldson uses the opening shots of the bomb to show what could have happened, and Kenny O’Donnell’s family to show what could have been lost.

The film is very much geared towards the generation of Americans who were not alive during the Kennedy presidency, but still know to idolize the president. They are familiar with the icon of the president, even though his actions and his administration may have been forgotten.

The president in the film is not a fictional presidential figure, but President Kennedy. The film was made in 2000, which means that many of the people viewing the film were not alive during the events that the movie tells about. Many viewers were not old enough to have been alive during Kennedy’s presidency, yet the iconic images and aspects of Kennedy are still well known in present-day society.

Rather than introduce the president by name, these icons are used to present him to the audience in the beginning. The images are also used throughout the film to reestablish the unity between Bruce Greenwood, the actor, and the icon John F. Kennedy as well as John F. Kennedy as President. When Kenny O’Donnell is walking into the president’s office, he first runs into Jackie Kennedy, who is in full fashion icon regalia. Later in the film, Kennedy is shown riding and waving in the back of a convertible. At the end of the film, as Robert Kennedy, Kenny O’Donnell, and President Kennedy are walking out of the frame in the final shot; the iconic President Kennedy profile is shown in shadow. The screen fades to black, and a speech made by President Kennedy is played at the end.

By using the final iconic image to close the film, Roger Donaldson urges us to understand that during the length of the film, the icon has been explained to us. We now know the man behind the shadow, and are now to understand why he has been idolized. Most importantly, we are to understand that Kennedy deserved his status of an icon.

The stylistic element that is most notable is that of the shift that the film makes from black and white to color. In the beginning of the film, I could not tell what the black and white versus the color picture represented. By the end, I came up with a few ideas. The black and white might have been used to remind the audience of the time period, as newsreels might have appeared at the time that Kennedy was president (though color was becoming pretty widely use). As for a symbolic reading, the black and white might have stood for innocence. My argument for this lies in the fact that several of the black and white scenes were shot when the president was “in the dark” about things. The film also returns to black and white for the last shot—when the crisis is over and the president can return to being peaceful without having to take extreme measures to be a peace-keeper.

Another symbol used throughout the film is the football. I believe this is used the same way that Kenny O’Donnell’s family is used in the beginning—as the American dream or American ideal. Kenny holds the football in the beginning, and he throws it on the couch when he first hears about the missiles in Cuba. For the rest of the film, the football is shown sitting on the desk behind Kenny…the American dream must be set aside for now. At the end of the film, when Kenny walks outside, President Kennedy is holding the ball, and he presents it back to Kenny—the American dream has been saved.

I don’t know if I’m making this up, but I did feel that there was a buddy-film element to the situation. If Roger Donaldson’s intention was to make us forget the president as a family man and focus on his administrative accomplishments, then it made sense never to include Jackie Kennedy in the film. As it is, there are no women in most of the scenes, and everyone just seems happy as can be. There also seem to be some very slight homosexual undertones (i.e. several meaningful looks, a lot of man love). So, anything with homosexual undertones between important historical figures makes a good movie for me.

The American President (1995)

The American President. Directed by Rob Reiner. Written by Aaron Sorkin. Produced by Barbara Maltby. Release Date: November 17, 1995. Country of Production: United States of America. Key Cast: Michael Douglas (President Andrew Shepherd), Annette Bening (Sydney Ellen Wade), Martin Sheen (A.J. Maclnerney), Michael J. Fox (Lewis Rothschild), Anna Deavere Smith (Robin McCall).

President Andrew Shepherd is confident that he will win the upcoming elections until he meets lobbyist Sydney Ellen Wade. This new relationship opens the father and widower up for character attacks from his Republican opponent, to which Shepherd refuses to acknowledge. Suddenly, President Shepherd's approval rating is down. Sydney also bears some of the burden as she receives constant critique from her employer. In the end, Shepherd makes the decision to address the slander and continue his relationship with Sydney Wade.

The main themes of the film are confusion over identity/individuality and the nation's response to personal/public loss/death (Shepherd as the sympathetic president). The main theme of The American President is the notion of the King's two bodies.

Formally, the film begins with several shots of “presidential objects” to set the tone of the film. These objects include eagles and portraits of past presidents, globes, a bust of Lincoln. All of these objects serve to get the audience in the mindset of a president film, but they also serve to have a “priming effect” to think of Michael Douglas in the presidential light.

This film was not shot in Washington D.C., but in Los Angeles. Several special effects (digital imaging) were used to layer over many backgrounds/sets to give the appearance of Washington. The Oval Office/White House was constructed from visits by the set designers to the White House. There are several long shots in the film which follow the president through these halls. These shots allow us to imagine the scope of the set, “The White House,” as well as feel like we are in fact, in this place. These images also satisfy our scopophilic impulses—we are viewing a very important man in an intimate way.

These first few shots also set up the audience for the King's two bodies theme, as the President is first shown doing very presidential things—discussing approval rating and the upcoming election. This is a view of the president that confirms many cynic's view of the men behind the office as being only greedy for more.

There are also direct political messages in the film, regarding gun laws and the environment. Aaron Sorkin has been quoted as saying of the film, “To me, guns have always been an issue with which I find difficulty seeing both sides. We simply won't make any dent in crime whatsoever without eliminating guns. The environment is something I was always happy other people were concerned with because I like clean air as much as anyone, but I just don't feel like doing anything about it. Rob is someone who feels like doing something about it.” In the film, the environmental issue is spearheaded by Sydney Wade, while President Shepherd's original campaign was very tough on hand gun laws, but as Sydney pointed out, the new crime bill that Shepherd was pushing was insignificant and pointless. So, in finding his way back to his love the lobbyist, the President also manages to realign himself with his actual moral concerns (the gun laws).

This film itself was shot during the Clinton years, and Rob Reiner visited the White House while filming the movie. The Clinton staff was very generous about letting Reiner in the building, and he followed the President around for two days, observing him. This is interesting to me because of the way Reiner has said in an interview that many of the scenes he shot were based on the way Clinton ran his office. The film itself might have been fresh in the public's mind when the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal broke. Although the circumstances were undeniably different from the Sydney Ellen Wade/President Shepherd relationship, it might have seemed relevant at the time to compare the two. The film focuses on the merging of the King's two bodies. Sorkin clearly believes that the man can not be separate from the office, the man can not be separated from the job. Yet all of these Clinton fans are seeing their president acting “shamefully” on the news, and can only recover by separating the man from the job. The recent “Clinton defense” holds that he was a good president and a sleazy guy. Yet The American President, and later, the West Wing, emphasizes that the good man makes the good president. In fact, nearly all reverential/glorified president movies of Hollywood operate under the same claim.

It is was interesting to see this film and compare it to the situation of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal. On its own, it was kind of entertaining...very much a “Sorkin experience.”

Throwing Stars (2007) and The Silence Of The Lambs (1991) and Penelope (2006)

Throwing Stars (also known as: Who's Your Monkey?). Directed by Todd Breau. Written by Ryan Steckloff. Cinema Release Date: March 28, 2008. Country of Prduction: USA (Jacksonville, FL!). Key Cast: Scott Grimes (Mark), Jason London (Bobby), Scott Michael Campbell (Laith), David DeLuise (Hutto), Kevin Durand (Reed), Wayne Knight (Officer Brooks).

I remember reading all the buzz in the Florida Times Union about mysterious sightings of Wayne Knight around town.  The film community in Jacksonville has bee on the up and up lately, and so it's not too much of a surprise to see Kevin Spacey, John Travolta, or maybe even a candid Tom Arnold photograph surface like so many Bigfoot.  Unfortunately, I missed the premier of this gem at the Jacksonville Film Fest, but was able to catch it (guess where?!) OnDemand recently to parallel its cinematic release.  The fact that it's making a run in the theater warms my heart to know that somewhere out there, Jacksonville is the recognizable backdrop to a movie!

Not just any movie though, a dark, funny one!  Throwing Stars has a sharp script and a funny (if a little twisted) plot, but the real reward is the characters and the acting.  These four friends have a great rapport, that can only signify a strong off-screen relationship, which is a key component to a buddy/quasi-road movie.

Also, one of the companies involved in the production, TigerLily Media, is a local studio full of great people who do great work, so if you get the chance, show some support.  You won't regret it!

The Silence Of The Lambs. Directed by Jonathan Demme. Written by Thomas Harris. Release Date: February 14, 1991. Country of Production: USA. Key Cast: Jodie Foster (Clarice Starling), Anthony Hopkins (Dr. Hannibal Lecter), Scott Glenn (Jack Crawford), Anthony Heald (Dr. Frederick Chilton), Ted Levine (Jame 'Buffalo Bill' Gumb).

"Love your suit!"

If you've ever seen any movie that Sir Anthony Hopkins is in, then you know that no matter what it is, he can make it awesome.  He is a White Knight who always brings it as hard as he can.  Then combine his Oscar-winning performance, and put it opposite the stellar (and also Oscar-winning) Helen Hunt, and you've got yourself one helluva movie.

Not that Helen Hunt isn't totally awesome in this movie, but according to Wikipedia, Anthony Hopkins only spent a total of no more than 16 minutes on screen!  Watching it though, his lines are delivered so profoundly and hypnotically, and Lecter is such a creepy character that all of his scenes seem to take up an eternity!  Hopkins is a black hole of screen presence from which there is no escape, even when he is only a digital facsimile of himself (Beowulf, 2007).

Another little tidbit, courtesy of Wikipedia, is the LGBT backlash against this film upon its release.  Apparently, Buffalo Bill's character was another link in a long chain of negatively portrayed LGBT characters in Hollywood productions.  Although this response never escalated farther than verbal announcement, there appears to be some speculation that this sentiment was the impetus for director Jonathan Femme to embark on the feature Philadelphia in 2003.

 

Penelope. Directed by Mark Palansky. Written by Leslie Caveny. Release Date: February 29, 2008. Country of Production: USA. Key Cast: Christina Ricci (Penelope), James McAvoy (Max), Catherine O'Hara (Jessica Wilhern), Reese Witherspoon (Annie), Peter Dinklage (Lemon), Simon Woods (Edward Humphrey Vanderman III), Nick Frost (Max Campion).

"A fairytale like no other." - tag line

"You wish." -me

Christina Ricci has a pig nose.  James McAvoy does an American accent.  Nick Frost is in the movie for, like, 2 seconds.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)

Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Directed Nicholas Stoller. Written by Jason Segel. Release Date: 18 April 2008. Country of Production: United States. Key Cast: Jason Segel (Peter Bretter), Kristen Bell (Sarah Marshall), Mila Kunis (Rachel Jansen), Russell Brand (Aldous Snow).

Forgetting Sarah Marshall, in its trailer, appeared to me to be a completely miss-able kind of spin-off from the recent series of Seth Rogen and/or Evan Goldberg comedies. I think, indeed, many people saw the trailer, thought to themselves, "Is that the one dude from Knocked Up?" and then never saw it. Don't underestimate this movie.

I won't lie to you, I didn't die laughing. It had some strong moments, an overall humorous tone, and a mildly believable plot line that rarely distracted. It wasn't great, but it was really good. The reason I'm taking the time to write about this is that I feel the style of humor Jason Segel has implemented in his film needs to be supported. This is a very funny movie that derives the majority of its humor from clever dialogue and solid performances. The movie is only occasionally outrageous, and then usually to good effect.

With one exception, in my opinion. Apparently someone recently decided that since it was technically acceptable to display the penis in a rated R movie, absolutely everybody should. In this case the nudity was funny in the context of a relationship-ending fight, but it remains only an issue of shock-value that the audience actually sees Segel's penis. I don't get it. What is inherently funny about the male genitals? Does every man carry a joke in his pants? The general concept of nudity, again, can be funny in context, but I don't get the idea of the penis as the punchline.

Other than that, I simply want to give credit to Segel for attempting to move comedic film back toward a reliance on writing and believable performance and away from the current Will Ferrell-esque trend of resorting to complete inanity.

Mother + Father (2005)

EXHIBIT:    The Cinema Effect: Illusion, Reality, and the Moving Image. Part II: Realisms. At the Hirshhorn museum. Runs through Septemeber 7, 2008. Featuring artists Candice Breitz, Matthew Buckingham, Paul Chan, Ian Charlesworth, Phil Collins, Jermy Deller, Kota Ezawa, Omer Fast, Fancesco Vezzoli, and Arthur Zimijewski. 

I recently attended the Hirshhorn museum's current film exhibit, The Cinema Effect: Illusion, Reality, and the Moving Image, Part II: Realisms. The exhibit is split into two parts, featuring some 50 films. The first part focuses on Hollywood, pop culture, and global cinema. The second relates historical events and the genre of documentary. 

This exhibit was the best I've attended so far this summer. Each film runs 10 to 15 minutes long. Some people have trouble walking into the various rooms and sitting through each film, but it is definitely worth it. The Hollywood/pop culture section blew my mind. 

If you are not in the D.C. area, check out my favorite film online, Mother + Father, by Candice Breitz. It is a piece that takes place in two separate rooms, with six televisions in each. Breitz has taken scenes from iconic movies featuring mothers and fathers and recut them. Altogether, the clips form a strange sort of soliloquy. Watch both films in full!

Mother + Father

(Click on Work -> Video -> Mother + Father, and select one of the two videos. Make sure you put your mouse on the images to get the video to play.)

The Happening (2008)

The Happening. Directed by M. Night Shyamalan. Written by M. Night Shyamalan. Release Date: 13 June 2008. Country of Production: United States. Key Cast: Mark Whalberg (Eliot Moore), Zooey Deschanel (Alma Moore), John Leguizamo (Julian).

I'll get straight to the point: The Happening sucks hardcore. I try at all times to see the good in a film, particularly when I sit down to write a public review. There is nothing redeeming about this movie. It's heavy-handed in its message, the acting is unnaturally bad, and the concept is so repulsively stupid that M. Night had to write paragraphs of clunky, expository dialogue just to hope an audience might find his concept remotely plausible.

I get it M. Night. People are hurting the environment. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. You are truly a pioneer of social change. Oh wait, absolutely everyone in the public eye has been discussing the green movement for years now. Way to suit up for the fourth quarter. It's not even a specific environmental problem that's being addressed. Every single plant in the world simply recognizes, magically, that human beings are a specific threat in need of neutralizing.

Listen, M. Night, I think the hype from Sixth Sense has officially subsided. No one is waiting on pins and needles to see what your next masterpiece will be. Just slow down, take your time, and write a decent movie. Not even a great one. A decent one. It's time to get back on track.

The Dark Knight (2008)

The Dark Knight. Directed by Christopher Nolan. Written by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan. Release Date: July 18, 2008. Country of Production: Chicago, USA. Key Cast: Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne/Batman), Heath Ledger (The Joker), Aaron Eckhart (Harvey Dent/Two-Face), Michael Caine (Alfred Pennyworth), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Rachel Dawes), Gary Oldman (Lt. James Gordon), Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox), Anthony Michael Hall (Mike Engel).

Why so serious? Walking into the movie theater at about 11:00 PM, I was overwhelmed with my anticipation for this summer blockbuster. I could barely contain myself; I even enjoyed the Regal First Look. Then when the previews came on (which are just as incredible as some of the plot twists of the movie, so I won't dare to reveal them to you), I just about squealed like an 11-year-old girl who just got a date with Justin Timberlake.

So, I know you are all wondering: How was The Joker? Let me tell you, it's everything you've imagined it would be. Ledger does one of the deepest and darkest representations of perhaps any comic book character ever to make the leap to the silver screen. The Joker's semi-suicidal style, his extremely explosive emotional states, and all dashed with a dark irony that can only be called humor. It's no coincidence that the image I've chosen for this post is from the cover of Allen Moore's The Killing Joke, because it is reputedly the comic that was given to Heath for him to consult while doing his character study, and I believe it's (at only 46 pages) the most scrutinizing look at The Joker to date. One thing that I liked about the movie that may have been transferred from the comic is the idea that The Joker does not even recall his own origin, so rather than flashback and retelling it, he just makes up his own stories to justify his actions, or maybe just for fun. I've chosen to subscribe to the theory that the role of The Joker is cursed, and rumor has it that Jack Nicholson suffered from similar symptoms of insomnia during the shooting of Batman (dir. Tim Burton, 1989).

Another aspect of the movie that I really liked was that the Nolans made a point of reintroducing to the plot one of my favorite elements of the Batman universe: the public ambivalence to his actions. At the end of Batman Begins, he was dangerously close to becoming a mythical hero, and although the audience tends to root for Batman, the Gothamites don't always like his so much. I think that as a character, that may be part of his appeal. Batman has the courage to do what's right, even though he takes shit from pretty much everyone, the villain, the citizens of Gotham, the police, etc. But that's what makes the audience's relationship with Batman so intimate, since we know his secrets, we know that he's really good and we can feel like the only ones in his corner.

I can't say enough good things about this movie, the direction they've gone with the character, and the kind of precedent that they're setting for comic/super-hero movies, in general. See this movie!

OK, I couldn't resist.

DARK KNIGHT
A Second Look by Sally Salt

The 7:00 Friday screening of Dark Knight was not so glamorous. There were no long lines; I found a seat front and center with not much effort. I was hoping to be sitting next to pale, single men trying to preserve their stubs—the fans. Instead I was sandwiched in between a family and a group of mothers. The youngest boy in the family kept confusing the Joker with Two Face. The mothers spent the previews chatting about this morning’s episode of The View.

The comic book movies have always attracted the broadest audiences. I know this. This is why they have been an enormous franchise in Hollywood for the past few years. So what happens when a comic book movie tries to reach beyond the campy parameters of the genre? What happens when a performance of an actor within said movie makes the front pages of newspapers? (It might have just been the style sections, but whatever.)

What happens is you get the biggest movie of the year. It’s a formula. You take a genre that has not reached its potential and make a good film. So there you have it. Wasn’t it the same formula with comic books? They start out as dime store gags and then develop into something worthwhile.

And we can’t forget that Batman has been put on the silver screen before; several times, with many different directors/writers/actors. Before now, everyone had a Batman. Mine was a blend between Adam West and George Clooney set in one of the Tim Burton sets. It was cheesy lines and one-dimensional characters and overacting. My dad loved the “Batman movies.” He went out and bought the $400 full latex Halloween costume after Batman Returns. He wore it for six straight Halloweens, until my brother stopped needing an escort for trick-or-treating. I still have the belt somewhere.

I’ve gotten into fights over my Batman in the past. Guys who grew up with Batman: The Animated Series put their faith in Christian Bale. I held out for more Keaton. I found Bale’s voice ridiculous in costume—a boy pretending to be a man. I never will claim that Keaton was any type of hero, but Bale just seemed like a placeholder for someone more suited for the job. I’m not sure if Dark Knight changed my mind. There was one shot, though, that stuck with me. When Bale and Michael Cane are walking out of the emptied “cave” towards the press conference, Noland shot them walking out from behind. I know that it might have not been Bale making any of these calls (but I can hope)…Bruce Wayne’s suit is a bit rumpled and he doesn’t quite fill it out properly, and he’s not limping, it’s more of a slouch really, but he looks small, too small for his clothes or the room. I know I exaggerate it in memory, but that shot was beautiful.

As for the Joker... Now, I refused to read the Post’s most recent write up of Ledger’s performance, but I did read the headlines. It asked the question: What happens when a villain is more interesting then the hero? What has happened in the past Javier Bardem and the Coen brothers pick up a few Oscars. What happened with Dark Knight was the revolution of a genre.

The theaters were packed because of Heath Ledger. There has been a lot written on the subject, so I’ll just say a bit.

Noland gave him a star’s entrance in the film, delaying him to build the tension, hiding his face from us. All good things.

There are details which make the character, and ignoring the tongue flickers, Ledger got me with his physical movements. When he falls on the ground, shakes his limbs, or limps, he does so with subtle jerky motions. Fantastic.

Most importantly, though, and the primary reason “my Batman” has to be reevaluated, was the writing. The best villains of former Batmans have always been Jokers. Jack Nicholson was the best of these Jokers because his lines and delivery were fab. The best of which was, “I am the world’s first fully-functional, homicidal artist.” (Or something.) The rest of the villains have been either power hungry, peace-keepers, evil scientists, or Jim Carrey. Ledger’s Joker is the first honest-to-god psychopath.

The portrayal of a psychopath usually hinges on good acting—Gunnar Hanson didn’t even have proper LINES! ­—but at least half of the strength of the Joker here is the writing. This is most evident when he tells the variety of stories that he makes up about his scars…and the way he shoots his home videos of the Batman imposter (some pathetic, fat Bryan character whimpering and looking at the ground). This seems like a PBS special on a serial killer, featuring grainy prison interviews and reenactments. I believe that this works the same way No Country for Old Men does—

During the best parts of this film, Dark Knight didn’t feel like a movie, it felt like a case study.

Mongol (2007)

Mongol. Directed by Sergei Bodrov. Written by Alif Aliyev and Sergei Bodrov. Release Date: September 20, 2007. Country of Production: Russia. Key Cast: Tadanobu Asano (Temudjin), Sun Honglei (Jamukha), Khulan Chuluun (Borte).

I first got wind of this film when I was mapping out my schedule for the 2008 Sarasota Film Festival, but unfortunately, when I went to buy tickets for it, it was sold out. Needless to say, the combined interest of the public and my inability to see it then furiously made me want to watch this movie even more than I did after seeing the beautiful trailer. Lucky for me, it was released to the theater out at the beach here in town, and I gotta say, the hype was totally justified.

This glorious historical epic chronicles the life of Genghis Khan, from the time he was a child, through his enslavement, to his bloody conquering of the Mongolian empire. The costumes are incredibly elaborate, and the characters are relate-able and animated without jumping the threshold of this movie's period setting. The music is beautiful, and features a great amount of traditional overtone singing (a.k.a. "throat singing") which, if you're unfamiliar with, is almost unbelievable. Check it out:

Some highly accomplished throat singing.

The cinematography is also really beautiful, and many of the epic landscape shots are breathtaking. And at the heart of all the hardcore, gritty battle scenes is a sweet love story, which I'm always a sucker for. So, if you get the chance to check it out, go for it. Who knows how long this gem will be released to mainstream theaters? Since it lacks copious amounts of CG, nudity and/or Hayden Christensen, I'll be impressed if anyone sees this movie.

Diminished Capacity (2008) and Jumper (2008)

Man, ON DEMAND is a bitch. Time for another double feature!


Diminished Capacity. Directed by Terry Kinney. Written by Sherwood Kiraly. Release Date: July 4, 2008. Country of Production: USA. Key Cast: Matthew Broderick (Cooper), Alan Alda (Uncle Rollie), Virginia Madsen (Charlotte), Dylan Baker (Mad Dog McClure), Louis C.K. (Stan).

Matthew Broderick continues his self-exploration through independent cinema in this charming, quirky comedy about overcoming your inhibitions and insecurities. Alan Alda steals the show with a winning performance as Cooper's (Broderick) eccentric uncle. Plus, I think Virgina Madsen is really hot. Ever since I saw her in The Number 23, I've had a little thing for her. Now, she's no Uma Thurman, but what a smile.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like there is this trend of overly-grounded protagonists in a lot of comedies I've seen lately. These characters are more or less crippled by their own neuroses, and the grand resolution of the movie is them regaining their confidence. I think this movie had a great execution of this theme, it didn't dwell too much on it, and whenever it did, there was a great punchline to rev it back up again, but I think this might somehow be linked with the impersonalization of our society through computers and cell-phones, etc.

This is linked, specifically in this movie, to the love interest (Madsen). They don't come out and say "technology". In fact, Broderick's forgetfulness and cautious behavior are the result of a severe concussion, but it made me wonder: this message of lost confidence speaks more and more verbally to a generation that is becoming characterized by our impersonality, where face-to-face human interaction is being replaced by AIM game. Are we being digitally sapped of our social essence?



Jumper. Directed by Doug Liman. Written by David S. Goyer and Jim Uhls and Simon Kinberg. Release Date: February 14, 2008. Country of Production: USA. Key Cast: Hayden Christensen (David Rice), Jamie Bell (Griffin), Rachel Bilson (Millie Harris), Diane Lane (Mary Rice), Samuel L. Jackson (Roland), Michael Rooker (William Rice).

I don't really know what to say. I'm sure it must have been pretty cool as a novel, but there had ot have been more to the story than this. The parts that I was interested in, such as the renegade Jumper (someone who can teleport) named Griffin and his guerrilla war against the Paladins (those who oppose, hunt down, and kill the Jumpers, like Sammy L.) were just glossed over, while the parts that I didn't care for at all (namely the central love story between David and Millie) took up the whole fucking movie! Also, Diane Lane is way too huge a name for her two scene cameos of the movie, and the comic book references were pastiche, at best.

Also, none of these characters were really likeable. I didn't know who to root for. Roland is obviously the villain, but the supposed heroes of the film are a bunch of sociopathic, bank-robbing neerdowells, who by the end of the movie, don't really learn any kind of lesson, or even to be responsible for their powers. It seemed like the moral was going to be something like "there are always consequences" and another line in the movie was (and I'm paraphrasing here): "they hate us because we can do whatever we want". Well, by the end of the movie, through some luck, David ends up being able to avoid this whole dispute entirely by not choosing a side and goes on to live his life of hedonism uninhibited by any sense of purpose or good acting. And he gets the girl.

Maybe if they had committed to their amoral villainy the same way that Wanted had, it would have been more engaging, but try as I might, I couldn't make myself root for the protagonist... or against him, and it was my apathy that killed it for me.

Hayden Christensen, you almost ruined Star Wars for me. I guess I keep giving you chances because I really liked Shattered Glass and Life as a House, but I can't take it anymore. You're dead to me.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)

Hellboy II: The Golden Army. Directed by Guillermo del Toro. Written by Guillermo del Toro and Mike Mignola. Release Date: July 11, 2008. Country of Production: USA. Key Cast: Ron Perlman (Hellboy), Selma Blair (Liz Sherman), Doug Jones (Abe Sapien/The Chamberlain/The Angel of Death), Seth MacFarlane (voice of Johann Krauss), Jeffrey Tambor (Tom Manning).

Guillermo del Toro returns to the screen with another wonderfully whimsical fantasy. Coming back in full force from his production of Pan's Labyrinth, he returns to the world of the B.P.R.D. to put some more meat on the rest of the characters in this glorious saga. This films has a lot more creatures in it, and if you're a costume and makeup hound then I would highly recommend it. Not to mention the wealth of other special effects that this movie so effortlessly affords its audience.

When I was watching the movie though, my dad mentioned to me the grace and poise with which the fight scenes were executed (which are also very beautiful). I had not noticed this before (or perhaps it was lost in the sea of sensory stimulation that was just short of overwhelming, at times), but in retrospect, it was incredibly well done. I'm sure that much of this was filming techniques and some of it was probably some CG and wire-fu every now and then, but according to my dad, who is an active gymnastics enthusiast, and use to compete in college, the calibur of their technique was way better than any other kung-fu stunt double he had seen before. According to him, in order to have such a great mastery of the acrobatics and the fighting styles, you would have had ot devote your entire life to training to reach that point.

I couldn't find any information on the stunts or fight scenes in Hellboy but I'd like to find out more about that. I guess the karate is not enough anymore, we wants flips and springs, tucks and kips, rather than the speed of Bruce Lee being enough to dazzle us, audiences are looking for more involvement and contortion from the human body. Which got me to thinking: as the years progress and technology and intelligence sees to have an increasingly rampant growths, it's easy to forget that the human body makes the same improvements, though with perhaps slower progress, progress just the same. I don't think there has every been an Olympic series in which at least two or three events have trumped some world record. Are there limits to the human mind and body, or will we steadily progress indefinitely?

Hancock (2008) and Into The Wild (2007)

I haven't posted in a couple days, but that certainly doesn't mean I've stopped watching movies. Time to catch up with a little feature I'd like to call a double... feature. Work with me.

Hancock. Directed by Peter Berg. Written by Vincent Ngo & Vince Gilligan. Release Date: July 2, 2008. Country of Production: United States of A! Key Cast: Will Smith (John Hancock), Charlize Theron (Mary Embrey), Jason Bateman (Ray Embrey).

This movie is the quintessential, big-budget, summer blockbuster. A real guilty pleasure... and by that I mean that I'm really guilty about not spending my $8 on Son of Rambow. If you're a Will Smith fan, then chances are he's already put your ass into one of those seats, but what did you really think? This wasn't the same Will-Smith-saves-the-world-story that we all know and love. Much like the apathetic, slacker character of John Hancock, the whole movie felt kind of half-assed. Take for instance, the CG. After being dazzled by Will Smith's sexy coolness under the pressure of CG villains like in M.I.B. and Independence Day, I can't say that I didn't expect the time to come for him to be granted his own superhuman abilities, I just wish it was done with a little more finesse. As I'm sure D'Artagnan will agree with me: zombies are awesome, but I was a little let down by I Am Legend (although if they had shown it with the alternate ending that's on the DVD, it would have been fucking awesome). I hope this isn't the beginning of a trend of Big Willy overhyping his hand.


Into The Wild. Directed by Sean Penn. Written by Sean Penn. Release Date: September 21, 2007. Country of Production: USA. Key Cast: Emile Hirsch (Chris McCandless), Marcia Gay Harden (Billie McCandless), William Hurt (Walt McCandless), Jena Malone (Carine McCandless).

This movie was really well-shot and the story definitely tugged at my heartstrings at least a little bit (at most, a lot), but it left me with really ambivalent feelings. It raises another bunch of really interesting issues that play into the discussion we've kind of generated about the definition of heroes. I believe this is based pretty strictly on a true story, but regardless, Chris McCandless's journey is certainly epic and inspiring. But, it was pretty cowardly in some ways, too. He kind of abandoned his family in a Fight Club-ish protest, stirred with a swizzle-stick of intellectualism rather than shaken with homemade napalm.

To me, the real hero(ine?) of the story is Corine, who even after not hearing from her brother until after he had died, managed to keep her own hope and belief in him alive. There are certinaly parts of his journey that resonated with me, and I think would with many people, but I suppose my favorite part of Penn's filmmaking touch is that he did not canonize this boy. He is portrayed as human, which is important, because behind the wit and humor, there are still mistakes, and things are taken for granted, and in his encounters he meets people who approach him with feelings that he is not ready to face, and for that, this is a good movie.

Romance and Cigarettes (2005)

Romance and Cigarettes. Directed by John Turturro. Writen by John Turturro. Release Date: 2006 (Spain). Country of Production: United States of America. Key Cast: James Gandolfini (Nick Murder), Susan Sarandon (Kitty), Kate Winslet (Tula), Steve Buscemi (Angelo), Mandy Moore (Baby), Mary-Louise Parker (Constance), Aida Turturro (Rosebud), and Christopher Walken (Cousin Bo).

I’ll admit that I nearly turned off Romance and Cigarettes after the first 10 minutes. The dialog felt unnatural and amateur. I had already written a one-sentence review—“This movie should have had twice the budget and four more rewrites, then it would have been something.”

Luckily, I had nothing else to do that day. So I stuck with it. I rewrote my one sentence a few times. Then it became two. Then I knew I had to throw myself into it because Christopher Walken danced into the film…and let me tell you, he danced the way I always want him to dance in movies. He got his own number! With backup dancers! I watched the scene three times…

This film is a musical of sorts. There is dancing and singing every few minutes. The songs are different renditions of songs I believe John Turturro just plain likes a lot…from “Piece of My Heart” to “Delilah.” They work into the story of infidelity well, and the dancing is over-the-top and wonderful. When Kate Winslet dances to “Scapricciatiello” and she shimmies, it was pure magic.

A selling point of this movie was the “raw sexuality.” I really liked it. Tula (Winslet) is fantastic as Nick Murder's girlfriend, and nothing like the sexual objects of the recent Hollywood films. This movie made me think about that—the way Hollywood packages sexuality for us. There is this overwhelming plastic factor—always a body type and a personality to match the “sexual profile.” Romance and Cigarettes never presents us with a sexual object, instead it presents us with a character. Kate Winslet was Tula, and Tula shakes her boobies and sleeps with a lot of men and loves Nick Murder.

So where does the film fall flat? Why did I see the movie and make a call about the quality within the first few minutes?

The first reason for this, I believe, was the quality of the film. The budget wasn’t what I wanted from this movie because it needed brighter colors. The film was dull and washed out. The shots are set up beautifully; but it needed to more saturation to be stunning. Then, I believe, it would be difficult to dismiss. As it is, the quality of the film looks low, and the complexity of the writing makes it take awhile to get invested in the film. I can see how it is easy to become disinterested right off the bat.

The second reason this film was hard to digest was the dialog. John Turturro played with poetry, making some scenes feel like some cheap pieces of performance art. There is a scene where Nick Murder’s (Gandalfini) mother walks into his room and yells at him in the hospital bed, “I should have chopped your balls off!” The psycho-babble is definitely worked in. I was momentarily reminded of all those Philip Roth novels I had to read for a class.

Then, for some reason, after the first half hour, I really started to like the dialog. Whereas it had felt like a hindrance to the movie before, at some point I realized that there was no reason to cling so hard to my preconceived notions of dialog that needs to sound natural. Didn't Tarantino cure me of this years ago? The writing was interesting. No, it didn’t seem natural or, at some points, sensical, but after awhile it sounded Shakespearian.

I didn’t love Romance and Cigarettes. Or maybe I did. Either way, I wish I had written and directed it.

For a clip from the movie, check out

Chistopher Walken dances.

Funny Games (2007)

Funny Games. Directed by Michael Haneke. Written by Michael Haneke. Release Date: 27 March 2008. Country of Production: United States. Key Cast: Naomi Watts (Ann), Tim Roth (George), Michael Pitt (Paul).

This movie was a unique experience for me. I watched it recently for the second time, only to find myself reluctantly admitting that its one of my favorite films of all time. I say reluctantly because I hate this movie. I saw it in theaters and it was simultaneously the first time I audibly cheered and audibly cursed at a movie screen in public. I hated it. I still hate it. That's why its so damn good.

This film is designed from start to finish to infuriate its audience. Every convention of storytelling and genre expectation is twisted, taunted, and turned on. The male protagonist is weak. The villains are unstoppable and inexplicable. Escape after escape is presented to tantalize the audience and always they are thwarted--i.e. the shotgun or the knife in the boat. These are simply ways to play with our expectations, but Haneke goes so far as to break the fourth wall and even to defy the accepted rules of time and space to erase the last hope of every viewer that they might know what will happen next. Haneke renders the audience completely helpless.

Besides being masterfully satirical and a true experiment in film/viewer interaction, Funny Games is also visually beautiful. Its shot with a pristine stillness that leaves the viewer completely exposed to the content of the film. Despite the fact that almost no violence is actually displayed on screen (again in defiance of our modern expectations), one remembers in the movie a gripping brutality. A shot of a blood-splattered television set or the gut-wrenching screams of a victim off screen are more than enough to terrify and disgust any viewer who comes under the spell of the film. Instead of using flashy editing to get a cheap scare, Haneke uses mind-bogglingly long takes to allow the gravity of a scene to sink in--the most notable being just after Peter and Paul first leave the house and Naomi Watts must free herself.

I know I'm gushing at this point, but the acting is also incomparable. Naomi Watts and Tim Roth are brilliantly believable as the ill-equipped victims of Paul and Peter's killing spree. Also, I'm not sure I've ever hated anyone more than Michael Pitt in this film. If I saw him on the street I might attack him. Bravo sir.

I'm positive there's much more to say on this film. I may well have to supplement this at some point. I know Sally and Plato have both seen this movie, and I'd love to hear back from you guys on this. I haven't seen the original, but I'm made to understand that they are shot for shot duplicates. Regardless I'd like to see it. Also, I know Plato and I have both seen The Strangers, which is more or less an Americanized remake of the original Funny Games as well. Care to compare sir?

Talk to Me (2007)

Talk to Me. Directed by Kasi Lemmons. Written by Michael Genet and Rick Famuyiwa. Release Date: 3 August 2007. Country of Production: United States. Key Cast: Don Cheadle ("Petey" Greene), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Dewey Hughes), Taraji P. Henson (Vernell Watson).

Talk to Me is a fairly straightforward biopic about a famous black radio DJ and live performer named Petey Greene, who made a name as a man of the people in Washington D.C. in the late sixties and seventies. This is a classic example of a movie based on a true story that is interesting almost only because of the source subject.

Don't get me wrong, the performances are more than adequate and the direction is satisfactory. Don Cheadle is funny and convincing as Petey Greene, and its a story that I'm glad I heard. The music--primarily 60s soul--really adds to the mood of the film, despite the fact that the dates of the songs' releases and the timeline of the film are not always in sync.

The editing bothered me a bit I must admit. Jumps in time are to be expected in a film encompassing the greater part of a person's life, so I let those go. The big problem for me, though, was an unusually high number of match cuts. Sentences were started in one scene and finished in another; or one character is doing something and another is performing the same action in the next scene. I get that its a device often used to create parallel significance, but this was excessive.

Regardless of a few nitpicks, though, this movie boils down to a well enough made biopic worth seeing, if only for the fact that Petey Green was an interesting and influential black American.

WALL·E (2008)

WALL-E. Directed by Andrew Stanton. Written by Andrew Stanton and Jim Capobianco. Release Date: June 27, 2008. Country of Production: United States. Key Cast (vocal talent and sound design): Ben Burtt (WALL-E / M-O), Elissa Knight (Eve), Jeff Garlin (Captain).

Well, just when you thought that Pixar couldn't possibly keep outdoing themselves with such a stellar record and an incomparable ability to consistently redefine the standards of computer animation, they did. This time they launch you into an intergalactic science fiction tale that focuses on a robot, WALL-E, who falls in love with a far more graceful and advanced female robot, Eve (be on the lookout for the Mac/PC jabs).

Tackling a science fiction story seems humbly poignant, especially since "the future" has implanted itself into the social consciousness in contemporary politics, economy, film and TV. Everyone wants to talk about what the future is going to be like, and project what sort of impact or "footprint" our society and civilization will leave on the planet (to use one of the buzzwords). In WALL-E, Pixar paints a whimsically dark portrait of the future in which, not unlike Stanley Kubrick's and Arthur C. Clarke's vision of the future in 2001, the robots that we have created end up controlling us (this film is also abound with nods to Kubrick's space opus).

Technically, this film reaffirms that Pixar is a force to be reckoned with, and you would be hard-pressed to find any film more visually accomplished. Even thinking about it now, I am bowled over by the character that they implanted in the inorganic machines that make up the film's cast. The one thing that I was worried about was that the environmentalist message would be too overbearing, but just as they are visually accomplished, so too is their storytelling capacity, and they managed to get the message across without being too heavy-handed, or relying on the ominous and desolate doomsday scenario. I was honestly more caught up in the heartfelt love story between WALL-E and Eve than I was the "go green" moral, if you could even call it that.

One thing that I heard through the grapevine was that there was special consideration given to the cinematography of the film. I thought this was worth investigating, and lo and behold: the brilliant cinematographer Roger Deakins (who just so happens to be the Coen Brothers go-to-guy) worked on WALL-E as a visual consultant, and helped to bring those amazingly realistic scenes to life. The scenes in this movie have an incredibly real-feeling depth of field. The virtual camera struggles to reconcile the focus almost as if the characters occupy a real space.

I am excited to be growing up on the cusp on computer animation. This is a really exciting field taking giant strides. Each new Pixar movie is a feast for the eyes and the brain. It seems that each new step has me not only floored by their prowess of creating mythology, but I also catch myself wondering, "How did they do that?" Indeed, as tongue-in-cheek as the homage to 2001 was in this film, I cared almost as much about these robots (I mean, these representations of robots) as I do about many people. These are characters that are removed by at least two steps from real humanity, and yet they can tug my heartstrings just the same. Maybe that just makes me a sap, but perhaps it's because we are rocketing upward on that cusp aforementioned. I believe we are hurtling toward the uncanny valley at a dead sprint, perhaps planting our last step before we launch ourselves over it like an Olympic long jump competitor. Here we go!

Diary of the Dead (2007)

Diary of the Dead. Directed by George A. Romero. Written by George A. Romero. Release Date: 7 March 2008 (UK). Country of Production: United States. Key Cast: Michelle Morgan (Debra Moynihan), Joshua Close (Jason Creed), Shawn Roberts (Tony Ravello).

I will begin by letting you know right off the bat that I love zombie movies. It's a strange, wonderful sub-genre that never, ever leaves me unsatisfied. It's either horrifying and awesome or hilarious and awesome. The idea of human beings more or less inexplicably eating each other is a terrifying prospect. When a zombie movie works, it combines the supernatural paranoia of a classic, superstition-driven horror with the modern terror of extreme person-on-person violence. When working poorly, its a campy record of some unfortunate grad students limping around and moaning. Either way, worth a viewing.

Romero walks the line between badass and ridiculous in his latest movie. His first three "Dead" films are untouchable in many ways, but after Land of the Dead George had ground to make up. Being that the dead are handily the victors in Land, one notices the imbalance of zombie and human kills. The occasional zombie is shot, but its the human beings who die in truly grotesque fashion. In Diary, Romero swings the pendulum back, giving us your standard neck and arm bites while it is the zombies who receive the more inventive death blows. Perhaps it's mandatory to try and up the death ante, but I must admit Romero walked a thin line here. Acid head? Murder-suicide with a scythe? I'm skeptical.

More to the point, the most striking thing about Romero's latest film is the somewhat disconcerting fact that the whole thing is shot first-person from character perspective. I was wary, but in the end the movie is shot more or less how it would have been anyway. The character's presence is really only felt when it suited a scare or to pound home Romero's relentless message, which I will come to momentarily. I was frankly impressed that he was able to pull it off without it becoming a nuisance.

What was bothersome, though, was Romero's highly self-conscious social commentary. Romero successfully uses the first-person style to alienate the viewer from Jason, who is more or less the main character. He's the visual narrator, even if Debra is the one with the actual voice-over. Romero goes on to highlight the over-saturation of communication technology in the film with constant television and computer displays. He further fosters a distrust in these information sources with unscrupulous television edits and distorted internet messages.

This would all be fine--even downright interesting--if it weren't for the unbearably heavy-handed direct addresses of Debra and the other characters which drive the point explicitly into the viewer like a spike. The professor character's poor excuse for an Alan Rickman impression is particularly obscene. I am an enormous fan of subtlety, and its this kind of outright exposition that really grates me. The last scene is absolutely loathsome, where Debra asks us in narration if humanity is even worth saving as a blood tear runs down an abused zombie's cheek. Did someone litter body parts somewhere? What the fuck are you talking about? Yes! Kill all of them!

As far as zombie movies go, though, it isn't bad. I admire Romero for sticking to his guns on the issue of slow zombies. While 28 Days Later has made the fast zombie all the rage, Romero manages to make a creepy movie with the same old fashioned zombie shuffle. I wish, on the other hand, that he would reinvest in physical gore effects. I'm sure it's cheaper and faster to use CGI for the more complicated kills, but its painfully obvious and lazy to boot. If I'm gonna see the flaws in your effects, you should at least earn them. I'd rather watch spaghetti sauce drip out of a wound than red pixels.

Absolutely see this film. If nothing else, the world owes Romero a few dollars each for creating and continuing a tradition of horror that has enriched the genre and inspired millions of teenage boys to secretly devise in complete earnest how to survive the zombiepocalypse. Do any of us have contingency plans for thwarting Scream Guy? I didn't think so.

Wanted (2008)

Wanted. Directed by Timur Bekmambetov. Written by Michael Brandt & Derek Haas. Release Date: June 27, 2008. Country of Production: United States. Key Cast: James McAvoy (Wesley Gibson), Morgan Freeman (Sloan), Angelina Jolie (Fox).

Enter the wild world of curving bullets and super-assassins in this stylish action-packed thriller.  This movie is based on a comics mini-series by Mark Millar and J. G. Jones, and tough I never read it, after watching this, I really want to.  This movie has everything that a movie about assassins should have:  high intensity action, deception, betrayal, all tempered with a healthy dose of sexiness that Miss (Mrs.?) Jolie easily carries almost entirely on her own shoulders.

Apparently the one thing that the comic creators (according to wikipedia) would have liked to see in the film that did not come through for them was an element of super-heroes and super-villains, in the traditional costumed sense of the terms.  However, also according to wikipedia, director Bekmambetov said that he wanted this film to be an opposition to the moral tale of Spider-Man in that this story involves a character whose humdrum existence is given new life when he discovers his own powers, but upon realizing his potential, he chooses a dark path instead.

Also, as you may have noticed in the coming attractions:  there's a train in this movie.  What is it about trains that is so filmic?  Actually, I kind of resent asking that question, because as a certain UF Professor can tell you:  everything about trains is filmic.  If you don't believe me, just watch Frankenheimer's The Train (1964) and write a paper on it.  Now, with the assistance of a few professors, I have been cultivating a theory about the filmic train for a while, and if you've read this far already, I ask that you continue to indulge for a couple more paragraphs:

Well, we'll begin with the tracks, because that's where the train starts, and accordingly that's where the film starts as well: with the reel.  Before it can be traversed by any audience, the narrative and the physical film itself must be laid down, and completed.  So, you can probably see where this is going, the audience's journey through a film is like the train's journey over a given length of track.  But the audience is not the train itself, it is merely the vessel, the projector, or the theater, if you will.

At first, my thinking was that the audience is most like a passenger sitting in the middle of one of the cars, watching as the scenery passes.  The passenger's view out of the window is perpendicular to the tracks, reminiscent of the way in which light is projected through each frame of the film in succession, and therefore as he watches out the window, he experiences his journey on length of track at a time.  I have recently changed my theory though, because one of the interesting things about film  is that there is no simultaneity.  In reality, you are viewing events that appear to be happening before you, but that have already happened, creating a strange temporal displacement for the audience.  You are caught up in a story that already has a determined ending (which further complicates Wanted's themes of fate and destiny, but I digress).  In this way, I conjecture that the audience is more like a passenger standing on the back of the caboose, watching as the track disappears behind him.  He can see the scenic and natural elements that the train has passed, but not until the train has already passed them, and with this perspective, does not know when the train will arrive until he gets there.

Also, for more trains and fantastically thrilling action, I would recommend Bekmambetov's Nochnoy dozor (a.k.a. Night Watch) from 2004.  It's got vampires and stuff.

-PT

Akira (1988)

Akira. Directed by Katsuhiro Otomo. Written by Izo Hashimoto and Katsuhiro Otomo. Release Date (Japan): July 16, 1988. Country of Production: Japan. Key Cast (vocal talent): Mitsuo Iwata (Shotaro Kaneda), Nozomu Sasaki (Tetsuo Shima), Mami Koyama (Kei).

What can I say that has not already been said of what is considered by some to be the greatest anime of all time?  You may ask:  "But how can an animated movie from the 80s still stand on its own against the contemporary expectations of animated movies?  Certainly the advent of CGI and the explosion of this field has raised the bar so high that nothing from earlier generations can hold a candle to something so visually accomplished as Finding Nemo."  Well, first of all, I wouldn't really call it a film since I watched it on DVD, and secondly, it's because Akira represents the pinnacle of cel animation, reaching a level of interactivity between the hand-painted backgrounds and the animated elements that had never been seen before, and with computer technology quickly on the rise, will probably not be seen again.  Each one of the 160,000+ cels prepared with such care and consideration that the anime genre would finally make its presence known in the critical circles of the west.

The main focus of the movie's narrative harkens back to the Frankenstein complex, the great power that humans are not ready to tamper with yet, which certainly deserved reexamination after the world had borne witness to the destructive power of the atomic bomb.  I believe these are the historical roots in which this movie has grown from, and the atomic bomb certainly has had an irrefutable impact on Japanese society and culture.

Another thing the movie does so masterfully is to juxtapose the coming of age of the main characters on such a local and introspective level with the growth of the entire country politically and societally.  Tetsuo and Kaneda are two teenage delinquents living in post-World War III-Japan.  They are members of a bike gang, and inadvertently become involved in a government science experiment when, after having been liberated from a government compound by a member of the terrorist resistance, Takashi (one of the children upon whom the government has been experimenting) and Tetsuo literally collide.

Since this post is following one of National Treasure 2 I think this would be a good time to talk about the lack of good American storytelling in Hollywood these days.  It seems like there are more sequels and remakes coming out than ever, and not just of American movies.  More and more, the movie industry is looking abroad for untapped resources, and I was recently discussing with a friend of mine the wealth of wonderful stories that are tucked away within the folds of Japanese culture.  I think it's no coincidence that the horror genre has more or less converted to one dealing almost exclusively with remakes of Japanese movies, and now I hear that Leonardo DiCaprio is producing a live-action version of Akira that will be hitting theaters in 2009!

In my opinion, aside from the story, this movie is historically unforgettable as a gem of animated cinema, and for any animation fiends out there who haven't seen this yet, you better get your ass in gear.  Another thing I wanted to discuss was the screening of anime in English versus Japanese with subtitles.  Usually, when it comes to foreign cinema, I prefer to view them subbed rather than dubbed, because I like to hear the intonation of the actors, even though I can't really understand them.  For an animated movie like Akira though, I might have to reverse my stance.  Reason being:  an animated movie is so visually involved that in jumping back and forth from the subtitles, I became extremely anxious that I would miss something.  Personally, and especially with this movie, the vocal talent, although certainly deserving of respect and admiration, should be the least of your concerns.  This movie has so fucking much going on, that you may want to forego your purism in favor of staying on top of the plot and to really take in the visuals.  They are just as much a part of the story as the discourse.

-PT