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.