At first glance it would appear that the Academy Award nominated Alfie (Gilbert, 1966) has only its star Michael Caine in common with the little seen Blame it on Rio (Donen, 1984). But I think a case can be made that the two have much in common, primarily that they examine and explore the sexual mores and climates of the respective times in which they were made.
Alfie tells the story of an unfeeling and heartless playboy. Set in the backdrop of an emerging sexual revolution, Alfie routinely conducts affairs with married women, gets women pregnant, helps them get abortions, abandons the woman who does have his child and fails exceedingly at every relationship. This is a shocking narrative in that it explodes all the myths and conventions that classical film deal with when it pertains to marriage and the family. Classical Hollywood was bound very strictly by the PCA and all of these themes would be strictly taboo. Still, the portrayal of such a cold and unfeeling protagonist is remarkable in that even though his actions are reprehensible, Caine plays him with such panache and style that the audience eventually pulls for him to make it through his problems.
In Blame it on Rio Caine again plays a protagonist that falls short in the morality department yet seemingly pulls his audience onto his side. Here Caine plays Matthew, a miserably married middle aged man on vacation with is best friend, his daughter and his friends daughter in the sexually charged climate of Rio. Quickly Caine is having an affair with is friends daughter, breaking sexual taboos of sleeping with a much younger woman and a friends daughter. More of a comedy than Alfie, everything quickly unravels for all involved until everything gets righted by the films end.
Both films brilliantly portray the sexual mores of their respective times and settings. Alfie captures the burgeoning sexual revolution with its standards of free love and an explosion of premarital sex. Rio captures the essence of that sexually charged city perfectly and also shows how far the sexual revolution has progressed in twenty short years. One scene particularly emphasizes this as Matthew and Victor (Joseph Bologna) cruise the beach and are mesmerized with the ongoing display of nudity and sexuality. That Matthew is sexually repressed makes the dichotomy of the situation all the more poignant.
Michael Caine needs to be commended for his amazing ability as an actor. He plays two vastly different roles, both to perfection. In one he plays heartless and cold and the other he switches gears completely and is hopelessly lost and confused. In Alfie he seemingly has total control and in Rio he doesn't. Yet is his genius in these roles that actually the opposite is true. Alfie has no control and doesn't realize it. Matthew controls his situation and doesn't realize it. It also helps that in both films he breaks the fourth wall repeatedly, endearing himself to the audience and giving the audience the feeling of being in the know. This also allows the audience to further identify with his characters and accept the explosion of sexual standards that both films serve to explode.
The films are both good and to me personally I love Blame it on Rio. Its just one of those films that I can watch anytime it is on. Of course that may have a lot to do with the beautiful Michele Johnson, but it is a great film. Also the last by the steady Stanley Donen, the helmsman of Singing in the Rain (along with Gene Kelly).
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Paper Moon (1973)
More than any director since Frank Capra, Peter Bogdanovich is an absolute master at capturing that special slice of Americana. With Capra though, his films and characters within his films were always infused with a certain style and grace. What makes Bogdanovich different is his ability to capture a grittiness, a dirty and poor America. Whereas Capra might be considered a Rembrandt, Bogdanovich is more Norman Rockwell. Like The Last Picture Show (1971), the world we see in Paper Moon reflects his vision masterfully.
Two things help Bogdanovich immensely craft his work. The first is work with his DP and what they decide to do with cinematography. Using natural light to full effect, they craft a stark and bleak picture that utterly matches depression era America. One only have to look at films of the era or photographs to see this. At the same time, the choice to use extensive amounts of long shots and keep his camera still allows for the imagery shown to sink in with the audience and give his images greater impact. Bogdanovich also chooses his composition exquisitely, simple and beautiful. And his use of offscreen space is unreal. Can you imagine a director today having more than a few words of dialogue not being shown? Never.
The second things that helps him is Polly Platt, his wife at the time and his production designer. She makes the era come to life, from props to makeup, hair to costumes. Watch both films and you see what an amazing job she accomplishes. If you read Peter Biskind's great book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls you'll see that it is not a coincidence that Bogdanovich's work suffered after their divorce.
The narrative to the film is funny and sweet. It is also a product of the modernist period as it's two protagonists and the narrative itself are as far from classical Hollywood as can be. To me though, this is what makes this period of filmmaking the best we have seen to date.
As for Tatum and Ryan, what a wonderful job working together. Ryan just looks like a young Paul Newman, the man he replaced on the film. And Tatum, what a wonderful debut. She sparkles throughout the film and she so captures your heart you can't tear your eyes off her when she is onscreen. Just an amazing debut.
Go see this and allow yourself to be transported to a different time and place!
Two things help Bogdanovich immensely craft his work. The first is work with his DP and what they decide to do with cinematography. Using natural light to full effect, they craft a stark and bleak picture that utterly matches depression era America. One only have to look at films of the era or photographs to see this. At the same time, the choice to use extensive amounts of long shots and keep his camera still allows for the imagery shown to sink in with the audience and give his images greater impact. Bogdanovich also chooses his composition exquisitely, simple and beautiful. And his use of offscreen space is unreal. Can you imagine a director today having more than a few words of dialogue not being shown? Never.
The second things that helps him is Polly Platt, his wife at the time and his production designer. She makes the era come to life, from props to makeup, hair to costumes. Watch both films and you see what an amazing job she accomplishes. If you read Peter Biskind's great book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls you'll see that it is not a coincidence that Bogdanovich's work suffered after their divorce.
The narrative to the film is funny and sweet. It is also a product of the modernist period as it's two protagonists and the narrative itself are as far from classical Hollywood as can be. To me though, this is what makes this period of filmmaking the best we have seen to date.
As for Tatum and Ryan, what a wonderful job working together. Ryan just looks like a young Paul Newman, the man he replaced on the film. And Tatum, what a wonderful debut. She sparkles throughout the film and she so captures your heart you can't tear your eyes off her when she is onscreen. Just an amazing debut.
Go see this and allow yourself to be transported to a different time and place!
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Wild Target (2010)
I am heavily biased with a film such as this as I am obsessed with all things British. That said I think this film is rather well done, with smart and crisp humor, intelligent characters and some nice production values. The narrative is rather unbelievable, but still offers some rather funny moments as well as some touching ones. The performances of and the casting of each character is remarkably done. In fact that's one thing I notice with British films, the casting is always so spot on. Bill Nighy is great in the role of Victor Maynard the neurotic assassin. Enough cannot be said about the understated portrayals he brings in every role. And the amazing Emily Blunt is just fantastic, playing her role with energy and vitality all the while looking out of this world. Fun little film worth watching.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (2010)
For the most part I almost always think it is a bad idea to do remakes or sequels to great films. Films like Wall Street (1987) or Chinatown (1974) are greats but they are stand alone entities. What made them great doesn't always translate years later and the second film suffers by comparison. That said, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (2010) was something I felt had a chance to be great, because it had a chance to really make a commentary on what our country has and is going through economically and financially. So what does this film's narrative do then? It brilliantly goes inside the financial crisis and lays it out for the viewer in a way that is easily understood and digested. But then it stops. Other than the obvious criminal implications for Bretton James (Josh Brolin), the film makes no attempt to comment on the consequences of our financial systems. It could comment on the people and families that have been devastated, but it doesn't. It could talk about the precipitous position our country still straddles but again, doesn't. It is these commentaries that make a film great and here the narrative fails.
As to the relationships in the film, that is done very well. Gordon Gekko's (Michael Douglas) relationship to his daughter and his rehabilitation for his crimes are handled masterfully. The relationship between Jake More (Shia LeBouef) and Winnie Gekko (Carey Mulligan) and his rivalry with James really shine and drive the film onward. There is a rather large caveat to this though.
Oliver Stone is a brilliant director and he has made some masterpiece films. But watching this film I have to wonder what he was doing. There were several aspects which drove me mad while watching. First, the editing. The transitions were abrupt and confusing. Many times they made no sense whatsoever, transitioning between two completely divergent sequences. And then there were several times when they tried doing a fast paced edit, some split screen edits and even once a superimposition edit that just were done very poorly. I did not agree with these choices at all. Next, the camera work. One of the first things we are taught at film school is the 180 degree rule. Did Stone just completely forget this? And what was with the abrupt pans and circling around his actors time after time? Finally, I'm fine with having David Byrne do the main song. But to have that song play repeatedly throughout the film? All these things serve to detract from the film while you're viewing it.
Finally the acting. I must say I rather liked it all. Normally I can't get behind LeBeouf but he was rather likable in the main role. Douglas was great, especially when he transferred back to the old Gekko with slick hair and expensive suits. Mulligan was gorgeous and exquisite and the comparisons to Audrey Hepburn are justified. And Brolin taking the reins from Gekko and being the source of all that is evil for the film, genius. He is an actor that is getting better with each role.
This film could have been great, had some great moments and performances but ultimately falls short of everything it could be. Too bad.
As to the relationships in the film, that is done very well. Gordon Gekko's (Michael Douglas) relationship to his daughter and his rehabilitation for his crimes are handled masterfully. The relationship between Jake More (Shia LeBouef) and Winnie Gekko (Carey Mulligan) and his rivalry with James really shine and drive the film onward. There is a rather large caveat to this though.
Oliver Stone is a brilliant director and he has made some masterpiece films. But watching this film I have to wonder what he was doing. There were several aspects which drove me mad while watching. First, the editing. The transitions were abrupt and confusing. Many times they made no sense whatsoever, transitioning between two completely divergent sequences. And then there were several times when they tried doing a fast paced edit, some split screen edits and even once a superimposition edit that just were done very poorly. I did not agree with these choices at all. Next, the camera work. One of the first things we are taught at film school is the 180 degree rule. Did Stone just completely forget this? And what was with the abrupt pans and circling around his actors time after time? Finally, I'm fine with having David Byrne do the main song. But to have that song play repeatedly throughout the film? All these things serve to detract from the film while you're viewing it.
Finally the acting. I must say I rather liked it all. Normally I can't get behind LeBeouf but he was rather likable in the main role. Douglas was great, especially when he transferred back to the old Gekko with slick hair and expensive suits. Mulligan was gorgeous and exquisite and the comparisons to Audrey Hepburn are justified. And Brolin taking the reins from Gekko and being the source of all that is evil for the film, genius. He is an actor that is getting better with each role.
This film could have been great, had some great moments and performances but ultimately falls short of everything it could be. Too bad.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Inception (2010)
This is one of those rare films where you not only need but want to re-watch it to better understand the narrative and to catch all those nuances you missed in previous viewings. Each viewing changes how you feel about a film and gives you different insight into what the film is saying. I felt Inception(2010) was the perfect film to kick off my blog.
What Christopher Nolan accomplishes with this film, not only as a writer but as a director is nothing short of amazing. The man is a gifted storyteller and his ability to craft a film already reaches the lofty heights reserved for the Hitchcock's and Scorsese's. The films narrative is layered, complex and compelling. You need to view it several times to understand it all. Besides that, Nolan leaves the narrative open in several places to allow each viewer to interpret the film as they see fit. To me this is the best kind of narrative. At the end of Inception we don't know for sure what world Dom Cobb (Leonardo Dicaprio) resides in. And that open ended interpretation makes for great debate.
Within the film itself lies some of the most amazing production values that we have ever sEen from a film. The film won Oscars in visual f/x and two in sound and these aspects are amazing. Who will forget the amazing score by Hans Zimmer with his slowed rhythm? And the world created by the visual f/x team is spectacular. One instance in particular that stands out to me is when Cobb takes Ariadne (Ellen Page) into the dream world for the first time. As she creates the never ending reflections between mirrors, visual genius.
My only point of contention regarding this film is that Christopher Nolan did not get nominated for the Best Director Oscar. How was such a masterful and innovative job accomplished without the director being lauded? Didn't Cameron get nominated just a year earlier for the same brilliant type of film? An f/x driven, visually stunning work of art?
It will take me maybe ten to fifteen more viewings to decide if something can be said for how the film relates to our society, but I already see relationships between the film's narrative and our online existence.
This is a great film, one that needs to be viewed multiple times for complete understanding. Like The Dark Knight(2008), I can fully see that being the case for me.
What Christopher Nolan accomplishes with this film, not only as a writer but as a director is nothing short of amazing. The man is a gifted storyteller and his ability to craft a film already reaches the lofty heights reserved for the Hitchcock's and Scorsese's. The films narrative is layered, complex and compelling. You need to view it several times to understand it all. Besides that, Nolan leaves the narrative open in several places to allow each viewer to interpret the film as they see fit. To me this is the best kind of narrative. At the end of Inception we don't know for sure what world Dom Cobb (Leonardo Dicaprio) resides in. And that open ended interpretation makes for great debate.
Within the film itself lies some of the most amazing production values that we have ever sEen from a film. The film won Oscars in visual f/x and two in sound and these aspects are amazing. Who will forget the amazing score by Hans Zimmer with his slowed rhythm? And the world created by the visual f/x team is spectacular. One instance in particular that stands out to me is when Cobb takes Ariadne (Ellen Page) into the dream world for the first time. As she creates the never ending reflections between mirrors, visual genius.
My only point of contention regarding this film is that Christopher Nolan did not get nominated for the Best Director Oscar. How was such a masterful and innovative job accomplished without the director being lauded? Didn't Cameron get nominated just a year earlier for the same brilliant type of film? An f/x driven, visually stunning work of art?
It will take me maybe ten to fifteen more viewings to decide if something can be said for how the film relates to our society, but I already see relationships between the film's narrative and our online existence.
This is a great film, one that needs to be viewed multiple times for complete understanding. Like The Dark Knight(2008), I can fully see that being the case for me.
Beginnings...
So I'm Hollywood Jackson. This blog is going to hopefully become my outlet for writing and cataloguing the films I watch, the observations I make about our society and the things that interest me in my life. Why the name Hollywood Jackson? Well,
Hollywood is one of my passion's in life. This is a two sided affair. First, one of my earliest memories are associated with films. I remember seeing a certain blockbuster as my first film and coming out completely amazed. My love for films stretched throughout my life and I've always watched as many films as I could and tried to discuss them as well as might be expected. Then a series of amazing things happened to me. Cruising through life I happened to apply to complete my degree at USC. To my utter surprise I got accepted and fortunately had the ability to attend. While there I decided to try a film class to see how they were and maybe extend my knowledge of film. Then I chose to pursue a second degree from USC film school. The USC school of Cinematic Arts is the most prestigious film school in the world and now I could not only get a degree, I could expound on my knowledge and fulfill a passion in life. How lucky could I be?
While at film school I made a few choices that shaped how I feel about film. While there I consciously chose to follow a few well known professors and accumulate as many as their classes as I could. Dr. Drew Casper and Dr. Todd Boyd were and are very influential in how I view films. Casper's teachings on Modernism and Post-Modernism in film as well as Boyd's instruction on race and gender in film resonate with me to this day. Not a film goes by without me hearing what they taught. Another instructor that meant a lot to me was the great cinematographer William Fraker. In fact that particular class at USC meant alot to me in that I met so many people in that class that mean a lot to me not only personally but in regards to film.
So how do I look at films? Well first and foremost I understand wholeheartedly that no matter how poor a film is or what I or anyone may think of it, many hard-working and creative people put blood sweat and tears into seeing it made. Rarely will I disparage a film as a whole unless I can do it in a way that uses intelligent argument to devalue a work. Next, I will admit I lean towards films made prior to the Postmodern period of film (prior to 1977). I love films made now and some of my all time favorites stem from this time. If a film is deemed a classic that means it not only is a quality film but it has stood the test of time and remains as such. Now after that within the film itself I look first towards story and second to acting. These are the two most basic reasons we watch films. Storytelling and viewing others, particularly stars. Then I try to get into production values from the film, particularly the cinematography, the sound, editing and the overall directing job. Finally if the film can somehow make a commentary on our society or an existing issue within society I while try to comment on that.
The second side to the Hollywood coin is over time I have come to realize how important Hollywood has become to our society and our contemporary world. It is an all pervasive entity. It is a compelling idea and thought to me. I must add that I am also a history major. As such, I have tried to learn all that I can about the history of Hollywood and popular culture here in America. I have learned about the historical landmarks here in Hollywood, from the various things you may have seen in films to those places and points of interest that are part of the foundation of this town. Also, I live here and LOVE living here. So this makes up the Hollywood part of Hollywood Jackson.
As for the Jackson, well not many people know this about me but my given name isn't Jack. Also, I have had various friends, close friends who call me Jackson. So the Jackson identifies me. And who am I? Imagine the ideal of the California lifestyle? The beach blonde surfer guy, the guy who is in great shape, the kid that won't grow up, the boy who loves baseball and soccer. If you could draw a picture of a guy that epitomizes every aspect of Southern California you couldn't do better than if you were to use my picture. So occasionally I will write about those aspects of my life that interest me there. Soccer and baseball, surfing, blonde girls, living in SoCal and anything else that sparks an interest. Eventually I will start blogs for those things but for now you might read them here. If you have read this far then I welcome you and I hope you enjoy reading my work. I look forward to your comments and input though negativity will be deleted. Negativity destroys the creative process and I won't tolerate it on my blog. Again, welcome and lets get started!
Hollywood is one of my passion's in life. This is a two sided affair. First, one of my earliest memories are associated with films. I remember seeing a certain blockbuster as my first film and coming out completely amazed. My love for films stretched throughout my life and I've always watched as many films as I could and tried to discuss them as well as might be expected. Then a series of amazing things happened to me. Cruising through life I happened to apply to complete my degree at USC. To my utter surprise I got accepted and fortunately had the ability to attend. While there I decided to try a film class to see how they were and maybe extend my knowledge of film. Then I chose to pursue a second degree from USC film school. The USC school of Cinematic Arts is the most prestigious film school in the world and now I could not only get a degree, I could expound on my knowledge and fulfill a passion in life. How lucky could I be?
While at film school I made a few choices that shaped how I feel about film. While there I consciously chose to follow a few well known professors and accumulate as many as their classes as I could. Dr. Drew Casper and Dr. Todd Boyd were and are very influential in how I view films. Casper's teachings on Modernism and Post-Modernism in film as well as Boyd's instruction on race and gender in film resonate with me to this day. Not a film goes by without me hearing what they taught. Another instructor that meant a lot to me was the great cinematographer William Fraker. In fact that particular class at USC meant alot to me in that I met so many people in that class that mean a lot to me not only personally but in regards to film.
So how do I look at films? Well first and foremost I understand wholeheartedly that no matter how poor a film is or what I or anyone may think of it, many hard-working and creative people put blood sweat and tears into seeing it made. Rarely will I disparage a film as a whole unless I can do it in a way that uses intelligent argument to devalue a work. Next, I will admit I lean towards films made prior to the Postmodern period of film (prior to 1977). I love films made now and some of my all time favorites stem from this time. If a film is deemed a classic that means it not only is a quality film but it has stood the test of time and remains as such. Now after that within the film itself I look first towards story and second to acting. These are the two most basic reasons we watch films. Storytelling and viewing others, particularly stars. Then I try to get into production values from the film, particularly the cinematography, the sound, editing and the overall directing job. Finally if the film can somehow make a commentary on our society or an existing issue within society I while try to comment on that.
The second side to the Hollywood coin is over time I have come to realize how important Hollywood has become to our society and our contemporary world. It is an all pervasive entity. It is a compelling idea and thought to me. I must add that I am also a history major. As such, I have tried to learn all that I can about the history of Hollywood and popular culture here in America. I have learned about the historical landmarks here in Hollywood, from the various things you may have seen in films to those places and points of interest that are part of the foundation of this town. Also, I live here and LOVE living here. So this makes up the Hollywood part of Hollywood Jackson.
As for the Jackson, well not many people know this about me but my given name isn't Jack. Also, I have had various friends, close friends who call me Jackson. So the Jackson identifies me. And who am I? Imagine the ideal of the California lifestyle? The beach blonde surfer guy, the guy who is in great shape, the kid that won't grow up, the boy who loves baseball and soccer. If you could draw a picture of a guy that epitomizes every aspect of Southern California you couldn't do better than if you were to use my picture. So occasionally I will write about those aspects of my life that interest me there. Soccer and baseball, surfing, blonde girls, living in SoCal and anything else that sparks an interest. Eventually I will start blogs for those things but for now you might read them here. If you have read this far then I welcome you and I hope you enjoy reading my work. I look forward to your comments and input though negativity will be deleted. Negativity destroys the creative process and I won't tolerate it on my blog. Again, welcome and lets get started!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)