Recently there has been a great buzz over the film Bridesmaids (Feig, 2011). The film has received generally good reviews and the word of mouth has been very good. So with dread in my heart I decided that if it was as good as I'd been hearing I needed to go see it. Having heard that it was outrageously funny and that I wouldn't stop laughing, the dread of seeing a chick flick was assuaged by seeing a true comedy film which is quite rare in today's cinematic landscape.
As the first half of the film unfolded I wanted to kick myself for allowing my usual sense of a films quality be subjugated by word of mouth. The narrative was flat and predictable and the bits of comedy that were in the film were seemingly few and far between. Those bits of comedy were also subject to that special brand of humor that Apatow Productions have inured modern audiences with, that of human fallibility, degradation and a soundtrack of fart noises. Which is to say, it might be funny the first film, but after we have seen it time and again please change it up.
But then I realized something quite special as the protagonist of the film was slowly being sunk into her own personal quagmire. This film has heart and while it does rely on the Apatow brand of humor, the performances by all of the actors are quite remarkable. They are fresh and from the heart, given with honesty. And most importantly, the films narrative starts to make social commentary, raising it to a higher level. By the end of the film I realized I had just seen something that was rather well done.
The films narrative plays out slowly, not cramming action down the audiences throat. The various story lines are allowed to unfold at their own pace although at times this pace could be quickened. There are some extraneous moments and there are times when certain bits are just not funny. The narrative also allows itself to become rather predictable with it's finish and the bringing together of Annie (Kristen Wiig) and Nathan (Chris O'Dowd) goes vastly under explained. But it is in the end a romantic comedy and thus needs to be formulaic in approach.
What isn't standard or formulaic is the performances. Let me start with the role of Annie. Wiig plays this part with heart and charm, bringing the audience into her life and allowing us to sympathize with her and feel her degradation at each juncture. Who hasn't experienced the despair of losing a job or realizing a friend or friends has moved on in their life, seemingly leaving you behind? The role resonates in how much her performance reflects on woman of today. She is the overwhelmed frustrated modern woman, trying to be independent but at the same time being frustrated by societal demands and expectations. Forced to work at a job she hates, demeaned at every turn by the only guy she seemingly aspires to be with AND having to watch her best friend move on? Kristen Wiig co-wrote this film and I applaud her for the way in which she wrote the film and brought such an accurate portrayal to the screen. And with her performance being so good she also raises the level of those around her.
The other actors also bring good work. Rose Byrne brings a dual level of snobbishness and frailty to the role of Helen that allows you to hate her and pull for her at the same time. Equally, the role of Ted (Jon Hamm) leaves nothing but utter despite. The truly sad thing about his portrayal is the accuracy. Unfortunately there are more than likely many men just like Ted. Finally the performance of Melissa McCarthy in the role of Megan. Here is an actress that gives a 110% with seemingly total disregard for what anyone thinks. All I can say is growing up in the McCarthy household had to be utterly insane between Melissa and Jenny. Each of these roles speaks greatly about what it is they represent in our society.
Finally, the true strength of the film lies in how it reflects our society and how we are dealing with (or more accurately failing to deal with) personal responsibility, accountability and the role commercialism has brought to our society. Annie doesn't begin her journey back up until she realizes her lack of responsible action has led to everything going wrong. When she stops blaming everyone else and starts focusing on herself this is when her character begins to grow. The same can be said for the picture perfect Helen. Only when she opens up to Annie and allows honesty to come out do we see a Helen that we like and can relate to. Our society has become one in which blame must be shifted and personal accountability only is taken when it benefits us. This film masterfully shows that we have allowed ourselves to be deluded in allowing such traits to become prevalent.
I truly applaud Kristen Wiig for being such a force in bringing this film to the screen and I hope she is given more chances to do such in the future.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Holiday Inn (Sandrich, 1942)
An older gentlemen I know, a friend, a guy from Hollywood old enough to remember the Hollywood glory days every now and then gives me movie suggestions. One day awhile back I mentioned I had just seen Swing Time (Stevens, 1936), my very first Fred Astaire film. Incredulous, he proceeded to give me a list of Fred Astaire films that were must watch. After seeing Holiday Inn (Sandrich, 1942) I can honestly say I now see why both Astaire and Bing Crosby were as hugely popular and successful as they were. To say it best, Holiday Inn is a remarkable film and a masterpiece. And there are things from this film that endure within our culture to this very day.
The most enduring aspect of the film, the one most widely known is the song White Christmas. The song is used several times throughout the film and also serves as the signpost for the love story of the narrative between Jim Hardy (Bing Crosby) and Linda Mason (Marjorie Reynolds). The song is beautifully sung by Crosby and his rendition has become a holiday staple embedded in our lives. His deep and rich voice give the song resonance and I defy anyone to not immediately know the song upon hearing the first few bars. The song speaks ubiquity.
Speaking of things that are seemingly everywhere, are there two men more associated with their chosen professions than Astaire is to dancing and Crosby is to crooning? Both of these two performers, remarkable as they are, set the standards for so many that have followed since, and this is a testament to how incredible their talent was. And within this film, the dynamic that exists between Jim Hardy and Ted Hanover (Astaire) gives this film something extra, something special. It's as if the two of them together strike perfect balance. Neither allows the other to dominate the screen, or the narrative. Their opening and closing number, where they "battle" each other through singing and dancing is just incredible. Beautiful to the ears and to behold. And because of the strength of this film's narrative, their best work comes when both are neither singing or dancing. The chemistry between the two when vying for the affections of either Linda or Lila (Virginia Dale) is great and makes the film so much fun to watch. As Hanover and his agent run after Mason after spying her at the Inn, as Hardy leads them up and down the steps, inevitably delaying them, this is pure magic. Comedy at it's finest, with no crudeness or vulgarity. With today's shock and awe comedy, much of which fails to hold up five to ten years later, to see a work of such fine artistry hold up seventy years later makes a statement.
Unfortunately another statement is made as well. It is hard to go back and fault filmmakers for including things in their film after so much time has passed. It is still remarkably hard to watch any scene done in black face and for that matter any role portrayed by actual black actors seemingly prior to Sidney Poitier's arrival as a major player in Hollywood. To see Crosby and Reynolds singing Abraham in black face just hurts as does the caricature that Mamie and her family is within the text of the film. Surely the filmmakers had to struggle with this as years later it is still a wound to our collective psyches.
Finally, it is a struggle for myself personally sometimes to watch many of the old classics that I do. With a star such as Fred Astaire, many times his roles are the same from film to film. He was a star due to his magical feet and obviously Hollywood was going to capitalize on the magic of his dancing. Still, you would love to see some variance. And with Holiday Inn, I think I finally got to see that variance. Astaire is allowed to play against type a little, to be a heel. He goes after Crosby's girl not once but twice! And he is a career oriented guy willing to do anything for his career. A man self absorbed. Which, from what I've read about Astaire, is exactly what he was in real life. So in the end, this allowance of Astaire to play a more realistic role ultimately sets this film above his others for me. I would love to be able to transpose Astaire into a role done today, and see if with some more realistic acting training he couldn't just amaze us as he did in the early days of Hollywood. Holiday Inn is a remarkable film, something everyone should rent around Christmas and watch with the family. It's well worth it.
The most enduring aspect of the film, the one most widely known is the song White Christmas. The song is used several times throughout the film and also serves as the signpost for the love story of the narrative between Jim Hardy (Bing Crosby) and Linda Mason (Marjorie Reynolds). The song is beautifully sung by Crosby and his rendition has become a holiday staple embedded in our lives. His deep and rich voice give the song resonance and I defy anyone to not immediately know the song upon hearing the first few bars. The song speaks ubiquity.
Speaking of things that are seemingly everywhere, are there two men more associated with their chosen professions than Astaire is to dancing and Crosby is to crooning? Both of these two performers, remarkable as they are, set the standards for so many that have followed since, and this is a testament to how incredible their talent was. And within this film, the dynamic that exists between Jim Hardy and Ted Hanover (Astaire) gives this film something extra, something special. It's as if the two of them together strike perfect balance. Neither allows the other to dominate the screen, or the narrative. Their opening and closing number, where they "battle" each other through singing and dancing is just incredible. Beautiful to the ears and to behold. And because of the strength of this film's narrative, their best work comes when both are neither singing or dancing. The chemistry between the two when vying for the affections of either Linda or Lila (Virginia Dale) is great and makes the film so much fun to watch. As Hanover and his agent run after Mason after spying her at the Inn, as Hardy leads them up and down the steps, inevitably delaying them, this is pure magic. Comedy at it's finest, with no crudeness or vulgarity. With today's shock and awe comedy, much of which fails to hold up five to ten years later, to see a work of such fine artistry hold up seventy years later makes a statement.
Unfortunately another statement is made as well. It is hard to go back and fault filmmakers for including things in their film after so much time has passed. It is still remarkably hard to watch any scene done in black face and for that matter any role portrayed by actual black actors seemingly prior to Sidney Poitier's arrival as a major player in Hollywood. To see Crosby and Reynolds singing Abraham in black face just hurts as does the caricature that Mamie and her family is within the text of the film. Surely the filmmakers had to struggle with this as years later it is still a wound to our collective psyches.
Finally, it is a struggle for myself personally sometimes to watch many of the old classics that I do. With a star such as Fred Astaire, many times his roles are the same from film to film. He was a star due to his magical feet and obviously Hollywood was going to capitalize on the magic of his dancing. Still, you would love to see some variance. And with Holiday Inn, I think I finally got to see that variance. Astaire is allowed to play against type a little, to be a heel. He goes after Crosby's girl not once but twice! And he is a career oriented guy willing to do anything for his career. A man self absorbed. Which, from what I've read about Astaire, is exactly what he was in real life. So in the end, this allowance of Astaire to play a more realistic role ultimately sets this film above his others for me. I would love to be able to transpose Astaire into a role done today, and see if with some more realistic acting training he couldn't just amaze us as he did in the early days of Hollywood. Holiday Inn is a remarkable film, something everyone should rent around Christmas and watch with the family. It's well worth it.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Inglorious Basterds (Tarantino, 2009)
When I first watched this film when it was released I was rather disappointed. I felt that Tarantino had once again beaten into our skulls that he was a vastly superior cinephile then we could ever hope to be, as he has done in every film he has directed. I felt there was too much of a clash of styles and genres within the structure of the film and this was best exemplified within the score of the film. I have had the opportunity to re-watch the film several times over the last few weeks and am now re-examining where this film stands within the context of Tarantino's work. To me, there are three things in particular which are quite striking in this film, helping to raise it to the level of a masterwork for Tarantino.
The first aspect that stands out and impresses me is the cinematography that Tarantino and Robert Richardson craft and that can be added to some outstanding composition by Tarantino throughout the film. There are moments when the camera moves within this film that seemingly allow the camera to become a character itself within the narrative. For example, when Landa (Christoph Waltz) is visiting the LaPadite farmhouse there is a moment where the camera comes full circle around Landa and LaPadite. And then amazingly, it reverses course instantly. To me it feels as if there is a third character in the room and he is walking around the table listening to the characters conversation intently. At other times, the camera moves like it did in classical Hollywood films, with long crane shots pulling down within the scene allowing the camera to linger on a character and remain there. An example of this is again with Landa at the premiere of Nation's Pride as he spies Bridget Von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) and proceeds down the steps to confront her. This entire shot is very reminiscent of the crane shot Hitchcock employs in Notorious (Hitchcock, 1944). Brilliant work.
This brings me to the second aspect that I feel makes this film stand out. I complained earlier that Tarantino beats his audience over the head regarding his standing as a cinephile. As I think about this two things occur to me. First, most of any audience are NOT cinephiles. So they don't realize that Tarantino is doing this. Secondly, this arrogance regarding film allows him to pay great homage to films from all periods. Based upon my sensibility for films and my overriding belief that most people making films today have forgotten what has come before makes this a good thing. I mean if he didn't do it, who would? Most people don't realize that Tarantino paid great respect to the worlds first dominant cinema, that of the Germans. That he paid tribute to UFA and it's greatest filmmaker Leni Reifenstahl. Or that he had a character within the film named Emil Jannings, perhaps the greatest actor of the German cinema. They don't know that when Landa puts his cigarette out in his pastry that is a copy of something Hitchcock did in To Catch a Thief (Hitchcock, 1954). Or when they discuss the extremely flammable film stock they show a clip of Sabotage (Hitchcock, 1936). All of this, which to me makes this work special, would be meaningless if Tarantino never did it, because really, who would?
The final thing that stands out in this film is another trait of Tarantino and that is his complete disregard for traditional narrative structure and his inherent belief within his work that his way is the right way. Tarantino destroys traditional narrative structure and this film is no exception. And having re-watched the film multiple times I now rather like the historical liberties he takes. He owns them and unapologetically crafts his narrative around these liberties. His narrative is inventive, at times touching, others thrilling and his dialogue is always crisp and intelligent. He deservedly received an Oscar nomination for writing.
As I said, at first this film upset me because I felt it could have been so much better, and also maybe I expected more from Tarantino. Time though has healed my wounds and made me see that I was wrong and that this film is a true masterwork, another in a line of such for Tarantino.
The first aspect that stands out and impresses me is the cinematography that Tarantino and Robert Richardson craft and that can be added to some outstanding composition by Tarantino throughout the film. There are moments when the camera moves within this film that seemingly allow the camera to become a character itself within the narrative. For example, when Landa (Christoph Waltz) is visiting the LaPadite farmhouse there is a moment where the camera comes full circle around Landa and LaPadite. And then amazingly, it reverses course instantly. To me it feels as if there is a third character in the room and he is walking around the table listening to the characters conversation intently. At other times, the camera moves like it did in classical Hollywood films, with long crane shots pulling down within the scene allowing the camera to linger on a character and remain there. An example of this is again with Landa at the premiere of Nation's Pride as he spies Bridget Von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) and proceeds down the steps to confront her. This entire shot is very reminiscent of the crane shot Hitchcock employs in Notorious (Hitchcock, 1944). Brilliant work.
This brings me to the second aspect that I feel makes this film stand out. I complained earlier that Tarantino beats his audience over the head regarding his standing as a cinephile. As I think about this two things occur to me. First, most of any audience are NOT cinephiles. So they don't realize that Tarantino is doing this. Secondly, this arrogance regarding film allows him to pay great homage to films from all periods. Based upon my sensibility for films and my overriding belief that most people making films today have forgotten what has come before makes this a good thing. I mean if he didn't do it, who would? Most people don't realize that Tarantino paid great respect to the worlds first dominant cinema, that of the Germans. That he paid tribute to UFA and it's greatest filmmaker Leni Reifenstahl. Or that he had a character within the film named Emil Jannings, perhaps the greatest actor of the German cinema. They don't know that when Landa puts his cigarette out in his pastry that is a copy of something Hitchcock did in To Catch a Thief (Hitchcock, 1954). Or when they discuss the extremely flammable film stock they show a clip of Sabotage (Hitchcock, 1936). All of this, which to me makes this work special, would be meaningless if Tarantino never did it, because really, who would?
The final thing that stands out in this film is another trait of Tarantino and that is his complete disregard for traditional narrative structure and his inherent belief within his work that his way is the right way. Tarantino destroys traditional narrative structure and this film is no exception. And having re-watched the film multiple times I now rather like the historical liberties he takes. He owns them and unapologetically crafts his narrative around these liberties. His narrative is inventive, at times touching, others thrilling and his dialogue is always crisp and intelligent. He deservedly received an Oscar nomination for writing.
As I said, at first this film upset me because I felt it could have been so much better, and also maybe I expected more from Tarantino. Time though has healed my wounds and made me see that I was wrong and that this film is a true masterwork, another in a line of such for Tarantino.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Catfish (Schulman and Joost, 2010)
This documentary had me absolutely speechless at certain moments and at others completely thrown off regarding what was coming next. To me there are two rather significant points that make this documentary extremely important. First is the use and display of the Internet as a device that drives the narrative of the documentary and helps to style the film. From the second the film starts we know that the film deals with the Internet in a way that most films do not. Sites such as YouTube, Facebook and google Earth have become ubiquitous parts of our daily lives and now our cinema is reflecting just that in using those entities within the structure of a film. Secondly is the message the narrative is giving. Without giving much away, Angela is at times creepy, someone to be viewed with skepticism and doubt. At other times she is someone to feel sorry for and to pity as her sad existence requires such large fantasy in order to cope with her daily life. It speaks a lot that her online life has become such a large entity and I feel it ties in perfectly to the Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) line from The Social Network (Fincher, 2010) regarding how we are going to live our lines online in the future. Well that future is now.
The two Schulman Brothers and Joost have a remarkable handle on filmmaking and capturing the essence of the digital world in which we live. I look forward to what they do in the future.
The two Schulman Brothers and Joost have a remarkable handle on filmmaking and capturing the essence of the digital world in which we live. I look forward to what they do in the future.
Cave of Forgotten Dreams (Herzog, 2011)
Fascinating documentary that takes you to a world that almost no one will ever be able to personally see, the Chauvet Caves in France. As a documentary, a few cinematic features stood out. The cinematography is amazing as the filmmakers were not allowed to use much light at all. Still, they captured the cave drawings remarkably and these images are simply breathtaking. To be close to thirty thousand years old, yet still clear as a bell, these drawings are otherworldly. Herzog also crafts a great narrative as the films narrator and his sound design and score for the film are really good. There are a few moments when the film goes absolutely silent and at these moments the power of the drawings hits you with full force. To me the real power of the film goes to the depiction of the multitude of members of the scientific community. These people serve to show that the mind can be so powerful and innovative when given the chance. they are utterly brilliant if not often very kooky! Which is cool with me. :)
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Fast Five (2011) and Thor (2011)
The last two films I've went to see are Fast Five (Justin Lin, 2011) and Thor (Kenneth Branagh, 2011). And while these two films couldn't be any more diametrically opposed stylistically and thematically, they are rather similar when it comes to examining them as postmodern pieces of work. Then I want to look at the quality of the films on a stand alone basis.
There are many traits to postmodern films. Films from this period tend to be high concept films, meaning they are easily pitched in a 25 word blitz. These films tend to be associated with other media such as television or radio. They often are remakes of previous films or sequels to previous films. They tend to have a built in audience or are easily marketed due to an existing tie in to some form of merchandise. Special effects and CGI are often more important than story. Films tend to use stars to sell tickets. And the most sought after of postmodern traits? The first week opening box office take. Capture that holy Grail and you almost ensure yourself future filmmaking business!
Looking at both of these films one can immediately see how they fit most if not all of these postmodern traits. Both were easily pitched to their respective studios. Fast Five's name alone tells you it is the fifth in a franchise. Thor is part of a bigger franchise launch involving other comic books. Thor also comes straight from another media, a vastly popular comic book. Fast Five has a bevy of stars in it, although no true A-list talent. Thor makes tremendous use of s/fx and CGI and while Fast Five doesn't, it does incorporate use of soundtrack as well as fast paced editing style in place of spectacular effects. And the opening weekend for both? Remarkable business!
So I've established that both are remarkable works of postmodern film. Yet for me, Fast Five works incredibly and Thor fails miserably. Here's why;
Both films are formulaic. The franchise for Fast Five has done a remarkable thing and captured an audience with a formula that works and leaves its audience craving more. That is movie magic! The narrative for the film isn't that inventive or innovative although they did give the story more meat for it's skeleton than previous attempts. But the creators of the film know what works. Toss in some fast cars, bumping soundtrack, scantily clad women and bring back previous version stars and voila! Instant hit. So this formula works. Yet with Thor, also formulaic, this plan backfires. Maybe it's cause the comic book genre is being crammed down our throats at every turn, or maybe it's cause they allow fans to dictate so much of what goes into a narrative (it's my current understanding that with Thor they were very faithful to the comic book, which if you haven't read would leave you wondering what the hell is going on) and so narrative content is dictated by pleasing the "true fans". But the formula used in Thor is tired, boring and left me wishing I had picked something else to go see.
Next, dealing with the films as franchises. I have two points here. First, can the films stand alone within the film world? Next, do the films properly whet your appetite for more? The longest running film franchise ever, during it's current reboot has left it's fan doing both and rather remarkably. When Daniel Craig took over as Bond and they did their best to make the Bond series more gritty, realistic and quite rather like the successful Bourne trilogy they answered both of the questions I previously asked. So, do Fast Five and Thor? Fast Five does so brilliantly again. As a stand alone film, one can walk into the local multiplex having never heard of The F and F franchise and completely enjoy Fast Five. By itself the film is solidly entertaining and any lingering narrative points from other films is easily explained and doesn't make you, as an audience member pause. And the lead in to the next installment is utterly captivating. Those fans that have seen the previous films are left wondering what the hell is Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) doing alive and also knowing that the next film will also have Eva Mendes! That's the way you leave the audience wanting more! Thor fails this miserably though maybe through no fault of the film itself. As a stand alone the film basically works since it takes so much time explaining the who everyone is and why they are acting the way they are but had they handed out a primer to the audience as they were being seated so much more would have made sense. And handing out a primer before a movie starts is not a good thing. As for the tie in to the next film, I understand that Marvel/Paramount is setting up future franchises but it has become utterly annoying. They have used the same basic tie in now with Iron Man and Thor. At this point, there is no way I will go see Captain America or The Avengers.
Both of these films also use current technology in helping to sell the films and again with Fast Five it worked and Thor, not so much. I saw Fast Five in IMAX and the notable IMAX shots were really well done, though I didn't understand repeating them at different angles and different times of the day. Honestly had they come up over the big statue of Jesus in Rio once more I might have gotten pissed. As for Thor, which I saw in 3D, it doesn't say much for the use of technology when I took off the glasses about 45 minutes into the film because a) they bothered me b) the film never once required me to use the glasses again after that and c)it's already a tired method to milk more money from the audience.
Both films do make slight social commentary. Fast Five shows what I believe to be a rising urban movement here in America. For decades our country has sprawled out further and further into the suburbs and I think that over the next several decades their will be a retraction of sorts as people return to cities. Fast Five showed us urban areas jammed packed in it's shots of Rio and while America most likely won't get that bad, urbanization will climb. More importantly to Fast Five is the role the anti-hero plays. The films narrative allows the criminals to escape justice over and over, the cops are made out to be frustrated and impotent. This is important because our society has become one in which the easy route is cherished and lauded and the fast and easy lifestyle is revered. Film is mimicking life and life reflects film. Thor places itself in an ongoing context of escapism. Our films are inundated now with fantasy and it allows audience to escape their lives. Watch for more rampant escapism in films forthcoming due to the nature of urbanization and the rise of antiheroism. To me it's fascinating that these two opposing films can have such a tie to each other, but that is another blog in itself.
Ultimately these films are just popcorn flicks, nothing more. They do reflect us as a society though and I feel it is important to note just how they reflect who and what we are and what we are becoming.
There are many traits to postmodern films. Films from this period tend to be high concept films, meaning they are easily pitched in a 25 word blitz. These films tend to be associated with other media such as television or radio. They often are remakes of previous films or sequels to previous films. They tend to have a built in audience or are easily marketed due to an existing tie in to some form of merchandise. Special effects and CGI are often more important than story. Films tend to use stars to sell tickets. And the most sought after of postmodern traits? The first week opening box office take. Capture that holy Grail and you almost ensure yourself future filmmaking business!
Looking at both of these films one can immediately see how they fit most if not all of these postmodern traits. Both were easily pitched to their respective studios. Fast Five's name alone tells you it is the fifth in a franchise. Thor is part of a bigger franchise launch involving other comic books. Thor also comes straight from another media, a vastly popular comic book. Fast Five has a bevy of stars in it, although no true A-list talent. Thor makes tremendous use of s/fx and CGI and while Fast Five doesn't, it does incorporate use of soundtrack as well as fast paced editing style in place of spectacular effects. And the opening weekend for both? Remarkable business!
So I've established that both are remarkable works of postmodern film. Yet for me, Fast Five works incredibly and Thor fails miserably. Here's why;
Both films are formulaic. The franchise for Fast Five has done a remarkable thing and captured an audience with a formula that works and leaves its audience craving more. That is movie magic! The narrative for the film isn't that inventive or innovative although they did give the story more meat for it's skeleton than previous attempts. But the creators of the film know what works. Toss in some fast cars, bumping soundtrack, scantily clad women and bring back previous version stars and voila! Instant hit. So this formula works. Yet with Thor, also formulaic, this plan backfires. Maybe it's cause the comic book genre is being crammed down our throats at every turn, or maybe it's cause they allow fans to dictate so much of what goes into a narrative (it's my current understanding that with Thor they were very faithful to the comic book, which if you haven't read would leave you wondering what the hell is going on) and so narrative content is dictated by pleasing the "true fans". But the formula used in Thor is tired, boring and left me wishing I had picked something else to go see.
Next, dealing with the films as franchises. I have two points here. First, can the films stand alone within the film world? Next, do the films properly whet your appetite for more? The longest running film franchise ever, during it's current reboot has left it's fan doing both and rather remarkably. When Daniel Craig took over as Bond and they did their best to make the Bond series more gritty, realistic and quite rather like the successful Bourne trilogy they answered both of the questions I previously asked. So, do Fast Five and Thor? Fast Five does so brilliantly again. As a stand alone film, one can walk into the local multiplex having never heard of The F and F franchise and completely enjoy Fast Five. By itself the film is solidly entertaining and any lingering narrative points from other films is easily explained and doesn't make you, as an audience member pause. And the lead in to the next installment is utterly captivating. Those fans that have seen the previous films are left wondering what the hell is Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) doing alive and also knowing that the next film will also have Eva Mendes! That's the way you leave the audience wanting more! Thor fails this miserably though maybe through no fault of the film itself. As a stand alone the film basically works since it takes so much time explaining the who everyone is and why they are acting the way they are but had they handed out a primer to the audience as they were being seated so much more would have made sense. And handing out a primer before a movie starts is not a good thing. As for the tie in to the next film, I understand that Marvel/Paramount is setting up future franchises but it has become utterly annoying. They have used the same basic tie in now with Iron Man and Thor. At this point, there is no way I will go see Captain America or The Avengers.
Both of these films also use current technology in helping to sell the films and again with Fast Five it worked and Thor, not so much. I saw Fast Five in IMAX and the notable IMAX shots were really well done, though I didn't understand repeating them at different angles and different times of the day. Honestly had they come up over the big statue of Jesus in Rio once more I might have gotten pissed. As for Thor, which I saw in 3D, it doesn't say much for the use of technology when I took off the glasses about 45 minutes into the film because a) they bothered me b) the film never once required me to use the glasses again after that and c)it's already a tired method to milk more money from the audience.
Both films do make slight social commentary. Fast Five shows what I believe to be a rising urban movement here in America. For decades our country has sprawled out further and further into the suburbs and I think that over the next several decades their will be a retraction of sorts as people return to cities. Fast Five showed us urban areas jammed packed in it's shots of Rio and while America most likely won't get that bad, urbanization will climb. More importantly to Fast Five is the role the anti-hero plays. The films narrative allows the criminals to escape justice over and over, the cops are made out to be frustrated and impotent. This is important because our society has become one in which the easy route is cherished and lauded and the fast and easy lifestyle is revered. Film is mimicking life and life reflects film. Thor places itself in an ongoing context of escapism. Our films are inundated now with fantasy and it allows audience to escape their lives. Watch for more rampant escapism in films forthcoming due to the nature of urbanization and the rise of antiheroism. To me it's fascinating that these two opposing films can have such a tie to each other, but that is another blog in itself.
Ultimately these films are just popcorn flicks, nothing more. They do reflect us as a society though and I feel it is important to note just how they reflect who and what we are and what we are becoming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)