Maybe it's because I have a certain weakness for all things British, or that since I first saw her in Pretty Woman (Garry Marshall, 1990) Julia Roberts has remained fixed in my mind as the brightest of stars, but Notting Hill (Roger Michell, 1999) is still one of my favorite films to watch. The romance is fairy tale like in structure, comparable to Roberts turn in Pretty Woman but it is still a good romantic comedy. These days that is a rare bird. The writing is superlative, at times witty, always intelligent and with a dash of mush thrown in here and there. The casting is great and the soundtrack is brilliant, hitting all the spots. What more does a good romantic comedy require?
What sets this film apart from much of the dredge that gets released today lies in the writing. Richard Curtis, one of my favorite writers working today, always seems to craft great stories. He infuses them with intelligence and wit, charm and a general positive outlook towards life. His dialogue is sharp and his characters are always fully fleshed out. They have faults and weaknesses and in a humanistic fashion, overcome in the end. The narrative doesn't have to use crude humor to get cheap laughs, although watching Spike (Rhys Ifans) might give some pause. Personally I think he is great. Who cares if he eats mayonnaise thinking it is yogurt, without pause?
Ifans is part of what really is a great ensemble cast. True, Roberts and Grant are the stars of the film but really they fit in as much bigger pieces of the machine rather than allowing the film to revolve around them exclusively. Every character is cast brilliantly and adds their own subtle touch to the film. The poignancy of Max (Tim McInnerny) and Bella (Gina McKee) and their all encompassing love for each other could be a film on it's own. The foibles of the aforementioned Spike and Honey (Emma Chambers) as well as the ever endearing characters of Bernie ( Hugh Bonneville) and Martin (James Dreyfus) bring depth to the narrative and provide moments of great comedy. As Spike eats breakfast wearing only Will's scuba diving suit, how can you not lose yourself in the absurdity of that? And finally, the appearance by Alec Baldwin as Anna's pro typical actor/Hollywood boyfriend hits that stereotype perfectly. They complement their stars perfectly.
And what roles the stars play. Roberts portrays the icy and distant star to perfection, one jaded by all that she has endured. Behind that lies "just a girl" though, and the magic of Julia shines through. Say what you will about Julia and the roles she chooses, has another actress since Audrey Hepburn captured the role of America's sweetheart as effectively as Roberts has done? And held it as well for as long? Her counterpart Grant is equally as amazing. He has the affable, self pitying, charming Brit down to a tee. Women swoon to meet someone like this and men want to hangout with this type of guy. Seriously, could you have a better wingman than Grant? Couldn't he say a bunch of funny things and make you look great the whole night?
The final really great aspect of the film is the soundtrack. First, Elvis Costello's cover of "She" is sublime. It fits the film, serves as a haunting reminder to Will as he pines for Anna and in the end makes the film complete. Gimme Some Lovin and Ain't No Sunshine also fit their respective roles within the films structure perfectly.
Notting Hill is one of those rare romantic comedies that both men and women can enjoy and personally it is one of a handful of films that I will watch at any time. Flip the channels and if it's on, I might be stuck for a few hours. Great film!
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
X-Men First Class (Vaughn, 2011)
I recently went to see X-Men First Class (Matthew Vaughn, 2011) at the recommendation of two people I trust when it comes to filmgoing advice. One described the film as "really good, true popcorn fare and" and the other compared it favorably to Star Wars Episode 1 (Lucas, 1999). As to the first description, true the film was a great popcorn flick. Fun and engaging, not overly long and bloated and with some great action sequences, cool f/x and hot actresses. What more does a guy want? As for the comparison to SWE1, I realize as I write that all depends on your take of that film. I remember being ridiculously psyched to see it, liking it immensely but then as time has passed I now wish I could bludgeon my head with a pick axe every time I see young Anakin (Jake Scott) or Jar Jar Binks (does it matter). So where does that leave me with X-Men First Class? Well if you guessed completely ambivalent, you wouldn't be far off.
This feeling of ambivalence raised an interesting question in my mind. First, why such a non emotive, uncaring response? I have to believe it is the interminable inundation (say that three times fast) Hollywood is forcing us to endure in regards to comic book films. Every week it seems we have another being released, and for every The Dark Knight (Nolan, 2008) there are endless films such as Daredevil (Johnson, 2003). But that's Hollywood at it's essence. There truly are very few creative minds it seems in the history of Hollywood. The rest has been an endless parade of copycatting. I think this is why 1963-1976 is my favorite period of filmmaking because of how damned original and good everything was. But I digress. What I really feel saps these films and makes them utterly forgettable (maybe non memorable is better) is a lack of story. Quickly, without looking it up. What was the basic plot to the first X-Men (Singer, 2000)? And that's what is happening with so many of these movies. You can't remember them immediately after seeing them. Back to this years X-Men, there are some good and bad things as with all films and the bad starts with it's narrative.
The narrative to the film is entirely forced. Now, I do not read the comic book so I am unaware if I might be off base in this analysis. The writers may have been attempting to stay true to the comics for the fans. The forcing of the emergence of the mutants coinciding with one of our most dangerous times our country has ever faced (Cuban missile crisis) and then further shifting the war analogy to us versus them only serves to infuriate me. To me it is much the same as when the media does what it will in an attempt to re-write and alter history. That is dangerous and in films it is poor story telling. To me it is cookie cutter and shows an unwillingness to think. This diluted and poor story can also be seen in the continual cutting back and forth between locations, seemingly shifting the story across the globe. Which in fact as I think about wasn't entirely possible in 1961, at least not at the break neck speed of today. The final thing that bothered me was the use of CGI. Does every film released today have to be overrun with CGI? And can they not tell that it doesn't look real?
Now, I know many people worked very hard on this film and I do not want to impugn their work. I truly feel it is symptomatic of the moviemaking culture rather than individual ability. Most people I know in the film industry love classics, great stories and want to be able to make great films. It is a symptom of Hollywood to make what is going to pack the theaters. At the same time, there is a great amount of good in this film.
To me, the most impressive thing within the film is the casting of McAvoy, Fassbender and Bacon and then their subsequent portrayals. Can an actor be anymore well respected than to have party game named after him (Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon)? That speaks to me of longevity and an ability to act and Bacon is an actor that has never seemingly gotten his due. And his performance as Klaus Schmidt is great. He has that ability to pull of smarmy and hated all while keeping you invested in him as a performer. Meaning you hate but still like him.
There is no hating with the other two. James McAvoy is the glue to this film. His portrayal of Charles Xavier is witty and sharp, full of humor and spirit. To play a character already infused with the essence of another great actor (Stewart) and still be able to not only hold your own but do an incredible job speaks volumes. It is Fassbender though who just mesmerizes audiences. His intensity and the fire he brings to the role of Erik is magnetic. There is one scene in particular between the two, as they sit and play chess discussing the oncoming war between mutants and humans and the roles they must play. This scene is riveting and spectacular, so intense and it says so much about the abilities of these two fine actors. And it is a simple scene. No CGI, no explosions or f/x. Just two actors working.
Another thing not to be questioned is the ability of Matthew Vaughn as a director. I have now seen three of his pictures (Kick Ass and Layer Cake) and he impresses in each one. Of particular note is his deft handling of the montage seen as the young mutants train to fight. Compare this to the montage sequence David O. Russell chose to use in 2010's The Fighter. Actually don't, there is none.
Bottom line, go see X-Men First Class. It is a good popcorn flick just don't expect to remember what the hell happened in the film come September.
This feeling of ambivalence raised an interesting question in my mind. First, why such a non emotive, uncaring response? I have to believe it is the interminable inundation (say that three times fast) Hollywood is forcing us to endure in regards to comic book films. Every week it seems we have another being released, and for every The Dark Knight (Nolan, 2008) there are endless films such as Daredevil (Johnson, 2003). But that's Hollywood at it's essence. There truly are very few creative minds it seems in the history of Hollywood. The rest has been an endless parade of copycatting. I think this is why 1963-1976 is my favorite period of filmmaking because of how damned original and good everything was. But I digress. What I really feel saps these films and makes them utterly forgettable (maybe non memorable is better) is a lack of story. Quickly, without looking it up. What was the basic plot to the first X-Men (Singer, 2000)? And that's what is happening with so many of these movies. You can't remember them immediately after seeing them. Back to this years X-Men, there are some good and bad things as with all films and the bad starts with it's narrative.
The narrative to the film is entirely forced. Now, I do not read the comic book so I am unaware if I might be off base in this analysis. The writers may have been attempting to stay true to the comics for the fans. The forcing of the emergence of the mutants coinciding with one of our most dangerous times our country has ever faced (Cuban missile crisis) and then further shifting the war analogy to us versus them only serves to infuriate me. To me it is much the same as when the media does what it will in an attempt to re-write and alter history. That is dangerous and in films it is poor story telling. To me it is cookie cutter and shows an unwillingness to think. This diluted and poor story can also be seen in the continual cutting back and forth between locations, seemingly shifting the story across the globe. Which in fact as I think about wasn't entirely possible in 1961, at least not at the break neck speed of today. The final thing that bothered me was the use of CGI. Does every film released today have to be overrun with CGI? And can they not tell that it doesn't look real?
Now, I know many people worked very hard on this film and I do not want to impugn their work. I truly feel it is symptomatic of the moviemaking culture rather than individual ability. Most people I know in the film industry love classics, great stories and want to be able to make great films. It is a symptom of Hollywood to make what is going to pack the theaters. At the same time, there is a great amount of good in this film.
To me, the most impressive thing within the film is the casting of McAvoy, Fassbender and Bacon and then their subsequent portrayals. Can an actor be anymore well respected than to have party game named after him (Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon)? That speaks to me of longevity and an ability to act and Bacon is an actor that has never seemingly gotten his due. And his performance as Klaus Schmidt is great. He has that ability to pull of smarmy and hated all while keeping you invested in him as a performer. Meaning you hate but still like him.
There is no hating with the other two. James McAvoy is the glue to this film. His portrayal of Charles Xavier is witty and sharp, full of humor and spirit. To play a character already infused with the essence of another great actor (Stewart) and still be able to not only hold your own but do an incredible job speaks volumes. It is Fassbender though who just mesmerizes audiences. His intensity and the fire he brings to the role of Erik is magnetic. There is one scene in particular between the two, as they sit and play chess discussing the oncoming war between mutants and humans and the roles they must play. This scene is riveting and spectacular, so intense and it says so much about the abilities of these two fine actors. And it is a simple scene. No CGI, no explosions or f/x. Just two actors working.
Another thing not to be questioned is the ability of Matthew Vaughn as a director. I have now seen three of his pictures (Kick Ass and Layer Cake) and he impresses in each one. Of particular note is his deft handling of the montage seen as the young mutants train to fight. Compare this to the montage sequence David O. Russell chose to use in 2010's The Fighter. Actually don't, there is none.
Bottom line, go see X-Men First Class. It is a good popcorn flick just don't expect to remember what the hell happened in the film come September.
Into The Wild (Sean Penn, 2007)
Have you ever made statement(s) like any of the following? "one day, I'm gonna travel the world" or "if only I didn't have to work" and quite possibly "if I was free to do anything I wanted". Most of us, if not all have made such statements at various times in our lives. And various excuses invariably follow such bold statements. There are various reasons which hold us back on pursuing passions, dreams or goals; and I truly believe that fear is the biggest reason. Whether it be fear of the unknown, a fear of success or even fear at losing that which you presently are accustomed to, fear drives all of our decisions and lack of action. So when I see a film like Into The Wild (Sean Penn, 2007) which features a protagonist that brazenly scoffs at those things that hold us back, I have to simply stand back and watch with a mixture of awe and quite simply, fear. Awe, that this film provides such a remarkable picture of spirit and integrity. And fear reminding me of what I'm either not accomplishing in life or fear telling me to get off my ass. As Red (Morgan Freeman) likes to say in Shawshank Redemption (Frank Darabont, 1994) "get busy living, or get busy dying". Alexander Supertramp (Emile Hirsch) channels his inner Red and does just that.
The narrative to this film is rather sparse but the film fully recovers due to some outstanding work by Hirsch, Penn and the rest of a brilliant cast. Let me start with Hirsch. As Sean Penn is directing him, the obvious "passing of the torch" moment is contemplated. Hirsch reminds older audiences of a young Sean Penn. Troubled, angst filled, contemptuous towards society. If Hirsch's turn in Lords of Dogtown (Catherine Hardwicke, 2005) isn't quite Jeff Spicoli, the parallels exist. As Supertramp, Hirsch is mesmerizing and hypnotic. He fills the screen, quite the feat considering the beautiful cinematography presented by Penn. This role had to be challenging for Hirsch as many scenes are played out alone, allowing no feedback or connection for the actor. It had to help Hirsch being directed by Penn, one of our generations great actors.
As great an actor as Sean Penn is, it is his direction which shines in this film. His cinematography is spectacular. He crafts shots of nature which are full and overwhelming, symbolizing the beauty which Supertramp seeks, as well as giving voice to that which is calling him. At other times Penn creates a sharp dichotomy, like when Supertramp finds himself in the skid row section of Los Angeles. Penn also matches his score and soundtrack deftly to the film. There are moments when the audience can lose itself within the sound and sights Penn is providing. Finally, Penn does a remarkable job of casting his supporting players and within the structure of this film, this is an all important task.
Supertramp is on two journeys, one taking him to Alaska and the more important journey which is about family. It is the casting of the film which makes that second journey so powerful. William Hurt and Marcia Gay Harden are outstanding in their roles as the biological parents of Chris McCandless. At times cold an unfeeling, they slowly come to grips with what they have wrought. Equally so, Catherine Keener and Brian Dierker are excellent as Supertramp's surrogate parents, particularly Keener. As Supertramp leaves her for the last time, the anguish she portrays is heartrending. Still though, this moment pales compared to that which Hal Holbrook provides as he drops Supertramp off on the highway. The shot of Holbrook asking to adopt Supertramp, with Penn lingering on Holbrook's face as he deals with Supertramp's glib response is just cinematic gold. Asking to be his adopted grandfather, becoming a part of his family and then being rejected, the painful realization is almost unbearable.
It is this symmetry that the story portrays between losing one family and gaining another thatI feel is the heart of this film. Chris McCandless cannot stomach what his family is and has become. He knows it is founded on lies and he cannot tolerate the hypocrisy of it all. It is as Supertramp, as he sojourns through the western United States that the finds his surrogate family and resolves the old. Jan and Rainey replace his parents, Tracy (Kristen Stewart) his sister and of course Ron (Holbrook) becomes his grandfather. Unfortunately for Supertramp, he realizes too late the importance of family, both new and old.
To me, much of the power of this film lies in that realization. Especially in this day and age when accountability has been waylaid, it is refreshing to see a film which shows ultimate accountability. Through Chris/Supertramp WE realize there are consequences to our choices. It is a harsh lesson to learn, not only for our protagonist but us as well. At the same time, we also need to follow his example and set our own path, make our own way. Realizing of course that our decisions have consequences.
Great film, unbelievable story.
The narrative to this film is rather sparse but the film fully recovers due to some outstanding work by Hirsch, Penn and the rest of a brilliant cast. Let me start with Hirsch. As Sean Penn is directing him, the obvious "passing of the torch" moment is contemplated. Hirsch reminds older audiences of a young Sean Penn. Troubled, angst filled, contemptuous towards society. If Hirsch's turn in Lords of Dogtown (Catherine Hardwicke, 2005) isn't quite Jeff Spicoli, the parallels exist. As Supertramp, Hirsch is mesmerizing and hypnotic. He fills the screen, quite the feat considering the beautiful cinematography presented by Penn. This role had to be challenging for Hirsch as many scenes are played out alone, allowing no feedback or connection for the actor. It had to help Hirsch being directed by Penn, one of our generations great actors.
As great an actor as Sean Penn is, it is his direction which shines in this film. His cinematography is spectacular. He crafts shots of nature which are full and overwhelming, symbolizing the beauty which Supertramp seeks, as well as giving voice to that which is calling him. At other times Penn creates a sharp dichotomy, like when Supertramp finds himself in the skid row section of Los Angeles. Penn also matches his score and soundtrack deftly to the film. There are moments when the audience can lose itself within the sound and sights Penn is providing. Finally, Penn does a remarkable job of casting his supporting players and within the structure of this film, this is an all important task.
Supertramp is on two journeys, one taking him to Alaska and the more important journey which is about family. It is the casting of the film which makes that second journey so powerful. William Hurt and Marcia Gay Harden are outstanding in their roles as the biological parents of Chris McCandless. At times cold an unfeeling, they slowly come to grips with what they have wrought. Equally so, Catherine Keener and Brian Dierker are excellent as Supertramp's surrogate parents, particularly Keener. As Supertramp leaves her for the last time, the anguish she portrays is heartrending. Still though, this moment pales compared to that which Hal Holbrook provides as he drops Supertramp off on the highway. The shot of Holbrook asking to adopt Supertramp, with Penn lingering on Holbrook's face as he deals with Supertramp's glib response is just cinematic gold. Asking to be his adopted grandfather, becoming a part of his family and then being rejected, the painful realization is almost unbearable.
It is this symmetry that the story portrays between losing one family and gaining another thatI feel is the heart of this film. Chris McCandless cannot stomach what his family is and has become. He knows it is founded on lies and he cannot tolerate the hypocrisy of it all. It is as Supertramp, as he sojourns through the western United States that the finds his surrogate family and resolves the old. Jan and Rainey replace his parents, Tracy (Kristen Stewart) his sister and of course Ron (Holbrook) becomes his grandfather. Unfortunately for Supertramp, he realizes too late the importance of family, both new and old.
To me, much of the power of this film lies in that realization. Especially in this day and age when accountability has been waylaid, it is refreshing to see a film which shows ultimate accountability. Through Chris/Supertramp WE realize there are consequences to our choices. It is a harsh lesson to learn, not only for our protagonist but us as well. At the same time, we also need to follow his example and set our own path, make our own way. Realizing of course that our decisions have consequences.
Great film, unbelievable story.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Submarine (Richard Ayoade, 2011)
Every now and then a film shows up out of nowhere, with little fanfare and no true chance of ever being seen by the masses. Oftentimes though these are exactly the films that inspire people to tell better stories and make better films. Submarine is just such a film. It is intelligent and true, compelling in narrative and stylistically vibrant and captivating. Technically the film is done quite well and the reflective qualities the film possesses, both towards past and present give the film lasting appeal.
The film will have this lasting appeal because at its core it is such a good story. In fact it is a timeless story about love, both your first love and the one that lasts a lifetime. Everything about the story is intelligent. The writing, the dialogue and the overall construction of the narrative are done with elegance, wit and humor. The writing is very British, very erudite. At times it is difficult to catch many of the nuances as our protagonist Oliver Tate (Craig Roberts) narrates so much in the film. Those lines are comic gold though, giving us that dry British wit. The narrative itself is compelling and provoking, bringing forth thought and feeling readily. The construct of the narrative is done excellently keeping the parallel love stories running smoothly. And part of what makes these love stories run so smoothly is the actors cast in their respective roles.
The casting done for the film is spectacularly done. Each of the supplementary roles are cast brilliantly, from the apathetic, beaten down father, the cheeky class bully, the malady obsessed mother and especially the "mystic". Look for the line regarding Oliver's mom and the mystic. Try not to cry laughing. These roles were cast superbly but it is the casting of Oliver and Jordana (Yasmin Paige) that really makes this film go. Both of these young actors bring energy and substance to their roles. Watching the two of them takes you back to that first love, that first kiss. To watch their relationship unfold is heartwarming and heartbreaking at the same time. It's beautiful to watch but painful because you know good things usually end, especially at that age.
The other really beautiful accomplishment that stands out to me is in the form of sound design. The overall sound design is tremendous, the score is nicely done and the soundtrack is reminiscent of the quality of Garden State (Braff, 2004). The soundtrack was done by Alex Turner of the Arctic Monkeys and he does an amazing job. There were at least three of his songs in the film that make the films entire soundtrack worth purchasing. And the overall sound design, taken as a whole, helps take us on the journey Oliver is on himself.
It is this journey that is the heart of the film and from the opening credits onward not only does it have heart but the film becomes self reflexive and reminds us continually that we are watching just that. The opening gives us a letter from a future Oliver, telling the audience that what we are about to see is his biopic, his life on film. Several times throughout the film we see characters break the fourth wall, albeit slightly and with the emphasis on pushing the humor. The director ( Richard Ayoade) also chooses to condense the narrative quite smartly right after Oliver and Jordana become a pair. Rather than show several mushy scenes that detail them falling in love, he chooses to use the "film within a film" montage, giving all the best details in a short synopsis. Ayoade drives his point home by vividly showing that the inside film is grainier and older. The film is obviously taking place in Oliver's mind sometime in the past. Also from the past, several references to prior films such as Field of Dreams (Robinson, 1989) and to me, most impressively The 400 Blows (Truffaut, 1959).
It is the shots where homage is given to The 400 Blows which interest me the most. The film is based on the novel by Welsh writer Joe Dunthorne so I am not entirely convinced the film is semi autobiographical like Blows was to Truffaut. But the parallels in narrative do exist. The boy protagonist in both films has a troubled relationship with his parents. He also has severe alienation issues at school. Finally, the narrative is ultimately about love, both acquiring it and losing it, something Truffaut dealt with extensively. And to see Oliver running out onto the beach, towards the sea, with a near darkened sky was awe inspiring.
The film probably will not make it to a wide release here in the U.S. which is a shame. Do yourself a favor and go watch it, immediately. You will not regret it.
The film will have this lasting appeal because at its core it is such a good story. In fact it is a timeless story about love, both your first love and the one that lasts a lifetime. Everything about the story is intelligent. The writing, the dialogue and the overall construction of the narrative are done with elegance, wit and humor. The writing is very British, very erudite. At times it is difficult to catch many of the nuances as our protagonist Oliver Tate (Craig Roberts) narrates so much in the film. Those lines are comic gold though, giving us that dry British wit. The narrative itself is compelling and provoking, bringing forth thought and feeling readily. The construct of the narrative is done excellently keeping the parallel love stories running smoothly. And part of what makes these love stories run so smoothly is the actors cast in their respective roles.
The casting done for the film is spectacularly done. Each of the supplementary roles are cast brilliantly, from the apathetic, beaten down father, the cheeky class bully, the malady obsessed mother and especially the "mystic". Look for the line regarding Oliver's mom and the mystic. Try not to cry laughing. These roles were cast superbly but it is the casting of Oliver and Jordana (Yasmin Paige) that really makes this film go. Both of these young actors bring energy and substance to their roles. Watching the two of them takes you back to that first love, that first kiss. To watch their relationship unfold is heartwarming and heartbreaking at the same time. It's beautiful to watch but painful because you know good things usually end, especially at that age.
The other really beautiful accomplishment that stands out to me is in the form of sound design. The overall sound design is tremendous, the score is nicely done and the soundtrack is reminiscent of the quality of Garden State (Braff, 2004). The soundtrack was done by Alex Turner of the Arctic Monkeys and he does an amazing job. There were at least three of his songs in the film that make the films entire soundtrack worth purchasing. And the overall sound design, taken as a whole, helps take us on the journey Oliver is on himself.
It is this journey that is the heart of the film and from the opening credits onward not only does it have heart but the film becomes self reflexive and reminds us continually that we are watching just that. The opening gives us a letter from a future Oliver, telling the audience that what we are about to see is his biopic, his life on film. Several times throughout the film we see characters break the fourth wall, albeit slightly and with the emphasis on pushing the humor. The director ( Richard Ayoade) also chooses to condense the narrative quite smartly right after Oliver and Jordana become a pair. Rather than show several mushy scenes that detail them falling in love, he chooses to use the "film within a film" montage, giving all the best details in a short synopsis. Ayoade drives his point home by vividly showing that the inside film is grainier and older. The film is obviously taking place in Oliver's mind sometime in the past. Also from the past, several references to prior films such as Field of Dreams (Robinson, 1989) and to me, most impressively The 400 Blows (Truffaut, 1959).
It is the shots where homage is given to The 400 Blows which interest me the most. The film is based on the novel by Welsh writer Joe Dunthorne so I am not entirely convinced the film is semi autobiographical like Blows was to Truffaut. But the parallels in narrative do exist. The boy protagonist in both films has a troubled relationship with his parents. He also has severe alienation issues at school. Finally, the narrative is ultimately about love, both acquiring it and losing it, something Truffaut dealt with extensively. And to see Oliver running out onto the beach, towards the sea, with a near darkened sky was awe inspiring.
The film probably will not make it to a wide release here in the U.S. which is a shame. Do yourself a favor and go watch it, immediately. You will not regret it.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Super 8 (Abrams, 2011)
The simplest way to summarize Super 8 (Abrams, 2011) would be to categorize it as a complete and total tribute to Steven Spielberg. And while Abrams does craft a film that is remarkably similar in many respects to the work of Spielberg, there are very few directors who deserve such respect and Spielberg is one of them. In fact for a talented man such as Abrams to pay respectful tribute in such a way to Spielberg shows just how high Spielberg has risen on the list of our great cinematic directors. And Abrams seemingly provides an endless array of tidbits from the Spielberg arsenal.
The most obvious Spielberg trait seen in the film is also the most common to Spielberg's work, that of a strained father/son relationship. In fact the relationship between the two main children and their respective parents are both strained. Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) has a dead relationship with his father Jack (Kyle Chandler) since the death of his mother. Alice Dainard (Elle Fanning) not only has a troubled relationship with her father Louis (Ron Eldard) but then the interconnected relationship between them all is compounded by the elder Dainard's role in the death of Joe's mother. It is a little bit of family problem overload and a little too easy of a stretch within an otherwise stellar narrative. But the commonalities to the work of Spielberg doesn't end there.
The narrative portrays a benevolent alien interacting with humankind. Only when provoked does the alien use it's vastly superior force and power. This is reminiscent of Spielberg works like E.T. (1981). The military is portrayed as a bumbling and destructive force as it is in the various Indiana Jones films. And as in the War of the Worlds (2005), Abrams deftly resolves the conflict between the alien and humans without a large scale battle which looks ridiculous in comparison to the rest of the film. Think of Independence Day (Emmerich, 1996) and how the aliens destroy human forces at will but by the time the film ends we are miraculously turning the tide to victory. To any intelligent viewer this is a slap in the face and I applaud Abrams for not choosing this route. Another deft touch by Abrams and one similar to the approach taken by Spielberg in Jaws (1974) is to not show his alien for the majority of the film and allowing that tension about what is attacking the town to grow. This is a rather simple technique which if applied to many more films today would make them work much more effectively. Finally, as in a film such as Jurassic Park (1993) Abrams uses amazing technical work in the areas of production design, sound design, editing and cinematography to provide filmmaking at it's finest quality.
By far the finest part of the filmmaking process with which Abrams involves himself is the writing of a superb narrative. The narrative is well thought out and executed, all while being extremely gripping and suspenseful. The character development happens fully and each character arc is complete. The audience goes on a journey with this film and ultimately a good film is great storytelling. Adding to such a great narrative is some top notch casting. Joel Courtney and all of the children cast are all exceptional, giving great performances that don't seem forced and over done. The casting of Eldard and Chandler as the two fathers works as both bring empathy to their roles. It is the casting and acting of Fanning that stands above the rest. Much like her talented sister, their is an amazing depth and resolve to her performance.
Within the film there is also an element of self reflexivity to film and I attribute this to Abrams and Spielberg both being extreme cinephiles. The most obvious case is the movie within a movie aspect. The kids are prolific filmmakers at a young age, a reflection of Spielberg himself. The pure love of film is evident in the depth of the children's production. They go completely in depth to make their film and this reflects how much both Spielberg and Abrams put into their works. The various homages throughout the film to other directors also stands out as a classic way for filmmakers to reflect back that which they love in film. The narrative of the film using a MacGuffin shows Abrams knows his Hitchcock. The use of the classical horror film technique of "busses" throughout the film hearkens back to Cat People (Tourneur, 1942). Finally, the kids are making a zombie film and there is a direct reference to the master of zombie films, George Romero.
There is one final aspect of the film which is just a masterful piece of work by Abrams. This is the catastrophic crash of the locomotive. Abrams crafts a masterful blend of CGI, production design, editing and sound, cinematography and composition to give us a sequence so wonderful and memorable. This sequence is filmmaking at it's finest.
Super 8 is a good film, fun for the family and one that I look forward to watching again.
The most obvious Spielberg trait seen in the film is also the most common to Spielberg's work, that of a strained father/son relationship. In fact the relationship between the two main children and their respective parents are both strained. Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) has a dead relationship with his father Jack (Kyle Chandler) since the death of his mother. Alice Dainard (Elle Fanning) not only has a troubled relationship with her father Louis (Ron Eldard) but then the interconnected relationship between them all is compounded by the elder Dainard's role in the death of Joe's mother. It is a little bit of family problem overload and a little too easy of a stretch within an otherwise stellar narrative. But the commonalities to the work of Spielberg doesn't end there.
The narrative portrays a benevolent alien interacting with humankind. Only when provoked does the alien use it's vastly superior force and power. This is reminiscent of Spielberg works like E.T. (1981). The military is portrayed as a bumbling and destructive force as it is in the various Indiana Jones films. And as in the War of the Worlds (2005), Abrams deftly resolves the conflict between the alien and humans without a large scale battle which looks ridiculous in comparison to the rest of the film. Think of Independence Day (Emmerich, 1996) and how the aliens destroy human forces at will but by the time the film ends we are miraculously turning the tide to victory. To any intelligent viewer this is a slap in the face and I applaud Abrams for not choosing this route. Another deft touch by Abrams and one similar to the approach taken by Spielberg in Jaws (1974) is to not show his alien for the majority of the film and allowing that tension about what is attacking the town to grow. This is a rather simple technique which if applied to many more films today would make them work much more effectively. Finally, as in a film such as Jurassic Park (1993) Abrams uses amazing technical work in the areas of production design, sound design, editing and cinematography to provide filmmaking at it's finest quality.
By far the finest part of the filmmaking process with which Abrams involves himself is the writing of a superb narrative. The narrative is well thought out and executed, all while being extremely gripping and suspenseful. The character development happens fully and each character arc is complete. The audience goes on a journey with this film and ultimately a good film is great storytelling. Adding to such a great narrative is some top notch casting. Joel Courtney and all of the children cast are all exceptional, giving great performances that don't seem forced and over done. The casting of Eldard and Chandler as the two fathers works as both bring empathy to their roles. It is the casting and acting of Fanning that stands above the rest. Much like her talented sister, their is an amazing depth and resolve to her performance.
Within the film there is also an element of self reflexivity to film and I attribute this to Abrams and Spielberg both being extreme cinephiles. The most obvious case is the movie within a movie aspect. The kids are prolific filmmakers at a young age, a reflection of Spielberg himself. The pure love of film is evident in the depth of the children's production. They go completely in depth to make their film and this reflects how much both Spielberg and Abrams put into their works. The various homages throughout the film to other directors also stands out as a classic way for filmmakers to reflect back that which they love in film. The narrative of the film using a MacGuffin shows Abrams knows his Hitchcock. The use of the classical horror film technique of "busses" throughout the film hearkens back to Cat People (Tourneur, 1942). Finally, the kids are making a zombie film and there is a direct reference to the master of zombie films, George Romero.
There is one final aspect of the film which is just a masterful piece of work by Abrams. This is the catastrophic crash of the locomotive. Abrams crafts a masterful blend of CGI, production design, editing and sound, cinematography and composition to give us a sequence so wonderful and memorable. This sequence is filmmaking at it's finest.
Super 8 is a good film, fun for the family and one that I look forward to watching again.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Black Hawk Down (Ridley Scott, 2001)
After watching Black Hawk Down (Ridley Scott, 2001) for about a half hour, my prevailing opinion was that at what point in his career had Scott succumbed to this hyper stylization seemingly endemic to his films. I tried to quickly think of other films that he had done and my mind was blocked at Gladiator (2000) which also was chock full of hyper stylization. But then a quick tour of his IMDB page reminded me of Alien (1979), Bladerunner (1980) and Thelma and Louise (1991) and I remembered just how good he is as a director and how much he has given his audiences. So maybe the hyper stylization is just inherent to his later work. Why would Scott employ these techniques to his films? In my opinion it helps add weight to the subject of the film. By adding in these techniques the themes and subjects become more important. There is a self actualization which occurs for the viewer. Its as if while watching, the viewer keys into what they see onscreen and realize the importance of the content. Now I know some of you have to be asking what the hell is it that I am talking about. The hyper stylization that I'm speaking of plays out in the excessive use of slow motion camera, even still frame. The extensive use of extreme close up. Shots designed to remind you that you are watching a film. These would include when you see gratuitous shots of empty bullet shells falling to the ground. Shell upon shell drops to the floor, excessive in and of itself. But the dropping to the ground of these shells is synced to sound design as crisp and clear as you'll ever experience. These moments serve to remind you that you are watching something, probably something incredible that most likely you would never see in real life. This self reflexivity to cinema is prevalent in many of today's films and often times the lack of subtlety when employing it serves to disengage the viewer from a film, particularly when the narrative isn't strong.
This is where the films shines though, with a narrative that is powerful and compelling and one which raises more questions than it answers. The narrative gives us an accurate and detailed picture of a soldiers life, both prior to combat when loose camaraderie is necessary to the soldiers sanity and then when all hell is breaking loose, or when that camaraderie the soldiers have built gets put to the test on a second by second basis. The structure of the narrative works very well as the narrative has a definite lack of characterization, but in a soldierly world where each part is interchangeable and replaceable characterization isn't likely. So what is accomplished in structure makes up for what is lacking.
One thing the film is not lacking is amazing technical achievement. The cinematography is outstanding and the sequence of scenes and composition is not only remarkable for size and scope but completely realistic. The film also won Oscars for sound and editing and it shows in the film. The score is haunting and poignant, adding depth to the scenes where the narrative does happen to slow down. In fact this is another Scott trait as he employs a strong score in all his films.
The one thing which this film lacks to me, especially since it is a war film is a distinct lack of direct message. There are times when the film appears to be sending a strict anti war, anti US involvement in foreign affairs message and then at others a hard line pro US intervention one. This may be attributed to the fact that simply states if you root for our military you fall along the lines of pro-war and if you question our military action it places you exactly on the opposite side as anti-war. This lack of clarity hinders the film somewhat but also can be looked at as allowing the film to not be heavy handed, therefore more palatable to a wider audience. Also, the film gives an eerie window into further US conflicts and questions our role in such conflicts. Released in 2001 right after 9/11, the narrative raises questions about our role as world enforcer. Do people want us to help or would they rather find their own way? A question that we seemingly struggle with through today.
In the end this film is highly entertaining with some amazingly realistic and accurate depictions of war. You're not going to get much in the way of story, but that would not be the intent with this film.
This is where the films shines though, with a narrative that is powerful and compelling and one which raises more questions than it answers. The narrative gives us an accurate and detailed picture of a soldiers life, both prior to combat when loose camaraderie is necessary to the soldiers sanity and then when all hell is breaking loose, or when that camaraderie the soldiers have built gets put to the test on a second by second basis. The structure of the narrative works very well as the narrative has a definite lack of characterization, but in a soldierly world where each part is interchangeable and replaceable characterization isn't likely. So what is accomplished in structure makes up for what is lacking.
One thing the film is not lacking is amazing technical achievement. The cinematography is outstanding and the sequence of scenes and composition is not only remarkable for size and scope but completely realistic. The film also won Oscars for sound and editing and it shows in the film. The score is haunting and poignant, adding depth to the scenes where the narrative does happen to slow down. In fact this is another Scott trait as he employs a strong score in all his films.
The one thing which this film lacks to me, especially since it is a war film is a distinct lack of direct message. There are times when the film appears to be sending a strict anti war, anti US involvement in foreign affairs message and then at others a hard line pro US intervention one. This may be attributed to the fact that simply states if you root for our military you fall along the lines of pro-war and if you question our military action it places you exactly on the opposite side as anti-war. This lack of clarity hinders the film somewhat but also can be looked at as allowing the film to not be heavy handed, therefore more palatable to a wider audience. Also, the film gives an eerie window into further US conflicts and questions our role in such conflicts. Released in 2001 right after 9/11, the narrative raises questions about our role as world enforcer. Do people want us to help or would they rather find their own way? A question that we seemingly struggle with through today.
In the end this film is highly entertaining with some amazingly realistic and accurate depictions of war. You're not going to get much in the way of story, but that would not be the intent with this film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)