The other day I spent the afternoon watching three films. These three films were vastly different in presentation and theme and honestly the three would never be grouped together in any way but entirely random. After watching all three I realized that in a way each one of them said something about contemporary society here in the United States. Now these weren't explicit statements made by the filmmakers rather these observations come from my perspective as a cinephile and as a person who likes to observe and comment on our society in general. So I am going to give the following general observations I had after watching these films.
The first film I watched was THE SWITCH (Will Speck and Josh Gordon, Miramax Films, 2010). This film is your standard romantic comedy. It doesn't deviate from the conventions of the genre, and it was made in a way that surely maximized profits. That said;
- why do we as an audience continue to tolerate these type of films? With the ongoing digital revolution within the film industry and the ever expanding ability to not only make films but to have them exhibited anywhere, this is what we get? From our studios, particularly Miramax? The film has no substance, no humor and the stars have no chemistry. It has been three days since I watched it and all I can remember is Jason Bateman was bland, I didn't laugh and Jennifer Aniston was....
- I love Jennifer Aniston. I mean more than most. If you put me in a room with Gary and Wyatt and we strapped bras to our heads I would make Jennifer, not Lisa (and if you get that overly indulgent film reference we are forever friends). But why does she keep making these romantic comedies that are just not romantic and certainly not funny? Her two best film roles EVER are OFFICE SPACE and HORRIBLE BOSSES. Can you name a true romantic comedy she has been in where the film is memorable? Like I said, I absolutely love Jennifer Aniston. She is gorgeous and is a good actress. But please Jen, branch out beyond what romantic comedy your agent is trying to get you to do next.
- my biggest issue with the film though is that it portrays contemporary American society and those who reside in it as emotionally closed off, mentally vacant and incapable of survival against the littlest amount of stress that might be introduced into their lives. At least this scares me because maybe it is an entirely accurate portrayal?
After THE SWITCH I turned to my DVR and remembered I had recorded SAVING FACE (Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy, HBO, 2011), the 2012 Academy Award winning documentary short film. With this film I had no idea what to expect. I knew it had won the Oscar but had no idea what the film entailed. I came away floored.
- the dichotomy that exists between our lives and those of the rest of the world is enormous. We are so insular in our outlook, our daily lives and our perception of the rest of the world as to be laughable.
- the brutality that not only is allowed to exist but which is commonplace in the everyday relationships between men and women. Personally men beating women is abhorrent to me, but dousing them and burning their faces with acid? Come on. How is this not shown to us? How can we turn a blind eye to such behavior and criminality? Seeing these women scarred for life is utterly heartbreaking.
- it is really nice to see filmmakers around the world standing up and making films which show the world such abhorrent practices. Without such brave people the world would be a much worse place.
- speaking of brave though, their are none braver than the women showcased in the film. Zakia and Rukshana were the two examples shown in the film and they are just two among the countless women fighting this injustice. And I have to give credit to the lawyers and politicians in Pakistan, the women lawyers and politicians who are working diligently and tirelessly to amend the situation.
- I do not claim to be a religious person nor do I know intimacies of religious texts. But I have to believe that this dichotomy that exists between the actions of these men and the teachings of the Quran is huge. Just insane that these men can justify their actions to themselves and then cloak themselves under their religion.
- back to Zakia and Rukshana. Every day they face shame and humiliation. For the rest of their lives they are disfigured, forced at times to wear the full burqa and cover their faces. Justice is coming for them, but at a glaciers pace. And they face the constant threat of further brutality. So with all the fear they face they cannot be commended enough.
- the selflessness of the doctors from around the world that volunteer their time to help these women. Spectacular.
- finally it is really difficult knowing that the majority of Americans will never hear of this film let alone take the FORTY-FIVE minutes to watch it. That is the most painful realization of the film.
At the end of this triple header I watched A BETTER LIFE (Chris Weitz, Summit Entertainment, 2011). I had wanted to see this film at the theatre but like so many of its ilk it was in and out of theaters rather quickly. But luckily the best was saved for last.
- how refreshing to see a film from the perspective of the illegal alien. And not one where tired stereotypes and blunt racism is used to make it an "important film" (please see CRASH, 2006). Regardless of your personal stance on the issue of illegal immigration and it's effects in the end they are people the same as you and I. They have dreams, ambitions and families. They have lives.
- the immense gap between the immigrant generation and the first generation of children born here in the United States. Luis Galindo (Jose Julian) for various reasons is almost completely unaware of the traditions and heritage of his father. He barely speaks proper Spanish and knows nothing of his culture. I can only imagine for generations of immigrants that come here to see their culture so easily dismissed by their children is hurtful.
- (disclaimer, you might see my view towards illegal immigration here) OUR inherent need as a society for immigrant labor and vitality.
- a side of Los Angeles that is rarely seen in movies. Like TRAINING DAY (Antoine Fuqua, 2001) this film goes into the neighborhoods of L.A. And this gives the film that much more authenticity. For those that do not live here L.A. it is a vast place with the unique characteristic of being able to go from mansions to ghetto within minutes. Just a great portrayal of another side of L.A.
- what a performance by Demian Bichir! The guy was absolutely fantastic as Carlos Galindo. Bechir showed us the all encompassing tiredness of the back breaking work he performed, his eternal love and desire to provide for his son and the subtlety with which he infused the role. An understated performance. With Jean Dujardin beating him for the Oscar this year it is really good to see foreign actors not only getting roles for American films but doing so well in them as to be nominated. It shows just how globalized the film industry has become.
- again, how many Americans have heard of this great film? Or will even attempt to see it? It doesn't go with populist politics that's for sure.
Just a really good day for me being able to watch all three films and as a film buff seeing such diversity amongst three different films. We truly live in a great time for film.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
THE RUM DIARY (Bruce Robinson, Film District, 2011)
I was really excited to see this film. It had Johnny Depp in it, it's setting was the Caribbean, I expected the writing to be excellent and according to the previews it had a blonde femme fatale, my favorite. For the first half of THE RUM DIARY (Bruce Robinson, Film District, 2011) I was quite pleased. The narrative had me guessing while being funny and there was enough beautiful shots of Puerto Rico and Amber Heard to keep anyone watching. So what happened? The second half of the film just completely fell apart and I watched this film with two other SC film grads, they thought the same thing. Plot lines went unresolved, the main narrative thrust just vanished, characters just dropped out of the film. What started so well flamed out.
I've never read anything by Hunter Thompson and by my understanding this story is semi-autobiographical. That said, man how kooky was this guys mind? We all have read about his excess and it's on display with the protagonist Paul Kemp (Johnny Depp). His writing, and the adaptation by Robinson are two very strong points in the film. The writing is excellent, witty and urbane. There were a few moments I could not stop laughing. The second strong aspect of the film was its pure beauty. The cinematography was gorgeous but nothing compared to Amber Heard. She was simply stunning.
In the end, this could have been a really great film if it had been developed further or not left so, unresolved. Which is why I have written my review of the film in the same manner.
I've never read anything by Hunter Thompson and by my understanding this story is semi-autobiographical. That said, man how kooky was this guys mind? We all have read about his excess and it's on display with the protagonist Paul Kemp (Johnny Depp). His writing, and the adaptation by Robinson are two very strong points in the film. The writing is excellent, witty and urbane. There were a few moments I could not stop laughing. The second strong aspect of the film was its pure beauty. The cinematography was gorgeous but nothing compared to Amber Heard. She was simply stunning.
In the end, this could have been a really great film if it had been developed further or not left so, unresolved. Which is why I have written my review of the film in the same manner.
48 HRS. (Walter Hill, Paramount, 1982)
It's strange how memory works for us. Time and experience alter memory and it is only when we re-visit things that we remember them as they truly are. If you had asked me yesterday about 48 HRS. (Walter Hill, Paramount, 1982) I would have probably remarked on how great Eddie Murphy was in the film, how funny the film was and how much I wish they had never made a sequel. After viewing the film today though, I remembered that this was a damn good film. Sure Eddie was great, but so too was Nick Nolte, the writing and dialogue for the film, the direction and cinematography. It's a great action film, a comedy and a buddy film. And the extreme difference in content in just thirty short years is mind boggling.
The narrative to the film is implausible at best. Chasing down a lead, a cop boosts a con out of jail on a 48 hour pass? A stretch to say the least. It works in this film, maybe due to the great chemistry between the two protagonists, maybe because of Eddie's charm. The chemistry works between Reggie Hammond (Eddie Murphy) and Jack Cates (Nick Nolte) on so many levels. Due to the film being made in a different time, the antagonism between a white cop (Cates) and a black con (Hammond) plays differently then it would were the film made today (and God please do not allow a remake). The language, the inherent racism between both, the general use and belief of stereotypes gives the film an edge that would surely be missing today.
One of the main reasons a remake would fail spectacularly is the career of Eddie Murphy probably will never be replicated. Due to a never ending series of bad films and a permanent move into films for families, I think people forget just how raw and refreshing Eddie Murphy was. They don't realize how the man literally burst into the spotlight and OWNED it for a solid five years. No one was funnier, no one had a purer touch when it came to box office. And this was the film that started him on that road, easily one of his best performances. As Reggie Hammond he gives a nuanced performance, at times suave and charming and at others hyper energetic. Watch the Torchy's scene. He puts it all on display in this scene. Angry young black male, disenfranchised from contemporary society, mocking that same society with edge and biting humor. "I don't like white people, and I hate rednecks. Y'all are rednecks, which means I'm enjoying this shit". Pure unadulterated Eddie at the top of his game.
Teaming up with Eddie and giving us a great performance as Jack Cates is Nick Nolte. This is a really good bit of casting. Jack Cates is a tough loner, a hard edged cop who does things his own way. He's racist and himself a stereotype. Nolte nails every inch of this character and it all begins with his voice. Take a shot of whiskey, throw some gravel down your throat and smoke two packs a day for a few months and you start to get that voice.
The most surprising aspect of this film in re-watching it lies in the technical merits of the film. Hill really gives us a sense of an urban jungle, a city full of crooks and cons in his cinematography of San Francisco. He uses extensive long shots and long takes, allowing his camera to relay to the audience a sense of how isolated he wants his characters to be. Cates and Hammond are on their own in this huge metropolis. Even his inside scenes are claustrophobic and constricting. Watch the scene towards the beginning of the film as Jack enters the precinct. There are 3-4 scenes going on within the scene, all serving to raise tension and give the audience a further claustrophobic feeling.
Watching the film today does make you realize just how much has changed in thirty short years. It is a total departure in tone and language. It gives the film a gritty realism which is often lacking in contemporary films and another reason many of the type films fail miserably today. The marketers and film pre viewers react poorly and thus changes are made. Really quite a shame, as 48 HRS is a great film.
The narrative to the film is implausible at best. Chasing down a lead, a cop boosts a con out of jail on a 48 hour pass? A stretch to say the least. It works in this film, maybe due to the great chemistry between the two protagonists, maybe because of Eddie's charm. The chemistry works between Reggie Hammond (Eddie Murphy) and Jack Cates (Nick Nolte) on so many levels. Due to the film being made in a different time, the antagonism between a white cop (Cates) and a black con (Hammond) plays differently then it would were the film made today (and God please do not allow a remake). The language, the inherent racism between both, the general use and belief of stereotypes gives the film an edge that would surely be missing today.
One of the main reasons a remake would fail spectacularly is the career of Eddie Murphy probably will never be replicated. Due to a never ending series of bad films and a permanent move into films for families, I think people forget just how raw and refreshing Eddie Murphy was. They don't realize how the man literally burst into the spotlight and OWNED it for a solid five years. No one was funnier, no one had a purer touch when it came to box office. And this was the film that started him on that road, easily one of his best performances. As Reggie Hammond he gives a nuanced performance, at times suave and charming and at others hyper energetic. Watch the Torchy's scene. He puts it all on display in this scene. Angry young black male, disenfranchised from contemporary society, mocking that same society with edge and biting humor. "I don't like white people, and I hate rednecks. Y'all are rednecks, which means I'm enjoying this shit". Pure unadulterated Eddie at the top of his game.
Teaming up with Eddie and giving us a great performance as Jack Cates is Nick Nolte. This is a really good bit of casting. Jack Cates is a tough loner, a hard edged cop who does things his own way. He's racist and himself a stereotype. Nolte nails every inch of this character and it all begins with his voice. Take a shot of whiskey, throw some gravel down your throat and smoke two packs a day for a few months and you start to get that voice.
The most surprising aspect of this film in re-watching it lies in the technical merits of the film. Hill really gives us a sense of an urban jungle, a city full of crooks and cons in his cinematography of San Francisco. He uses extensive long shots and long takes, allowing his camera to relay to the audience a sense of how isolated he wants his characters to be. Cates and Hammond are on their own in this huge metropolis. Even his inside scenes are claustrophobic and constricting. Watch the scene towards the beginning of the film as Jack enters the precinct. There are 3-4 scenes going on within the scene, all serving to raise tension and give the audience a further claustrophobic feeling.
Watching the film today does make you realize just how much has changed in thirty short years. It is a total departure in tone and language. It gives the film a gritty realism which is often lacking in contemporary films and another reason many of the type films fail miserably today. The marketers and film pre viewers react poorly and thus changes are made. Really quite a shame, as 48 HRS is a great film.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY (Sergio Leone, United Artists, 1967)
This past weekend the New Beverly Cinema had a screening of THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY (Sergio Leone, United Artists, 1967) and seeing as how this film is one of my top two or three favorite westerns ever made, of course I went to see it. I took two close friends with me and to my great surprise afterwards found out one of them had never seen the film. And she LOVED it! Nothing makes me happier than taking someone to see a great film and having them enjoy it so much that they can't believe they had never seen it before. And since this film is not only well known but most assuredly has been written about endlessly, I offer a list of the ten things I love about the film. In no particular order and definitely a non comprehensive one at that.
The most important part of any film is the story and this film provides an epic, sprawling narrative. The narrative works across multiple genres as a western, a buddy film, an epic. It works as an historical fiction incorporating the Civil War. It is also a treasure hunt. In regards to context within traditional cinema values it is the film use of the anti-hero which is most fascinating to me. Here we see a break from traditional classical Hollywood values with the films protagonist, a practice which will become entirely widespread in contemporary media.
2. The film has three outstanding protagonists. The Bad (Eli Wallach) is truly the heartbeat of the film. As the Bad you still want to root for him. He is like that little brother who never gets anything right but you feel sorry for him so you'll always help him out, no matter what. The Ugly (Lee Van Cleef) is your more traditional bad guy and he is outstanding as Angel Eyes. And The Good (Clint Eastwood). What can you not say about this superlative figure in American cinema? More on Clint later.
3. Leone's extensive use of long shots throughout the film. It creates distance, establishes the film as a sprawling epic, helps create tension. In the final scene, as Blondie leaves Tuco noosed upon the grave marker, the long shot of Blondie riding away builds tension for the audience. I have watched this film at least twenty times and seeing it again I still felt anxiety for Tuco. Brilliant use of the long shot as a cinematic technique.
4. Everyone knows the famous score and sound design. Just know that if I ever make a Western I am using the exact same bullet ricochet sounds Leone decided to use.
5. Watching the film now, some fifty years later it is cheesy and ridiculous AND so damn good! I love the film because it's dubbed, because of the awful sound effects used for bullets, because it is interminably paced at times.
6. The relationship between Tuco and Blondie. Who hasn't had a friendship with someone in which the other person was in no way, shape or form good for you to be around? But you couldn't stay away either?
7. Tuco and Blondie blow up the bridge. How excellent for Leone to insert not only an anti-war message into his film (at the height of the Cold War and Vietnam) but also to dramatize the folly of military endeavors at times as well as showcase the extreme waste wars make of young men. By blowing up the bridge, Tuco and Blondie throw up a big middle finger at the establishment.
8. The great lines, particularly this one uttered by Tuco. As he takes a bath (the only one in the film I might add) he is held up by a bandit he had left for dead earlier in the film. As the bandit inquires about Tuco's surprise at seeing him, Tuco shoots and simply says "you're gonna shoot, shoot. Don't talk". Cue that great score again.
9. Clint Eastwood. How many American men living today would be cowboys if they could be just like Clint is as "The Man With No Name"? If they could chew on and smoke weak cigars, wear a poncho, speak terse lines through gritted teeth? The line starts after me.
10. Hands down the best part of the film is the Mexican standoff ending/showdown between Tuco, Blondie and Angel Eyes. The composition of the scene, the gradual movement from long shots to extreme close ups, the ever quickening editing pace, stopping the score entirely and then re-starting it with a different track. All brilliant technical work. And just the idea of that standoff, not knowing who is gonna shoot who. Just an amazing seven minutes of film.
I've watched the film plenty of times and will continue to do so. My love for it never fades and as always I only hope to one day be apart of cinema that is so good.
The most important part of any film is the story and this film provides an epic, sprawling narrative. The narrative works across multiple genres as a western, a buddy film, an epic. It works as an historical fiction incorporating the Civil War. It is also a treasure hunt. In regards to context within traditional cinema values it is the film use of the anti-hero which is most fascinating to me. Here we see a break from traditional classical Hollywood values with the films protagonist, a practice which will become entirely widespread in contemporary media.
2. The film has three outstanding protagonists. The Bad (Eli Wallach) is truly the heartbeat of the film. As the Bad you still want to root for him. He is like that little brother who never gets anything right but you feel sorry for him so you'll always help him out, no matter what. The Ugly (Lee Van Cleef) is your more traditional bad guy and he is outstanding as Angel Eyes. And The Good (Clint Eastwood). What can you not say about this superlative figure in American cinema? More on Clint later.
3. Leone's extensive use of long shots throughout the film. It creates distance, establishes the film as a sprawling epic, helps create tension. In the final scene, as Blondie leaves Tuco noosed upon the grave marker, the long shot of Blondie riding away builds tension for the audience. I have watched this film at least twenty times and seeing it again I still felt anxiety for Tuco. Brilliant use of the long shot as a cinematic technique.
4. Everyone knows the famous score and sound design. Just know that if I ever make a Western I am using the exact same bullet ricochet sounds Leone decided to use.
5. Watching the film now, some fifty years later it is cheesy and ridiculous AND so damn good! I love the film because it's dubbed, because of the awful sound effects used for bullets, because it is interminably paced at times.
6. The relationship between Tuco and Blondie. Who hasn't had a friendship with someone in which the other person was in no way, shape or form good for you to be around? But you couldn't stay away either?
7. Tuco and Blondie blow up the bridge. How excellent for Leone to insert not only an anti-war message into his film (at the height of the Cold War and Vietnam) but also to dramatize the folly of military endeavors at times as well as showcase the extreme waste wars make of young men. By blowing up the bridge, Tuco and Blondie throw up a big middle finger at the establishment.
8. The great lines, particularly this one uttered by Tuco. As he takes a bath (the only one in the film I might add) he is held up by a bandit he had left for dead earlier in the film. As the bandit inquires about Tuco's surprise at seeing him, Tuco shoots and simply says "you're gonna shoot, shoot. Don't talk". Cue that great score again.
9. Clint Eastwood. How many American men living today would be cowboys if they could be just like Clint is as "The Man With No Name"? If they could chew on and smoke weak cigars, wear a poncho, speak terse lines through gritted teeth? The line starts after me.
10. Hands down the best part of the film is the Mexican standoff ending/showdown between Tuco, Blondie and Angel Eyes. The composition of the scene, the gradual movement from long shots to extreme close ups, the ever quickening editing pace, stopping the score entirely and then re-starting it with a different track. All brilliant technical work. And just the idea of that standoff, not knowing who is gonna shoot who. Just an amazing seven minutes of film.
I've watched the film plenty of times and will continue to do so. My love for it never fades and as always I only hope to one day be apart of cinema that is so good.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
MONEYBALL (Bennett Miller, Columbia, 2011)
One of the most controversial issues facing the game of baseball right now is the use of instant replay. It is being used on a small scale basis but there are those that argue its use should be more widespread. MONEYBALL (Bennett Miller, Columbia, 2011) is a baseball film that doesn't stand up using instant replay (re-watching the film). The first time I saw it I was really impressed and I owe much of that to my unbridled love of baseball. My second viewing allowed me to focus more objectively on the film and it's various strengths and weaknesses. The performances by Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill and Phillip Seymour Hoffman were all good and the cinematography was outstanding. In the end though this film was weakened by a complete destruction of the narrative and being such a huge baseball fan this is the most important part of the film to me.
Being the most important part, I had to look at the narrative distantly and my second viewing gave me pause. The adaptation from the book is awful. The films narrative is in no way related to what the book focused on. Granted, two things must be accounted for. First, a book about a drafting strategy is not a sexy Hollywood picture. Second, the film is going to need to focus on its protagonist, Billy Beane (Pitt). That said they took complete narrative license and focused on events related to the A's but events that were not a part of the book. They crafted a protagonist-antagonist relationship specifically for the film, painting Art Howe (Hoffman) as a buffoon and villain. The film focused a good portion on the A's winning 20 straight games which had nothing to do with the book at all. The film took great liberties in simply forgetting that the A's had built a tremendous team prior to adopting Moneyball strategies. Seriously, they mentioned Eric Chavez ONCE, never Miguel Tejada and not one mention of Hudson, Mulder, Zito et al. This group of core players was the A's at the turn of the century along with Jason Giambi and Johnny Damon. And then the films final little stab at make believe, claiming the Red Sox won their first title in 86 years after they adopted Moneyball strategy. This complete and total destruction of events as they happened, hyperstylization of narrative to fit Hollywood standards and disregard for the books narrative serve to weaken this film immeasurably to my eyes and surely to those of other baseball fans.
For those people that watch the film and are not baseball fans they are treated to some good acting performances by the stars of the film. Both Jonah Hill and Philip Seymour Hoffman are good, though Hoffman isn't given much to work with in the role. And I'm impressed with Hill but not convinced he deserved a Oscar nomination for the role, particularly over Albert Brooks in DRIVE (Refn, 2011). The star of the film is Brad Pitt and he owns the film like only Mr. Pitt can. Long my favorite actor, it's good to see him bouncing back and attacking roles again. He seemingly disappeared for a long time and watching him in MONEYBALL, showing charm, guile and a little bit of craziness brings back memories of his great roles of the past.
The film does carry one outstanding feature that I particularly loved and that is its cinematography. This film had the best cinematography for a baseball film I have ever seen, including THE NATURAL (Levinson, 1984). The hardest thing to watch in any baseball film is non players acting as baseball players (Tim Robbins as Nuke Lalouche anyone?). This film has legitimate players performing in legitimate baseball scenes. They also did a nice job of intercutting actual footage into scenes (a deserved Oscar nod there).
All in all, technically this was a very well done baseball film. Narratively it is not, in fact it is an egregious slight to Michael Lewis in my opinion. As a film about adapting to change and surviving in an ever changing world, then I give it a thumbs up. Just give it another name, and claim it is loosely based on the book. Maybe we can use instant replay on that aspect, go back in time and have the film executives make the right call.
Being the most important part, I had to look at the narrative distantly and my second viewing gave me pause. The adaptation from the book is awful. The films narrative is in no way related to what the book focused on. Granted, two things must be accounted for. First, a book about a drafting strategy is not a sexy Hollywood picture. Second, the film is going to need to focus on its protagonist, Billy Beane (Pitt). That said they took complete narrative license and focused on events related to the A's but events that were not a part of the book. They crafted a protagonist-antagonist relationship specifically for the film, painting Art Howe (Hoffman) as a buffoon and villain. The film focused a good portion on the A's winning 20 straight games which had nothing to do with the book at all. The film took great liberties in simply forgetting that the A's had built a tremendous team prior to adopting Moneyball strategies. Seriously, they mentioned Eric Chavez ONCE, never Miguel Tejada and not one mention of Hudson, Mulder, Zito et al. This group of core players was the A's at the turn of the century along with Jason Giambi and Johnny Damon. And then the films final little stab at make believe, claiming the Red Sox won their first title in 86 years after they adopted Moneyball strategy. This complete and total destruction of events as they happened, hyperstylization of narrative to fit Hollywood standards and disregard for the books narrative serve to weaken this film immeasurably to my eyes and surely to those of other baseball fans.
For those people that watch the film and are not baseball fans they are treated to some good acting performances by the stars of the film. Both Jonah Hill and Philip Seymour Hoffman are good, though Hoffman isn't given much to work with in the role. And I'm impressed with Hill but not convinced he deserved a Oscar nomination for the role, particularly over Albert Brooks in DRIVE (Refn, 2011). The star of the film is Brad Pitt and he owns the film like only Mr. Pitt can. Long my favorite actor, it's good to see him bouncing back and attacking roles again. He seemingly disappeared for a long time and watching him in MONEYBALL, showing charm, guile and a little bit of craziness brings back memories of his great roles of the past.
The film does carry one outstanding feature that I particularly loved and that is its cinematography. This film had the best cinematography for a baseball film I have ever seen, including THE NATURAL (Levinson, 1984). The hardest thing to watch in any baseball film is non players acting as baseball players (Tim Robbins as Nuke Lalouche anyone?). This film has legitimate players performing in legitimate baseball scenes. They also did a nice job of intercutting actual footage into scenes (a deserved Oscar nod there).
All in all, technically this was a very well done baseball film. Narratively it is not, in fact it is an egregious slight to Michael Lewis in my opinion. As a film about adapting to change and surviving in an ever changing world, then I give it a thumbs up. Just give it another name, and claim it is loosely based on the book. Maybe we can use instant replay on that aspect, go back in time and have the film executives make the right call.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
DRIVE (Nicolas Winding Refn, Film District, 2011)
Every now and then a film appears on the landscape that simply blows me away and fills me with the desire to make something similar. DRIVE (Nicolas Winding Refn, Film District, 2011) is not only a fantastic film but it's one of those that not only gives me that desire to make great films but instructs me on ways to do it. The film is visually stunning, crafted elegantly and is deeply layered. The film also provides insight into a shadow world that lies beneath us and gives us a reflection of who and what we are, if we were examine ourselves closely. If I had to give a one word description about every aspect of this film it would simply be dichotomous.
Alfred Hitchcock was quoted as saying " to make a great film you need three things - the script, the script and the script. DRIVE takes this to heart. I haven't read the book which the film is based upon (though I did just order it) so I can't comment on the adaptation. The narrative is the first place that the dichotomy shows. At times brutal and jarring at others it is lyrical and poetic. Extreme violence is juxtaposed with an unrequited love story. The Driver (Ryan Gosling) is the perfect example of this. From moment to moment the audience has no idea when violence will erupt from him. This is best displayed in the elevator scene as he kisses Irene (Carey Mulligan) but then viciously and brutally kills a man. The characters in the film are fully developed and deal from a position of total motivation. Not one action does not ring true or unmotivated in the film. Finally, the screenplay does not overuse dialogue as is commonplace today in film. This lack of dialogue enhances the visual aspect of the film and helps to set up the violence.
The films violence is perpetrated mainly by two characters both of which are achieved with two stellar acting performances. Gosling plays The Driver and he alternates between stoicism and a childlike immaturity and then moments of extreme violence rarely seen on the screen. This emotionally crippled character cannot advance his relationship with Irene, relates best with her son yet brutally kills time and again. His dichotomous persona is matched only by Bernie Rose (Albert Brooks). A stunning performance by Brooks, he plays an older version of the Driver. A man hardened and made immune by years of violence, a man resigned to what the world has made him. Watch the scene in which Rose kills Shannon (Bryan Cranston), the levels of emotion that rise and fall in that simple scene are amazing.
This is all achieved by an incredible display of direction and technical prowess by Refn. His style is heavily influenced by the eighties. I instantly thought of Friedkin's under heralded TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. when I watched the film for the first time. I mentioned earlier that the film can best be described as dichotomous and in the production of the film this is seen all over. I attribute this to the direction of Refn. He places his camera in angles and positions which serve to remind us we are watching a film. He uses natural lighting throughout the film and also gives his lighting a flow, like it's a character within the film. Watch the scene in the hotel room after Driver has killed the two attackers. The camera stays quietly on Gosling's face and as he recedes into the background he goes from light to dark and then subtly disappears. I cannot say how impressive this is to me.
Even more impressive is Refn's use of sound design throughout the film. Many times he chooses to go silent (lack of dialogue) and this silence slowly builds tension in the audience. The score gives us that dichotomy between sound and image beautifully. Lyrical and childlike music drifts between images of violence and killing. As the soundtrack plays upbeat and friendly electro synth songs Refn chooses to cut to moments of death and violence. The whole balance that is struck between the two leaves the audience never knowing and takes us on a ride we cannot expect or comprehend.
Finally the film makes commentary on two things that really intrigue me personally. I think the film is excessively stylized particularly in its lighting, cinematography, sound and it's use of violence. I feel this is an accurate reflection of our society and how we are starting to interact with each other. Excessive technological advancements mirror the stylization in our films and our interaction with each other are beginning to reflect both. We are more connected on the world yet further disconnected from each other. And this is my second observation that I feel the film makes, that of urban isolation. Driver is a man alone in the world, unable to connect and make a real relationship in his life. To me this reflects a growing trend in our society as real relationships are declining with a rise in technological ones.
In the end this is one of the best films of 2011. It cements Gosling as a star that can carry a film. It places Refn as a director to watch and gives me a blueprint for how to emulate films and filmmaking.
Alfred Hitchcock was quoted as saying " to make a great film you need three things - the script, the script and the script. DRIVE takes this to heart. I haven't read the book which the film is based upon (though I did just order it) so I can't comment on the adaptation. The narrative is the first place that the dichotomy shows. At times brutal and jarring at others it is lyrical and poetic. Extreme violence is juxtaposed with an unrequited love story. The Driver (Ryan Gosling) is the perfect example of this. From moment to moment the audience has no idea when violence will erupt from him. This is best displayed in the elevator scene as he kisses Irene (Carey Mulligan) but then viciously and brutally kills a man. The characters in the film are fully developed and deal from a position of total motivation. Not one action does not ring true or unmotivated in the film. Finally, the screenplay does not overuse dialogue as is commonplace today in film. This lack of dialogue enhances the visual aspect of the film and helps to set up the violence.
The films violence is perpetrated mainly by two characters both of which are achieved with two stellar acting performances. Gosling plays The Driver and he alternates between stoicism and a childlike immaturity and then moments of extreme violence rarely seen on the screen. This emotionally crippled character cannot advance his relationship with Irene, relates best with her son yet brutally kills time and again. His dichotomous persona is matched only by Bernie Rose (Albert Brooks). A stunning performance by Brooks, he plays an older version of the Driver. A man hardened and made immune by years of violence, a man resigned to what the world has made him. Watch the scene in which Rose kills Shannon (Bryan Cranston), the levels of emotion that rise and fall in that simple scene are amazing.
This is all achieved by an incredible display of direction and technical prowess by Refn. His style is heavily influenced by the eighties. I instantly thought of Friedkin's under heralded TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. when I watched the film for the first time. I mentioned earlier that the film can best be described as dichotomous and in the production of the film this is seen all over. I attribute this to the direction of Refn. He places his camera in angles and positions which serve to remind us we are watching a film. He uses natural lighting throughout the film and also gives his lighting a flow, like it's a character within the film. Watch the scene in the hotel room after Driver has killed the two attackers. The camera stays quietly on Gosling's face and as he recedes into the background he goes from light to dark and then subtly disappears. I cannot say how impressive this is to me.
Even more impressive is Refn's use of sound design throughout the film. Many times he chooses to go silent (lack of dialogue) and this silence slowly builds tension in the audience. The score gives us that dichotomy between sound and image beautifully. Lyrical and childlike music drifts between images of violence and killing. As the soundtrack plays upbeat and friendly electro synth songs Refn chooses to cut to moments of death and violence. The whole balance that is struck between the two leaves the audience never knowing and takes us on a ride we cannot expect or comprehend.
Finally the film makes commentary on two things that really intrigue me personally. I think the film is excessively stylized particularly in its lighting, cinematography, sound and it's use of violence. I feel this is an accurate reflection of our society and how we are starting to interact with each other. Excessive technological advancements mirror the stylization in our films and our interaction with each other are beginning to reflect both. We are more connected on the world yet further disconnected from each other. And this is my second observation that I feel the film makes, that of urban isolation. Driver is a man alone in the world, unable to connect and make a real relationship in his life. To me this reflects a growing trend in our society as real relationships are declining with a rise in technological ones.
In the end this is one of the best films of 2011. It cements Gosling as a star that can carry a film. It places Refn as a director to watch and gives me a blueprint for how to emulate films and filmmaking.
Monday, March 5, 2012
OSS 117: CAIRO, NEST OF SPIES and LOST IN RIO (Michel Hazanivicius, 2006/2009)
When a relatively unknown director from another country takes the Academy by storm and wins three of the top five prizes at the awards ceremony there is going to be heightened interest in that mans career. Such is the case with Michel Hazanivicius and his two brilliant parodies of the Eurospy genre OSS 117 CAIRO, NEST OF SPIES and LOST IN RIO. I recently had the good fortune to see a twin billing of these two great comedies at the New Beverly and Hazanivicius great love of the classic directors and their films is obvious, just as Jean Dujardin's amazing talent shines through in all three films he has done with Hazanivicius. And all three are great examples of postmodern films as they capture many traits and characteristics of that period.
The two films strengths begins with there superb writing. These narratives are witty and satirical, always funny and so decadent in there appreciation of not taking oneself too seriously. They seemingly mock our society and it's constant barrage of political correctness with every quip. The characterization of our protagonist is a display of postmodernism in the blowing up of the conventions of the genre. Hubert de Bath (Dujardin) is a fool, prone to racist and sexist remarks and stumbles upon the solutions to his adventures. Not your typical master spy. Yet we root for him all the same. This isn't to say that he doesn't have moments of genuine like-ability and heartfelt tenderness. In CAIRO, he repeatedly turns the lights on and off at his poultry factory. He sincerely can't get over the fact that chickens cluck in the light. In RIO, the chasing of the Nazi in the hospital, while attached to an IV is pure comedy.
It is Dujardin that gives the role and the film this sense of like-ability and he also provides his comic flair to the role. Some are calling him the French George Clooney, and like Clooney he is a master of using his face to convey so much. His eyebrow raising alone should be nominated for something. Dujardin also plays his being French to complete extreme, serving to mock that which he is portraying. The best example of this is the portrayal of French men being masculine and great lovers. Throughout both films Dujardin exemplifies this except for two moments. The first when he is receiving a rubdown at the steam bath from a Russian man in CAIRO and then again in RIO as he encounters hippies and the free love lifestyle and may or may not have sex with a man. Dujardin can play both forms of sexuality with guile and ease and this is the destruction of the classic star persona that is yet another trait of the postmodern period of filmmaking.
The overt display of the female sexuality also stems from the postmodern period and there are four beautiful examples in the two films. In CAIRO we get to see Aure Atika as the Princess and the lovely Berenice Bejo as Larmina. In RIO we see Louise Monot and Reem Kharici, with Kharici a constant display of feminine sexuality. The best example of this overt display occurs as Hubert subdues and ties up Larmina. As he escapes his devout Muslim captors can't decide whether to stop him or watch the tied up and mostly naked Larmina. They are using her sexuality to propel the narrative and further destroy the conventions of the genre (and religion).
Ultimately Hazanivicius crafts a loving homage to films and filmmakers. Through the very postmodern characteristic of pastiche he crafts his entire film. The works of Wilder, Hitchcock, Edwards and any director of a Bond film can immediately be seen. The entire final sequence of RIO, as Hubert chases Von Himmel (Rudiger Vogler) out onto the massive Christ statue in Rio, it is essentially a shot after shot mimicking of the great Hitchcock works. We see the VERTIGO staircase followed closely by the SABOTAGE statue sequence. In this way Hazanivicius follows those two great filmmakers from France, Godard and Truffaut in his love of American cinema. And we are all the better off for being able to view his works!
The two films strengths begins with there superb writing. These narratives are witty and satirical, always funny and so decadent in there appreciation of not taking oneself too seriously. They seemingly mock our society and it's constant barrage of political correctness with every quip. The characterization of our protagonist is a display of postmodernism in the blowing up of the conventions of the genre. Hubert de Bath (Dujardin) is a fool, prone to racist and sexist remarks and stumbles upon the solutions to his adventures. Not your typical master spy. Yet we root for him all the same. This isn't to say that he doesn't have moments of genuine like-ability and heartfelt tenderness. In CAIRO, he repeatedly turns the lights on and off at his poultry factory. He sincerely can't get over the fact that chickens cluck in the light. In RIO, the chasing of the Nazi in the hospital, while attached to an IV is pure comedy.
It is Dujardin that gives the role and the film this sense of like-ability and he also provides his comic flair to the role. Some are calling him the French George Clooney, and like Clooney he is a master of using his face to convey so much. His eyebrow raising alone should be nominated for something. Dujardin also plays his being French to complete extreme, serving to mock that which he is portraying. The best example of this is the portrayal of French men being masculine and great lovers. Throughout both films Dujardin exemplifies this except for two moments. The first when he is receiving a rubdown at the steam bath from a Russian man in CAIRO and then again in RIO as he encounters hippies and the free love lifestyle and may or may not have sex with a man. Dujardin can play both forms of sexuality with guile and ease and this is the destruction of the classic star persona that is yet another trait of the postmodern period of filmmaking.
The overt display of the female sexuality also stems from the postmodern period and there are four beautiful examples in the two films. In CAIRO we get to see Aure Atika as the Princess and the lovely Berenice Bejo as Larmina. In RIO we see Louise Monot and Reem Kharici, with Kharici a constant display of feminine sexuality. The best example of this overt display occurs as Hubert subdues and ties up Larmina. As he escapes his devout Muslim captors can't decide whether to stop him or watch the tied up and mostly naked Larmina. They are using her sexuality to propel the narrative and further destroy the conventions of the genre (and religion).
Ultimately Hazanivicius crafts a loving homage to films and filmmakers. Through the very postmodern characteristic of pastiche he crafts his entire film. The works of Wilder, Hitchcock, Edwards and any director of a Bond film can immediately be seen. The entire final sequence of RIO, as Hubert chases Von Himmel (Rudiger Vogler) out onto the massive Christ statue in Rio, it is essentially a shot after shot mimicking of the great Hitchcock works. We see the VERTIGO staircase followed closely by the SABOTAGE statue sequence. In this way Hazanivicius follows those two great filmmakers from France, Godard and Truffaut in his love of American cinema. And we are all the better off for being able to view his works!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)