Best wishes to good directors

I love good directors.  Ones who challenge the medium and create works of art that are outside of the proverbial box.  That’s why I hate it when I see a film by a director that I admire that does not seem to display their full potential.  Either they get land blasted by critics for not recreating their former state of glory, or they are coddled by Hollywood so much that they are not stretching themselves artistically (I am talking to you Lucas).  Anyway, here are some of my best wishes to some directors that I know have the talent and potential to truly be masters at what they do…

Michel Goudry–He won us all over with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.  I remember being moved so much after seeing this film that it made me want to get involved with filmmaking.  He does the “old-school” camera tricks and then re-invents new tricks to avoid as much post-edit work as possible.  He defines creativity when it comes to moving pictures.  Science of Sleep fell on deaf ears (a noble effort but not for mainstream audiences) and then Be Kind Rewind was just…cute, and that’s all.  My wish for him is external material.  He needs to get a hold of a good book and adapt it to screen or work with someone like Charlie Kaufman again to give him material with content that can match his creative vision.

Guy Ritchie–Our friend of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and SNATCH.  Oh what delicious films.  Then he came out with Swept Away and Revolver…they…just didn’t work.  Now here is a guy that knows how to make the camera explosive and he has a gift for writing crackling dialogue.  My wish for him is to ease off of the big concept objective and simplify the script.  (There is a huge influence of Kabala and Philosophy in Revolver that chokes his film to death).  Keep the influences, but allow the story to breath on it’s own without the overarching need to preach to the audience.  I hear RocknRolla is a return to his former style and material, keep your fingers crossed.

M. Night Shyamalan–I know this guy is good.  He brought back true suspense in The Six Sense–I thought we had killed suspense off for cheap thrills and gore.  I was one of the ones that liked his other works too, until I saw The Happening.  That was just awful.  We all can feel him trying to make his points and scare us like he did before, but as I said, we can feel his need to impress us bleeding out in his films and it is depressing.  My wish for him is to escape his name.  Everyone knows what to expect with him now that his name dictates the style of film that we are about to watch.  I would suggest allowing other directors to use his material–I would applaud him if he was simply credited as a screenwriter.  He needs to relax and get back to basic storytelling.  I hear his next project will be an animated movie–good idea.

There will be more warm wishes to come this Holiday season.  Support the indie directors out there, and keep rooting for the good directors.

Body of Lies

While I was in New York, I hopped over to the cinema to watch BODY OF LIES directed by Ridley Scott.  This film examines the lies and deceit that go on in modern day espionage.  Leonardo DiCaprio is the man in the field that does the leg work, while Russel Crowe acts as the “big brother” who watches and instructs him on his next move.  DiCaprio must manipulate the system by befriending the local authorities and dodge the terrorists, however the line between right and wrong blurs with each step he takes.  Crowe tries to keep the big picture and deals with every situation as a teenager casually playing a video game.  We see the lengths to which we are willing to go to secure “democracy” and what we are willing to sacrifice for our morality and honor to achieve that objective.

What’s good about it: I was continually interested in where the movie was going, so I was intent on learning everything I could from every scene.  Crowe seems to be a wonderful symbol of bureaucracy and American perspective (we can bomb a city or assassinate an enemy while dropping our kids off to school).  DiCaprio questions the “why’s” behind the actions of his boss and in turn he questions his government.  As an audience, we must then question our own government.  The most interesting thing in the film is finding that brutality and terrorism is found in all of us.

What’s not so good: There is nothing new here.  Ridley Scott does not seem to cover any new ground that hasn’t been covered in films like Syrianna, Munich, and Babel.  The most depressing part of the film is how little we care for the deaths we see.  Friends and innocents are killed, and we may have a moment of perplexity about it, but the dead are forgotten within the next scene never to be thought about again.  If the characters don’t feel the weight of their choices then we won’t care as an audience.  I felt like I was simply watching the movie run scenes to tell a story without any strong attachment to the characters.  DiCaprio and Crowe are fun to watch, but there is nothing much here that allows us to truly understand the characters they portray–and that may very well be the point.  We cannot understand this situation, which makes it a difficult leap for an audience to relate.  And there is a romance thrown into the story that really doesn’t fit and ultimately seemed so forced.

Honestly, you can skip this one.  I wanted to love this movie, and I was interested throughout, but ultimately I did not feel any growth or development from the story.  I wonder if they really could not figure out what the statement was with this film (they tried to make a point but I never saw anything change as a result of that point).  Averagely filmed, averagely acted, averagely told…

A Mighty Heart

Thank goodness for this film.  For a moment there I thought we had lost Angelina Jolie to the mighty hand of Hollywood sensationalism.  But in this film, she subtly and strongly gives the best performance of her career.  The film chronicles the life of Mariane Pearl when her journalist husband is kidnapped by Pakistani terrorist.  Much like a pearl, we see how this woman is refined and strengthened through a difficult ordeal.  The film examines how hatred and revenge may not be things we must resign ourselves too; perhaps there is a higher road in our pain other than striking back at our attackers.

What’s good about it: It is shot in a very documentary style.  It is based on the book that the actual Mariane Pearl wrote so the authenticity in storytelling is one of the strong points.  Jolie really does a fine job connecting with the material and using an accent that does not detract from the story.  Because the story is filmed in such an authentic manner, the emotional attachment is so much stronger–your heart breaks.  And it is an important film, especially in a time where terrorism and aggression seem to be the main courses in our television meals.  You really do question what you would do if you were in Pearl’s position, and how we can take her example and apply it in your own life.  What interested me the most was that we typically assume that the Middle Easterners are the “bad-guys” in films today, but we see that there are plenty of Pakistanis that would do anything to see Mariane’s husband returned.  There are no clear villains, but the heroes stand out not because of there nationality but the content of there character.

What’s not so good:  Sadly, Angelina (while being the strength of the film) may be too big of a face for the film.  It is hard to completely divorce ourselves from the constant images of her and believe that she is Mariane Pearl.  The film’s storyline is extremely complex and hard to follow–and that is the point.  We see the characters chasing after names and locations that change and disappear continually.  When at first the objective seems clear; the waters soon become muddy.  We as an audience also get lost in the mix and we simply watch them follow leads to which we have a difficult time connecting too.  When films move into such large grey areas, it can be hard for an audience to know what is going on at all times.

A fantastic film and very much worth a watch.  I was emotionally challenged and it made me question my own strength in the midst of tragedy.  I think anyone who has an opinion about what is going on in the Middle East would do well to see this film.  We are moved to act by this piece, and I believe that this is a worthy example of how to make a “war film” for our time.  If you have an opinion about the war and you try to convey that opinion in a film–you will divide your audience and show nothing that cannot be accomplished by the evening news (I am talking to you LIONS FOR LAMBS).  However, if you concentrate your story on one life and how one person lived through a tragic event, then we see truth.

Does it matter? Digital vs Film

Earlier this month, Roger Ebert wrote on his blog about his views on digital projectors. Im going to write on his coattails about this.

Recently, the film studios have decided to help fund digital projectors our theaters. This is due to the fact that many more movies are jumping on the 3D bandwagon. So to cash in on their investment the studios have decided to help front the bill.

Before I read Ebert’s blog, I would have told you that digital projectors where a nesssary evil for me to get my 3D fix, but outside of that it was a degression to the format. Why? Because I have a tendency to be an elitist and nostalgic. I felt fine with my view till I read Ebert’s thoughts. I have seen a couple of movies on digital that weren’t 3D, and I could tell a small difference. The titles on the screen were sharper and there was a small “difference” in the picture. I couldn’t tell you why, or what the small difference” was, or if it was something i just wanted to see. All i know is that halfway through the movie I had forgotten about the “diffrence.”

What may be the true loss in digital projectors is the magic. This may be totally cerebral, but there seems to be a magic about a series of pictures being projected through film, onto a screen. Does this really affect my theater expriance. I can’t hear the projector. Can i really see the flicker of the projector? Id like to thinks so, but who knows.

I think what it comes down to is that good movies will still be good in digital and bad movies will stil be bad. My only concern is if older movies will be converted to digital. I recently saw Back to the Future at a local theater that shows older movies, on the weekend. As a kid, I wore out this VHS tape. There was something about seeing it on the big screen for the first time. I cant put it in words, but it was an experience that I had never had with that movie before. The only diffrence was the theater. So, as long as I can crowd into a theater with total strangers and the smell of stale popcorn, I think I’ll be ok.

Moby Dick (1956)

I scoured my VHS collection and I came across Moby Dick.  The classic tale from the pages of Herman Melville’s novel which I read in undergrad.  Now the book is something you really have to strap yourself in and commit too.  It can be intimidating and tedious, but ultimately rewarding.  The book makes me want to give everything up and go sailing.  The film cuts down the material considerably, which is the result of any film adaptation.  However, I was entertained and intrigued by the film techniques and story.

What’s good about it–It really is a classic.  The performances are very cultured and refined–Gregory Peck is powerful, and I loved the scene Orson Wells plays as the preacher.  The effects are actually pretty strong for being filmed in the 50’s.  Because the filmmakers have so much material to work with, I believe that the narrative is far more flushed out and stronger than most.  You truly connect with the themes of revenge and pain that resonate within much of literature and film.  Ahab is such a universal character that we both dread and sympathize with his mad pursuit.  What does the White Whale represent–some say the A-bomb, the government, sin, the devil, God, ourselves…obviously the discussions can abound.

What’s not so good–The dialogue is rich, but you really have to approach this film as you would a Shakespearean play.  You do need a bit of culture before hand to catch everything–not exactly one to pop in with a big group of friends; you gotta listen.  It bothered me that they didn’t have a ethnically correct actor to play Queequeg, but that is a result of the time that it was made.  The effects are dated, though they did not distract me from the story.  Gregory Peck is actually (in my opinion) too young for the part–he was actually 3 years younger than the actor playing Ismael.  He does a fantastic job, but Ahab is supposed to be much older.  John Huston, a legendary filmmaker, might be a bit constricted by the story on this one, so it is not his strongest effort.

Definitely worth a watch for Huston and Peck fans.  You do have to give the film a little grace for it’s speedthrough version, but I really enjoyed it.  I think it stands the test of time–watch JAWS right after it and you will see what I mean.

An annoyance

Let’s talk shop.  What do remakes tell us?  Some look at it as a great thing–a new vision for a popular story.  A modernization of a film so that it can appeal to a new audience.  This sounds good–I love what they have done with such films as 3:10 to Yuma, the Batman franchise, Solaris, and many others.  It gives new energy and more depth to these characters and plots.  There are moments when I am actually happy they are revamping the Terminator movies…

But…

I know they have plans to also remaking The Birds, Ghostbusters, All the King’s Men, The Dirty Dozen, Easy Rider, and Gaslight.  What does it really teach us?  Instead of adjusting our perspective to meet the art, we adjust the art to meet our perspective.  Of course films can become outdated, but shouldn’t we as a film audience try a little to understand the perspective of the time in which the film came out?  My brother went to see a screening of “THE BIRDS” and he said that many of the young students simply laughed at the “cheesy” effects.  You know, those cheesy effects that were revolutionary for 1963.

Perhaps I am just being a stickler because I have a deep heart for film history.  Perhaps I am cynical because I don’t want to see a remake of Kurosawa’s “THE SEVEN SAMURAI,” coming out next year. Perhaps we should start talking about remaking “CASABLANCA”.  Perhaps…

Lars and the Real Girl

I was one of the few that had put off watching this film until now.  I was afraid of over-sentimentality and it looked like it could easily turn into a cliche movie.  However, I was pleasantly surprised that the heart within this movie never turned sour.

The basic premise is that you got a introverted recluse who is afraid of human contact–so much so that he chooses to fall in love with a life-size sex doll and treat her as a real girl.  However, instead of the whole town shunning him, they accept his odd choice and embrace him with love.  Everyone in the town plays along and they all treat “Bianca” as a real person.

What’s good about it: The performances.  Very quite and real and Gosling knocks it out of the park (I have really enjoyed his work over the years).  Everyone in the cast knew the tight rope they were walking and that if they ever strayed into forced humor or sentimentality then the whole movie would have really crashed.  They countered this by being completely sincere in everything they did.  It becomes a human story, one that we all can connect with.  We all know a Lars in our life, and this movie shows the power of acceptance and love.

What’s not so good:  Some people dog the performances as being wooden and lifeless.  I disagree, I think we are so used to attention grabbing “big-moment” scenes that we are not content as an audience to let a film simply wash over us and discuss it later.  It was a bit of a leap to believe that everyone in the town would accept Lars’ delusion.  At what point do we say, “This is unhealthy and he needs to stop.”  They ask this question at the beginning, but that question gives way to their love for Lars–but I kept asking that question.  Yes, it might be good for him to work through his personal demons in this way, but at what cost.  Some people never come out of a delusional state such as that, and the endorsement of the delusion can sometimes make it worse.

However, what I enjoyed is that it made us question these things.  What would we do in that situation?  Films should allow us to ask these questions ourselves and leave us to determine what each of us would do.  It brings up similar questions of “why do we call a person ‘insane’, when is insanity simply just ‘individuality’, ect.”  I think the most brilliant part about this movie is that it can be watched by the whole family.  It is a great discussion movie and it is also a wonderful piece of art.

Retro-goodness

I found this over at wellmedicated.com:

I love the past, especially when it involves Woody Allen inside a sea shell.