So, I put the entirety of this film review in the title above. Simply put, the 2010 horror flick Insidious, directed by James Wan, is one of the worst movies I have seen of late. I'll even dare to say I'd rather watch The Hangover 2 again before watching this film. The only other Wan film I have ever seen is Saw, but if this film is any indication of his work, I wish he had stopped there.
Knowing absolutely nothing about this film, I happened to walk into the theater on a whim one Sunday afternoon. Luckily it was at the local "cheap seats," or second run theater and the two tickets purchased cost a grand total of $3. This is important as I have never walked out of a theater and asked for my money back, a trend that saw a recent spike in popularity with the release of Terrence Malik's The Tree of Life, which I have still yet to see. This film was almost my first.
It certainly doesn't help that in watching this film every one of my sense was attacked. Beyond the poor excuse for a horror film happening in front of me, I was forced to watch a teen couple fondle themselves in the seats in front of me, listen to two crying babies, gag on the dollar store perfume of a lay sitting somewhere in my vicinity, and was afraid to even slip off my flip flops for fear of a sticky floor. Nonetheless, the content of Insidious beyond my terrible movie experience also left me disappointing and annoyed. The story was bleak and predictable, and my intelligence was even insulted when at the end, surprise surprise, Patrick Wilson's character Josh doe world of blacknesssn't return to his body and I am left with a wannabe cliff hanger ending.
The lack of a gripping plot was only heightened by a lack of acting talent and emotionless characters. Not even Rose Byrne was able to give me a believable performance, not to mention the lack of a character ark and emotion from Patrick Wilson. If I had a son in an unexplainable comma and a stay at home wife going insane in a haunted house, I wouldn't sit in a classroom staring at the camera with an emotionless expression for an hour and a half. The simple lack of character expression and connection between each other, and the audience, is enough to turn me off of the movie. Yet, still the worst part is the complete lack of imagination in the story. I knew nothing about astral projection going into this film, and now I have no desire to ever learn anymore because it leads to 103 minute movies of people sitting around talking very unscientifically about walking through a dark "insidious" world of blackness. Not even the imaginary world of astral projection was visually appealing enough to entertain me. I mean Koyaanisqatsi is boring too, but at least it looks good.
Overall, this film offers nothing new to the art of film or world of entertainment. Sadly, the writing team of James Wan and Leigh Whannell seems unable to provide the audience with a visually entertaining or intellectually creative film as they did with the first trend setting Saw. The scariest part of this film is that one day, I may have to sit through it again.
Insidious
Friday, August 5, 2011
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Let Them Eat Cake! And Watch Marie Antoinette for Their Sweet 16!
To think of Sofia Coppola’s 2006 film Marie Antoinette as a historically accurate period piece reflecting the life and times of the famed last queen of France, is as much of a mistake as believing Edward Wood Jr.’s Plan 9 From Outer Space is a flawless masterpiece. Still the acceptance of Marie Antoinette as something other than a historical period piece does not dismiss the fact that the film is a teenybopper film more suitable for mall going tweens, than the average adult movie audience. It is not a film of universal appeal as one might be lead to believe, instead Sofia Coppola has made a film about an old world Paris Hilton who seems to care more about her reputation, shopping, and money, than the position of power she has been born into. In fact, based on this film, one would half expect a homemade sex painting of Marie Antoinette copulating with the young soldier with whom she had an affair to surface and spreads around the countries newspapers. Mrs. Coppola may have set out to make a film about consumerism in the (old and current) world, only set in 18th century France, yet has focused too much on the aspects of teenage girls.
The decision to intertwine historically accurate period music, with modern pop and puck rock is one that not only deters one from the narrative of the film but also feels like an overindulgence itself. When Bow Wow Wow’s “I Want Candy” burst through the speakers, Sofia Coppola has simply taken it too far, placing more importance on the beat of the pop music, than the actual message she is trying to convey; simply because a song has a line like “I want candy,” and there is candy on screen, does not make it and appropriate correlation. Also, her choice to covertly slip in a pair of purple converse during a scene all about shoes could be conceived as a clever trick to remind the audience that the theme of this movie can apply to today as much as back then. However, with British one-hit-wonders of Bow Wow Wow, and Gang of Four begin to blast through the speakers, it is like Sofia Coppola trying to thrust her intention down my throat; as if I need modern pop music to be able to make a connection between Marie Antoinette and Paris Hilton. Beyond this, there is a constant switch between the periodic music of the 1700’s and modern punk of today. This might have been an acceptable tool had the non-diagetic music stuck to one era, and kept the period music to just the diagetic music in the film. Yet, Coppola can’t seem to decide, and in the tradition of a true adolescent teen girl, is unable to make up her mind.
Music was not the only deterrent from the film, even the acting lacks any sort of continuity throughout the film. Kirsten Dunst plays the aristocratic queen of France, yet talks in American slang like she is from the California in the 1990’s. In fact she plays the valley girl so well that it remains hard to tell if what she was doing was really acting. Dunst sounds far too comfortable dragging out her words like ‘sooooo’ that it makes the others speaking English with an attempted French accent (like Jason Schwartzman trying to play young Louis XVI) sound even more ridiculous and absurd. Watching her continually shop for new clothes and dress up in new lavish costumes everyday gives more a feel that Dunst is there playing dress up, rather than acting in a film. The varied range of acting styles in the film make it even harder to accept Marie Antoinette as a serious film with anything more to do other than capture the minds of teenage girls who giggle over the young men in the film and marvel at the shoes so often depicted in the film. Coppola even gets so brash as to throw in a pair of purple converse as if to say ‘look at me I’m now in the modern era, I know what cool is.’
Not even the set design of the film allows one a break from the barrage of trendy aesthetic. Every scene is filled with elaborate patterns and bright colors distracting from the actual image, putting the viewer in a hypnotic trance of color. Even the scenes shot outdoors with Marie Antoinette are full of an elaborate excess of design in the gardens and rows of large trees all placed in perfect lines. As she walks along a path in the garden she asks for more large trees to be planted like she wanted them tomorrow, unaware that trees cannot grow to full height in one day. She then feels as though she is compromising when she is told they do not have enough money to afford a new line of trees, so she ‘graciously’ accepts the idea to just plant smaller trees, as if this will solve the money situation of the country.
The numerous over the top attempts at being clever and attempt to force connections between Marie Antoinette, and the 20th century, makes it hard not to focus on Sofia Coppola as the director. The narrative is continually broken through loud pop music, and the periods of historical context are made so unbelievable by the differing acting styles, and the frame is so plastered by lavish, colorful designs, that the viewer is forced to focus on other aspects of the film. Therefore it is hard to not make the parallels between Sofia Coppola as a director and Marie Antoinette as the Queen of France. In both cases the two happened to be born into position of wealth and power, since Sofia Coppola is of course the daughter of the Francis Ford Coppola, the man who directed both The Godfather and Apocalypse Now. As a result, on cannot entire blame Coppola for the decisions she made for she was brought up in a rich environment in which she could be spoiled. In her defense she probably feels that shoes, candy, and parties are what people really care about, and what they really want to see. Even the opening credits slashed across the screen in a flash of white lettering surrounded by a bright pink boarder, as in a poor attempt to reference the Sex Pistols, begins the assault on the legend of Queen Marie Antoinette.
Coppola barely hints on the most important aspects of Marie Antoinette’s life, like her being the cause of the French revolution. The choice to place more emphasis and screen time on shoes rather than actual events, is an insult to the history of the true Marie Antoinette. The few scenes of historical importance are brushed over quickly with only a few references to the aid to the American Revolution, and the only scene where Mrs. Antoinette address the peasants of France, is to bow quickly and leave the frame with them as soon as possible. Yet, if one goes into Marie Antoinette not expecting a filmic masterpiece, or a film about the last queen of France, and instead prepares for a shallow teenybopper film, more like Clueless than Ben-Hur, then it will not disappoint.
Marie Antoinette
The decision to intertwine historically accurate period music, with modern pop and puck rock is one that not only deters one from the narrative of the film but also feels like an overindulgence itself. When Bow Wow Wow’s “I Want Candy” burst through the speakers, Sofia Coppola has simply taken it too far, placing more importance on the beat of the pop music, than the actual message she is trying to convey; simply because a song has a line like “I want candy,” and there is candy on screen, does not make it and appropriate correlation. Also, her choice to covertly slip in a pair of purple converse during a scene all about shoes could be conceived as a clever trick to remind the audience that the theme of this movie can apply to today as much as back then. However, with British one-hit-wonders of Bow Wow Wow, and Gang of Four begin to blast through the speakers, it is like Sofia Coppola trying to thrust her intention down my throat; as if I need modern pop music to be able to make a connection between Marie Antoinette and Paris Hilton. Beyond this, there is a constant switch between the periodic music of the 1700’s and modern punk of today. This might have been an acceptable tool had the non-diagetic music stuck to one era, and kept the period music to just the diagetic music in the film. Yet, Coppola can’t seem to decide, and in the tradition of a true adolescent teen girl, is unable to make up her mind.
Music was not the only deterrent from the film, even the acting lacks any sort of continuity throughout the film. Kirsten Dunst plays the aristocratic queen of France, yet talks in American slang like she is from the California in the 1990’s. In fact she plays the valley girl so well that it remains hard to tell if what she was doing was really acting. Dunst sounds far too comfortable dragging out her words like ‘sooooo’ that it makes the others speaking English with an attempted French accent (like Jason Schwartzman trying to play young Louis XVI) sound even more ridiculous and absurd. Watching her continually shop for new clothes and dress up in new lavish costumes everyday gives more a feel that Dunst is there playing dress up, rather than acting in a film. The varied range of acting styles in the film make it even harder to accept Marie Antoinette as a serious film with anything more to do other than capture the minds of teenage girls who giggle over the young men in the film and marvel at the shoes so often depicted in the film. Coppola even gets so brash as to throw in a pair of purple converse as if to say ‘look at me I’m now in the modern era, I know what cool is.’
Not even the set design of the film allows one a break from the barrage of trendy aesthetic. Every scene is filled with elaborate patterns and bright colors distracting from the actual image, putting the viewer in a hypnotic trance of color. Even the scenes shot outdoors with Marie Antoinette are full of an elaborate excess of design in the gardens and rows of large trees all placed in perfect lines. As she walks along a path in the garden she asks for more large trees to be planted like she wanted them tomorrow, unaware that trees cannot grow to full height in one day. She then feels as though she is compromising when she is told they do not have enough money to afford a new line of trees, so she ‘graciously’ accepts the idea to just plant smaller trees, as if this will solve the money situation of the country.
The numerous over the top attempts at being clever and attempt to force connections between Marie Antoinette, and the 20th century, makes it hard not to focus on Sofia Coppola as the director. The narrative is continually broken through loud pop music, and the periods of historical context are made so unbelievable by the differing acting styles, and the frame is so plastered by lavish, colorful designs, that the viewer is forced to focus on other aspects of the film. Therefore it is hard to not make the parallels between Sofia Coppola as a director and Marie Antoinette as the Queen of France. In both cases the two happened to be born into position of wealth and power, since Sofia Coppola is of course the daughter of the Francis Ford Coppola, the man who directed both The Godfather and Apocalypse Now. As a result, on cannot entire blame Coppola for the decisions she made for she was brought up in a rich environment in which she could be spoiled. In her defense she probably feels that shoes, candy, and parties are what people really care about, and what they really want to see. Even the opening credits slashed across the screen in a flash of white lettering surrounded by a bright pink boarder, as in a poor attempt to reference the Sex Pistols, begins the assault on the legend of Queen Marie Antoinette.
Coppola barely hints on the most important aspects of Marie Antoinette’s life, like her being the cause of the French revolution. The choice to place more emphasis and screen time on shoes rather than actual events, is an insult to the history of the true Marie Antoinette. The few scenes of historical importance are brushed over quickly with only a few references to the aid to the American Revolution, and the only scene where Mrs. Antoinette address the peasants of France, is to bow quickly and leave the frame with them as soon as possible. Yet, if one goes into Marie Antoinette not expecting a filmic masterpiece, or a film about the last queen of France, and instead prepares for a shallow teenybopper film, more like Clueless than Ben-Hur, then it will not disappoint.
Marie Antoinette
Friday, May 20, 2011
Claiming It Over: Quantum of Solace Ends the Bond Franchise
Officially the 22nd film in the EON Productions franchise on the James Bond name, Quantum of Solace continues the decline of dynasty of classic Bond films. For the first time ever in the entire history of James Bond movies, Quantum of Solace begins mere moment after its predecessor, Casino Royale (2006), left off; not only in terms of plot continuity, but also in it’s diminish quality and charm of the traditional Bond flick. Many viewers know James Bond as the suave, handsome, crime-fighting, ladies man who sleeps with every attractive girl he sees, without obtaining an STD, and fights crime, without earning himself a scratch. Similarly, the Bond tradition is one that has stood the test of time with fresh new Bond films coming out every couple of years since Dr. No in 1962, that continues to entertain the audiences of each generation. However, Quantum of Solace defies each of these timeless qualities, dropping almost of Bond film traditions for a quick cut action overload more like an ADD afflicted child’s mind than a well structured spy film.
The decision of EON Productions to hire on Marc Forster as the director may have sounded like a strong choice for his previously proven work on dramatic (and romantic) films like Finding Neverland and Stranger Than Fiction, had they not tried to balance it out by hiring on Dan Bradley of the Bourne series. The potential of these two was seemingly too much of an expectation to be placed on this film. Instead being treated with expertly coordinated, action packed, thrill sequences and dramatically enthralling segments of character interaction, we are forced to watch jarring editing and bland story lines. Forster’s, despite his previous work, does not pull full emotions out of the characters of either Bond (Daniel Craig) or Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Instead the audience is forced to watch Bond pine over dead Bond girl Vespa (Eva Green, not appearing in this film) from Casino Royale, through the constant mentioning of her death. Rather than have the Daniel Craig actually bring out his pain through his acting, Forster relies on the constant reminder of incessant referencing of the death by the other characters. This made it hard to relate to the characters and therefore taking much of the charm and appeal away from James Bond.
On the other end of the spectrum, Dan Bradley, still hot on the popularity and success of the Bourne series attempts to continue his overused style of shaky cameras and quick cuts in an attempt to portray exciting action sequences. This may have worked well for his previous movies, but the implementation of these techniques in a Bond movie is offensive. Part of the impressiveness of a James Bond film is the use of real stunts with little, or even better yet, no special effect (especially CGI) used. The use of the unnecessary, quick cutting distracts from the action on the screen and takes away from the impressiveness of the actual filming of a live car chase along the Italian cliff side roads. Quantum of Solace had the budget, time, and staff to film the action for real, so it is simply an insult to slice up these precious moments caught on film. Each cut takes more of the believability, activeness, and splendor of the action taking place on the screen, both in terms of the actual stunt being performed as well as the event taking place in the story. At some points the cutting becomes so distracting that it is even difficult to tell the difference between blonde haired Daniel Craig and his brown haired pursuit as they run through the medieval passage under Siena, Italy.
From the opening scene of the film, much of this movie is filled with action scene after action scene, after action scene. Even though Bond films tend to be booked as action packed thrillers, the downplay of the story and overuse of action sequences follows a continuing trend in American cinema in the last few years. There has always been an appeal for spectacle on the scene, from car chases, to explosions, to sex; however, Bond films have always maintained strong balance between story and action. Sadly, these past two Bond films with Daniel Craig have broke from this tradition and instead followed the pop trend of the times. In Quantum of Solace more so than Casino Royale, it felt like the story of the film, which has always played an integral part in the Bond franchise, feels less creative and existent only to show the action sequences, despite it’s being adaptation from another Ian Fleming work.
Whether this attempt at making prequels to the previous Bond and Bond films remains to be seen. Daniel Craig is still contracted for three more Bond films before the absolute fate of the Bond franchise is determined. Quantum of Solace (and Casino Royale) are supposed to be set in a time prior to the other 20 Bond films, during a time when Bond is young, messy, and motivated by revenge; a time where he was fallible, full of testosterone infused rage, and loaded with a trigger-happy finger rather than mind. It is yet to be seen as to whether Daniel Craig will mature into the classic James Bond we all knew before, and if EON Productions will revert back to it’s matured state of production rather than fall victim to the trend of the times. It may be premature to say this now, but Quantum of Solace just might be the “jumping the shark” installment of the James Bond series.
Quantum of Solace
The decision of EON Productions to hire on Marc Forster as the director may have sounded like a strong choice for his previously proven work on dramatic (and romantic) films like Finding Neverland and Stranger Than Fiction, had they not tried to balance it out by hiring on Dan Bradley of the Bourne series. The potential of these two was seemingly too much of an expectation to be placed on this film. Instead being treated with expertly coordinated, action packed, thrill sequences and dramatically enthralling segments of character interaction, we are forced to watch jarring editing and bland story lines. Forster’s, despite his previous work, does not pull full emotions out of the characters of either Bond (Daniel Craig) or Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Instead the audience is forced to watch Bond pine over dead Bond girl Vespa (Eva Green, not appearing in this film) from Casino Royale, through the constant mentioning of her death. Rather than have the Daniel Craig actually bring out his pain through his acting, Forster relies on the constant reminder of incessant referencing of the death by the other characters. This made it hard to relate to the characters and therefore taking much of the charm and appeal away from James Bond.
On the other end of the spectrum, Dan Bradley, still hot on the popularity and success of the Bourne series attempts to continue his overused style of shaky cameras and quick cuts in an attempt to portray exciting action sequences. This may have worked well for his previous movies, but the implementation of these techniques in a Bond movie is offensive. Part of the impressiveness of a James Bond film is the use of real stunts with little, or even better yet, no special effect (especially CGI) used. The use of the unnecessary, quick cutting distracts from the action on the screen and takes away from the impressiveness of the actual filming of a live car chase along the Italian cliff side roads. Quantum of Solace had the budget, time, and staff to film the action for real, so it is simply an insult to slice up these precious moments caught on film. Each cut takes more of the believability, activeness, and splendor of the action taking place on the screen, both in terms of the actual stunt being performed as well as the event taking place in the story. At some points the cutting becomes so distracting that it is even difficult to tell the difference between blonde haired Daniel Craig and his brown haired pursuit as they run through the medieval passage under Siena, Italy.
From the opening scene of the film, much of this movie is filled with action scene after action scene, after action scene. Even though Bond films tend to be booked as action packed thrillers, the downplay of the story and overuse of action sequences follows a continuing trend in American cinema in the last few years. There has always been an appeal for spectacle on the scene, from car chases, to explosions, to sex; however, Bond films have always maintained strong balance between story and action. Sadly, these past two Bond films with Daniel Craig have broke from this tradition and instead followed the pop trend of the times. In Quantum of Solace more so than Casino Royale, it felt like the story of the film, which has always played an integral part in the Bond franchise, feels less creative and existent only to show the action sequences, despite it’s being adaptation from another Ian Fleming work.
Whether this attempt at making prequels to the previous Bond and Bond films remains to be seen. Daniel Craig is still contracted for three more Bond films before the absolute fate of the Bond franchise is determined. Quantum of Solace (and Casino Royale) are supposed to be set in a time prior to the other 20 Bond films, during a time when Bond is young, messy, and motivated by revenge; a time where he was fallible, full of testosterone infused rage, and loaded with a trigger-happy finger rather than mind. It is yet to be seen as to whether Daniel Craig will mature into the classic James Bond we all knew before, and if EON Productions will revert back to it’s matured state of production rather than fall victim to the trend of the times. It may be premature to say this now, but Quantum of Solace just might be the “jumping the shark” installment of the James Bond series.
Quantum of Solace
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
A Moral or Ethical Election?
“What’s the difference between morals and ethics, anyway?” This is the question posed by devoted teacher Mr. McAllister (Matthew Broderick) at the beginning of Alexander Paynes’ 1999 Election. Not surprisingly young, overachieving Tracy Flick (Reese Witherspoon) is the only student to raise her hand in an attempt to answer the philosophical question that resonates throughout the film. In true nerd like fashion, Tracy begins to answer with her textbook definition, when the camera freezes her with a deformed look on her face, making her almost demonic in nature. Then followed then by the voice over of Mr. McAllister explaining his hatred for Tracy Flick, clearly drawing the battle lines for the film as Mr. McAllister attempts to set up his vision of good and evil.
Mr. McAllister, or Mr. M as his students refer to him, is the teacher of United States history and Civics at this high school located in the heart of the midwestern city of Omaha, Nebraska. The decision to change the state from its original setting of New Jersey (from the novel by Tom Perrotta) provides for a universal experience and cast of cliché characters that most anyone who has attended high school in the US can relate to. This then poses the same question to the audience of what are morals and ethics, and what’s the difference? Who knows the difference, real or fictional? Who practices the difference?
Unlike the traditional structure of narrative films, there is not a clear definition to the audience of good or evil in the film. Neither Tracy Flick nor Mr. M holds a clean moral slate, regardless of how they present themselves to others. Jim not only attempts to sabotage the election of Tracy Flick through overt means like convincing Paul Metzler (Chris Klein) to run against her, but even purposely throwing two ballots cast for Tracy Flick in the trash, declaring Paul the winner by one vote. His actions, though considered to b entirely unethical by the moral majority, but Mr. McAllister felt as though he was doing the right thing, stopping Tracy before she could do more harm. Even though Jim felt he was doing the right thing by sabotaging Tracy Flick, in his private life, Jim McAllister has an affair with his friend’s ex-wife and cheats on his wife, whom he claims to be a source of strength for him. Henceforth the irony of Jim McAllister as the civics teacher at the high school is present, posing the question of morals and ethics; how can the students be expected to know the difference if Jim himself can’t practice the difference? Even when the question is posed to Mr. M, he remains unable to answer. As Mr. McAllister falls continually into his downward spiral of corrupted morality he too becomes deformed, much like the camera freezing Tracy Flick, by a bee sting that transforms him visually into the monstrous figure that he really is.
It seems the only person able to answer this question is Tracy Flick, who attempts to rattle off a textbook definition, but is ultimately cut off by the ringing of the bell signaling the end of class. The inability for Tracy to answer is not due to a lack of knowledge, but rather due to the social constraint of time and the end of class, as if to say even if one knows the difference, there is no time or place in modern society to practice the beliefs. Therefore, it is no surprise that not even perfect little Ms. Flick can practice good morals and ethics. During her campaign she gets so frustrated with her own imperfections, like a falling sign, that she is quickly overtaken by anger that she rips down everyone posters on the wall and then lies about her actions. Even worse, she not only allows for a fellow student to take the blame, but as soon as Tracy finds out that she can get away with it, she even attacks the young girl for it.
In fact, there seems to not be a single main character in the film that is either perfectly god or perfectly bad. The closest a main character comes to having good morals is Paul Metzler who not only cannot define morals or ethics, but can’t understand a simple metaphor of fruit to explain choice. Trying to claim that Paul Metzler consciously practices good morals and ethics in the film is like Tammy Metzler (Jessica Campbell) claiming she is not a lesbian, when she says she is attracted to the person, they just always happen be girls, but in reality she falls in love, at first sight, with an all girls Christian school.
Then the real question comes at the end of the film as not only is Tracy Flick established as student body president, but also the young achiever is seen climbing into the same limo as a Nebraska senator, after she is seen attending prestigious Georgetown University. The civics teacher is fired from his post and is forced into working as a tour guide at a natural history museum, where he is happy, until he runs into Ms. Flick on his trip down to D.C.. Here, despite her unethical practices, Tracy Flick gets exactly what she wants and is now working with high ranking politicians, whereas, a result of Mr. M’s shady morals is a lost job, divorced wife, and shitty apartment in New York. So, when Jim McAllister utters in the final minutes of the film “Who the fuck does she think she is?” it is not as much of an attack on Tracy as a person so much as her ability to achieve what she wants trough questionable morals and ethics; something Mr. McAllister should know better than Tracy, yet still fails at so miserably. Election then leaves the audience wondering, what is the difference between ethics and morals and does it matter?
Election
Mr. McAllister, or Mr. M as his students refer to him, is the teacher of United States history and Civics at this high school located in the heart of the midwestern city of Omaha, Nebraska. The decision to change the state from its original setting of New Jersey (from the novel by Tom Perrotta) provides for a universal experience and cast of cliché characters that most anyone who has attended high school in the US can relate to. This then poses the same question to the audience of what are morals and ethics, and what’s the difference? Who knows the difference, real or fictional? Who practices the difference?
Unlike the traditional structure of narrative films, there is not a clear definition to the audience of good or evil in the film. Neither Tracy Flick nor Mr. M holds a clean moral slate, regardless of how they present themselves to others. Jim not only attempts to sabotage the election of Tracy Flick through overt means like convincing Paul Metzler (Chris Klein) to run against her, but even purposely throwing two ballots cast for Tracy Flick in the trash, declaring Paul the winner by one vote. His actions, though considered to b entirely unethical by the moral majority, but Mr. McAllister felt as though he was doing the right thing, stopping Tracy before she could do more harm. Even though Jim felt he was doing the right thing by sabotaging Tracy Flick, in his private life, Jim McAllister has an affair with his friend’s ex-wife and cheats on his wife, whom he claims to be a source of strength for him. Henceforth the irony of Jim McAllister as the civics teacher at the high school is present, posing the question of morals and ethics; how can the students be expected to know the difference if Jim himself can’t practice the difference? Even when the question is posed to Mr. M, he remains unable to answer. As Mr. McAllister falls continually into his downward spiral of corrupted morality he too becomes deformed, much like the camera freezing Tracy Flick, by a bee sting that transforms him visually into the monstrous figure that he really is.
It seems the only person able to answer this question is Tracy Flick, who attempts to rattle off a textbook definition, but is ultimately cut off by the ringing of the bell signaling the end of class. The inability for Tracy to answer is not due to a lack of knowledge, but rather due to the social constraint of time and the end of class, as if to say even if one knows the difference, there is no time or place in modern society to practice the beliefs. Therefore, it is no surprise that not even perfect little Ms. Flick can practice good morals and ethics. During her campaign she gets so frustrated with her own imperfections, like a falling sign, that she is quickly overtaken by anger that she rips down everyone posters on the wall and then lies about her actions. Even worse, she not only allows for a fellow student to take the blame, but as soon as Tracy finds out that she can get away with it, she even attacks the young girl for it.
In fact, there seems to not be a single main character in the film that is either perfectly god or perfectly bad. The closest a main character comes to having good morals is Paul Metzler who not only cannot define morals or ethics, but can’t understand a simple metaphor of fruit to explain choice. Trying to claim that Paul Metzler consciously practices good morals and ethics in the film is like Tammy Metzler (Jessica Campbell) claiming she is not a lesbian, when she says she is attracted to the person, they just always happen be girls, but in reality she falls in love, at first sight, with an all girls Christian school.
Then the real question comes at the end of the film as not only is Tracy Flick established as student body president, but also the young achiever is seen climbing into the same limo as a Nebraska senator, after she is seen attending prestigious Georgetown University. The civics teacher is fired from his post and is forced into working as a tour guide at a natural history museum, where he is happy, until he runs into Ms. Flick on his trip down to D.C.. Here, despite her unethical practices, Tracy Flick gets exactly what she wants and is now working with high ranking politicians, whereas, a result of Mr. M’s shady morals is a lost job, divorced wife, and shitty apartment in New York. So, when Jim McAllister utters in the final minutes of the film “Who the fuck does she think she is?” it is not as much of an attack on Tracy as a person so much as her ability to achieve what she wants trough questionable morals and ethics; something Mr. McAllister should know better than Tracy, yet still fails at so miserably. Election then leaves the audience wondering, what is the difference between ethics and morals and does it matter?
Election
Monday, March 28, 2011
An Old Story In The New World
In 2005 Terrance Malick released only the fourth film of his directorial career outside of his education at the American Film Institute. Much in the vein of his former films, The New World is a film that requires a categorization outside of the conventional genres one would find at their nearest Blockbuster, one that can be defined simply as a Terrance Malick film. In this film Mr. Malick does more than tell us of a love story between the famed Pocahontas and John Smith, but rather shows us the awe and beauty of a new and unexplored land in a way only his collaboration with cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki can bring. Together the pair captures a moment in time, and a place in history, that cannot possibly be depicted with more natural splendor.
To go into this film expecting a love story like a Hugh Grant movie, or the action adventure of an Indian Jones flick, is like taking a drive through Yellowstone National Park expecting to see an epic battle for dominance between the bears and mountain lions. Instead, the story of the characters are secondary to the real theme of the film, the land and earth of which Malick devotes much of the films screen time focusing on. It is the fluid movement of the camera through the fields of wild, untamed grass, and the capturing the subtle movements of wind through the fields in a way only Terrance Malick can, where the true film lies. Pocahontas, as played by Q’uorianka Kilcher, even tells us this in the opening lines of voice over where the camera holds steady on a shot of rippling water. “Come spirit, help us sing the story of our land. You are our mother.” Malick wastes no time indicating the main subject of the film, asking Mother Earth to help in telling of her story, not coincidently placed over such a symbol for women as that of a body of water.
It is then no surprise that in emphasis of this point, Malick made the conscious decision to use only natural elements of props and lighting for the film. The sets we built on location in the forests of Virginia, where the villages of the natives and the colonialists were built in their entirety. This allowed for limitless possibilities for both Malick and Lebezki to capture the moment exactly how they desired, as if it were real, not bound by unfinished props or a finite number of camera angles; creating endless movement of the camera to pan the vast landscape, both inside and out, of the areas of domestication. This ability enabled Malick to film longer takes and provide fewer cuts in the film. Since, what is the point of filming something beautiful if it is just going to be cut up and unnoticeable? Film theorist Andre Bazin once said, it is cinema’s ability to capture the moment that makes it precious, so why cut and break the majestic beauty of a Terrance Malick shot?
Terrance Malick even made the choice to use only natural lighting throughout the film; even shots inside were filmed with the natural light of the sun. This, again, did not limit Malick in his vision, but rather added a rich tonal element to the film; seen most notably in his shots of the sun rising and setting on the horizon. It gives the audience the chance to see the film as if it were real, the way John Smith, and the others would have gazed upon this new land; and just as Smith is thrust into the darkness of the shelter of the natives, the camera follows him in keeping both the action, the audience, and the characters in the dark. It is not until Pocahontas throws herself upon John Smith that sunlight floods into the hut, as if Mother Nature herself has delivered Pocahontas like an angel.
Though one might not notice ,due to the often-used technique of voice over in the film, but the film does not contain a large amount of dialog, especially in comparison to most other narrative films of this time. However, this is no mistake, for not only does the film not warrant a lot of dialog, but too much conversation between the characters, especially Smith and Pocahontas, would have deterred from the meaning of the film. Malick intentionally uses the inability of the two to communicate through speech as a way to again emphasize the importance of the land in the film. Much of the time the two spend together is alone in the forest, in the fields, or on the waters edge. Often their time spent together is intercut with footage nature and birds flying in the sky, showing how the two are inseparable from their surroundings, and it is when the two are forced apart that the real conflict of the film arises. It is no mistake that Q’orianka Kilcher is dressed in animal skin and often blends in perfectly with their surrounds as she plays in the grass and walks in among the trees, she represents the purest beauty of nature that John Smith feel in love with upon his landing in the New World. Then it is after Smith leaves from her life and she is sold to the colonialists that she loses both her connection to nature, her native dress, and even her life as she travels to England where civilization has literally conquered and tamed nature.
In fitting with the theme of the film it is not surprising that the film opens at a time of sunrise, where the birds chirp excitedly and the sun starts to peak over the horizon illuminating shores of the new land, symbol of hope. Just as the voice over indicates, and the sun represents, we see Pocahontas shot from an extreme low angle as she stretches upwards towards the sky, as if rising from the earth herself; being born in this very moment, rising from the womb of Mother Earth as the day begins. Likewise, the film ends during the time of sunset as the last images of civilization are made mere black shadows. More significantly the last scene of a person in the film is a shot of Pocahontas’s grave where her life has ended, she is returned back into the womb of Mother Nature from which she came. Followed only by the last shots of water and the wind blowing through the trees in a way that only Terrence Malick can capture, again cycling the film back to its natural roots
The New World
To go into this film expecting a love story like a Hugh Grant movie, or the action adventure of an Indian Jones flick, is like taking a drive through Yellowstone National Park expecting to see an epic battle for dominance between the bears and mountain lions. Instead, the story of the characters are secondary to the real theme of the film, the land and earth of which Malick devotes much of the films screen time focusing on. It is the fluid movement of the camera through the fields of wild, untamed grass, and the capturing the subtle movements of wind through the fields in a way only Terrance Malick can, where the true film lies. Pocahontas, as played by Q’uorianka Kilcher, even tells us this in the opening lines of voice over where the camera holds steady on a shot of rippling water. “Come spirit, help us sing the story of our land. You are our mother.” Malick wastes no time indicating the main subject of the film, asking Mother Earth to help in telling of her story, not coincidently placed over such a symbol for women as that of a body of water.
It is then no surprise that in emphasis of this point, Malick made the conscious decision to use only natural elements of props and lighting for the film. The sets we built on location in the forests of Virginia, where the villages of the natives and the colonialists were built in their entirety. This allowed for limitless possibilities for both Malick and Lebezki to capture the moment exactly how they desired, as if it were real, not bound by unfinished props or a finite number of camera angles; creating endless movement of the camera to pan the vast landscape, both inside and out, of the areas of domestication. This ability enabled Malick to film longer takes and provide fewer cuts in the film. Since, what is the point of filming something beautiful if it is just going to be cut up and unnoticeable? Film theorist Andre Bazin once said, it is cinema’s ability to capture the moment that makes it precious, so why cut and break the majestic beauty of a Terrance Malick shot?
Terrance Malick even made the choice to use only natural lighting throughout the film; even shots inside were filmed with the natural light of the sun. This, again, did not limit Malick in his vision, but rather added a rich tonal element to the film; seen most notably in his shots of the sun rising and setting on the horizon. It gives the audience the chance to see the film as if it were real, the way John Smith, and the others would have gazed upon this new land; and just as Smith is thrust into the darkness of the shelter of the natives, the camera follows him in keeping both the action, the audience, and the characters in the dark. It is not until Pocahontas throws herself upon John Smith that sunlight floods into the hut, as if Mother Nature herself has delivered Pocahontas like an angel.
Though one might not notice ,due to the often-used technique of voice over in the film, but the film does not contain a large amount of dialog, especially in comparison to most other narrative films of this time. However, this is no mistake, for not only does the film not warrant a lot of dialog, but too much conversation between the characters, especially Smith and Pocahontas, would have deterred from the meaning of the film. Malick intentionally uses the inability of the two to communicate through speech as a way to again emphasize the importance of the land in the film. Much of the time the two spend together is alone in the forest, in the fields, or on the waters edge. Often their time spent together is intercut with footage nature and birds flying in the sky, showing how the two are inseparable from their surroundings, and it is when the two are forced apart that the real conflict of the film arises. It is no mistake that Q’orianka Kilcher is dressed in animal skin and often blends in perfectly with their surrounds as she plays in the grass and walks in among the trees, she represents the purest beauty of nature that John Smith feel in love with upon his landing in the New World. Then it is after Smith leaves from her life and she is sold to the colonialists that she loses both her connection to nature, her native dress, and even her life as she travels to England where civilization has literally conquered and tamed nature.
In fitting with the theme of the film it is not surprising that the film opens at a time of sunrise, where the birds chirp excitedly and the sun starts to peak over the horizon illuminating shores of the new land, symbol of hope. Just as the voice over indicates, and the sun represents, we see Pocahontas shot from an extreme low angle as she stretches upwards towards the sky, as if rising from the earth herself; being born in this very moment, rising from the womb of Mother Earth as the day begins. Likewise, the film ends during the time of sunset as the last images of civilization are made mere black shadows. More significantly the last scene of a person in the film is a shot of Pocahontas’s grave where her life has ended, she is returned back into the womb of Mother Nature from which she came. Followed only by the last shots of water and the wind blowing through the trees in a way that only Terrence Malick can capture, again cycling the film back to its natural roots
The New World
Monday, February 7, 2011
Old Sample: There Will Be Blood
I have been slow to post the latest reviews I have been writing, so for now I will just post an old sample one I wrote a few years ago for one of my favorite films, There Will Be Blood. Enjoy (and go watch this film if you haven't already).
There Will Be Blood
There Will Be Blood is not only the title of Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest masterpiece, but a promise given to the audience; indeed there will be blood. The film depicts not just the greed of man and his desire for wealth and success, but also a battle between religion and money. Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) proclaims himself that there is an inner drive in him for competition, one that forces him not only to squash his competitor, but disown his adopted son H. W. (Dillon Freasier) when he proclaims he will start his own oil business. It is Plainview’s inner drive and passion that ignites the film on fire and delivers exactly what it promises.
Anderson delivers the audience with the sight of not only literal blood but also the blood of the earth, oil. The opening shot of the film are the hills of a desert in the west during the late 1800’s, followed immediately by a dark image of Plainview deep in a mine shaft picking away at the under layers of the earth. He has penetrated the surface in a Freudian like sense to satisfy his drive to find silver ore. However, as he penetrates deeper into the layers of the earth, he eventually breaks the skin and discovers the rich, valuable, liquid store beneath the surface of the earth like blood. Once Plainview has the taste of oil in his mouth he sets out on a passionate crusade to find the veins of the earth in an attempt to satisfy his unquenchable thirst. Continually throughout the film Plainview bathes in the oil that spews from the earth in a religious like experience, in which he attempts to share with his son H. W. as he baptizes the young child with a drop of oil wiped on his forehead.
In Plainview’s pursuit for oil he also runs across his moral enemy in Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), who shares the same fiery passion as Plainview, just for the Lord instead of oil. Anderson creates a fierce battle between the Plainview and Sunday, as representative of The All Mighty Lord and The All Mighty Dollar. There Will Be Blood quickly becomes a statement of capitalism versus religion. Plainview and Sunday take turns publicly humiliating and attacking one another socially, psychologically, and physically throughout the film. Each lashes out at the other when they enter their opponents’ ring. Plainview physically beats Eli Sunday when he approaches Daniel asking for money, and forces him into a puddle of oil as if baptizing Eli in the same way Daniel often does himself. This action is only to be replicated by Eli when Daniel forcibly baptized in order to obtain the land he needs and Eli not only baptizes him in holy water, but also proceeds to beat Daniel under the guise of a religious cleansing.
The emphasis of the land as a character is shown in the Malick-like beauty and emphasis placed on the landscape in long shots and takes. Often times, much of the frame is filled by the massive Texan countryside that seems to dominate over the proportionally smaller actors in the film. It is also no surprise that it is not until the last act of the film that the characters ever spend any real time inside, even though Plainview is a rich man, and the boss, and is not required to be outside in the thick of it. It is not until the oil dries up and Daniel Plainview starts to fall apart that he confines himself indoors, neglecting the mother like figure that has provided him with everything he achieved.
It is also in this last act where Plainview is confined to the artificial walls and light of his mansion that the audience is greeted with the literal promise of blood. In an epic climax the two men, Eli and Daniel, have their final epic showdown in the bowling alley of Plainview’s mansion. Just as when Daniel needed to come to Eli for help and Eli made him declare what he was least willing to admit (that he abandoned his son), now Daniel forces Eli to proclaim what he really is despite his defiance (that he is a false profit). In both cases, it takes the other to force each of them to admit to the world what they really are; Plainview is a money hungry capitalist willing to give up family for profit, and Eli is false profit exploiting the faith and belief of many for his own personal reasons. In doing this Anderson reduces each competitor to the same level, degrading them to their lowest possible form. It is then when Anderson truly delivers on his promise as Plainview breaks the skin of Eli Sunday’s skull, allowing for the gushing of blood from the young man’s head, like oil from the earth. At this point Daniel Plainview is able to conclude the film for Paul Thomas Anderson in a self-reflexive manor as he declares simply, “I am Finished.”
There Will Be Blood
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Uncle Kent 2.0: Re-cut and More Awkward?
Uncle Kent a Sundance Select film by Joe Swanberg proved to be my first film of Sundance 2011. Just like myself, Mr. Swanberg was making his first Sundance Debut, though not his first film as the man has a fairly impressive IMDb resume of a few independent director titles and a good list of acting credits from the last 6 years. Much like you, I went into this film knowing nothing of Swanberg or the film. My attendance came much as a surprise to me, and all I was able to gather before entering the theater was two words: technology and love. Uncle Kent delivered both.
My initial reactions to the film were focus on the amateurish qualities of the film. Much of the camera work, though some of it diagetic via a flip camera from the main character Kent (Kent Osborne), was obtrusive and reminded me of the many films I watched from my peers during my tenure as a film student. However, I recognize this a part of the style as much of the film is meant to look like a blogger documentary style shoot. Still I feel was left disappointed with the cinematography of Uncle Kent, and offer a helping hand to Joe Swanberg in asking him to study The Squid and the Whale by Noah Baumbach. Swanbergs attempt at this semi-autobiographical piece fell short in the attempt to engage me in the faux documentary style he strived for.
The content of Uncle Kent, though not really what I tend to seek out in films was full of subtle commentary on the state of an aging bachelor living in Los Angeles. I remained unable to relate to Kent as a character and therefore any hope of narcissistic ego identification and personal connection to the film was lost, sorry Laura Mulvey. Yet, the content remained pepper with comedic situations in the interactions between Kent and the two women he met online via Chatroulette and Craigslist. It was in this awkwardness that the real substance of the film existed.
The film, though unimpressive in its current state, still has potential. The presence of amateurish camera work, awkward characters played by unknown actors, and even more awkward content leaves me in the belief that with some tighter editing a substantial film can be made. Swanderg fell into the same mistake that is easily made by many independent filmmakers in taking too much control of his film and shooting and editing it himself. Outside hands need to be used to re-cut this film into a more finely tuned version that truly highlights the awkwardness of it all. If this film can be picked up and Mr. Swandberg allows them to re-cut the film without him, I would certainly give it another try. As it stands now, I feel Uncle Kent looks and feels more like a film students capstone film, good enough to earn him a degree, but not quite good enough for the general audience. So, Mr. Swanberg, please watch The Squid and the Whale, learn from it, and I will see you again for “Uncle Kent 2.0: Re-cut and More Awkward.”
Monday, January 24, 2011
Jesus Died For Kevin Smith’s Sins; Thank God!
On January 23rd, 2011 Kevin Smith once again returned to the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah to debut his latest film. This is Kevin Smith’s tenth film since his award-winning Clerks in 1994 and shows the maturity and experience of an aged ”fat masturbating stoner” turned cult film director. The premier of his film Red State at Sundance last night became as much of a performance by Kevin Smith as it was about the film itself. The largest venue of Sundance the Eccles Theater sold out without an empty seat in the house and hundreds of wait-listing public and Sundance volunteers stood improperly dressed in the cold for over two hours hoping to catch their idol in person; and Mr. Smith did not disappoint. With the energy and drive of a rock star playing The Greek Theater, he attacked the corporations of the film industry, the economics of marketing, every distributor in the room, and even the practice of making movie trailers. He yelled of fire and brimstone on that oppose his new fundamentalist style of debuting his film to his congregation or over a 1,000 live members.
As an admitting Kevin Smith fan, I write this review without the presence of a single plot point or summary of the film for two reasons: One, I admire Smith’s drive and wish him the best in his quest to release this film successfully with a marketing budget of $0 million dollars, and two, as iterated earlier, this world premier was more about Smith and his agenda as it was about the film itself (my auteur theory professor would be proud).
With that said my experience with the Red State premier began with conflicting feelings. I enjoy Smith’s work and watch all of his movies, however, with the undoubted success Smith has achieved since his unknown directorial debut in ’94 made me question his presence at Sundance. Increasingly Sundance has begun to trend away from independent film and accepted submissions from bigger names and even bigger budgets. This made me wonder whether Kevin Smith was stealing the show and taking away another opportunity from a debut director much like himself entering Sundance for the first time. Nonetheless, I stood there in the cold, just as improperly dressed for just over two hours to earn my ticket and chance to hear Kevin Smith talk in person for the first time. I was then greeted as I entered the theater by protesters against Smith, the film, and homosexuality all together. Thankfully, there for comic relief was Smith and his entourage standing amongst the picketers offering their own take, including statements like “I am a happy Jew,” and other more explicit takes on life.
From there I was exposed to a film appropriately dubbed a horror flick, as much a horror as any B-level Bruce Campbell film is a comedy. Nonetheless, the performances of Michael Parks, John Goodman, Melissa Leo and the photography of David Klein treated me to a much more experienced film than Smiths previous catalogue. The camera work moved form the static mid shot, with the occasional use of a dolly track to a more fluid shot making the camera as much a part of the film as religious overtones. Similarly, the often filmed, and uncut, Parks offered sermons to the camera that truly makes one believe he is Abin Cooper offering a deep intellectual connection to the film beyond the level of a passive recipient and into an active consumer (I prefer theories that take the audience members experience into account).
With fear of becoming too wordy, pointless, and giving away the film I will end my review of my experience at the world premier of Kevin Smith’s Red State saying, the film is best delivered with a side of Kevin Smith so, join him on his rock star film tour in March that will tour the film through New York, Boston, Chicago, and other usual suspects. Other than that I must offer one more bit of creativity, as creativity sparks creativity, right Mr. Kevin Smith? Jesus died for Kevin Smith’s Sins; Thank God.
As an admitting Kevin Smith fan, I write this review without the presence of a single plot point or summary of the film for two reasons: One, I admire Smith’s drive and wish him the best in his quest to release this film successfully with a marketing budget of $0 million dollars, and two, as iterated earlier, this world premier was more about Smith and his agenda as it was about the film itself (my auteur theory professor would be proud).
With that said my experience with the Red State premier began with conflicting feelings. I enjoy Smith’s work and watch all of his movies, however, with the undoubted success Smith has achieved since his unknown directorial debut in ’94 made me question his presence at Sundance. Increasingly Sundance has begun to trend away from independent film and accepted submissions from bigger names and even bigger budgets. This made me wonder whether Kevin Smith was stealing the show and taking away another opportunity from a debut director much like himself entering Sundance for the first time. Nonetheless, I stood there in the cold, just as improperly dressed for just over two hours to earn my ticket and chance to hear Kevin Smith talk in person for the first time. I was then greeted as I entered the theater by protesters against Smith, the film, and homosexuality all together. Thankfully, there for comic relief was Smith and his entourage standing amongst the picketers offering their own take, including statements like “I am a happy Jew,” and other more explicit takes on life.
From there I was exposed to a film appropriately dubbed a horror flick, as much a horror as any B-level Bruce Campbell film is a comedy. Nonetheless, the performances of Michael Parks, John Goodman, Melissa Leo and the photography of David Klein treated me to a much more experienced film than Smiths previous catalogue. The camera work moved form the static mid shot, with the occasional use of a dolly track to a more fluid shot making the camera as much a part of the film as religious overtones. Similarly, the often filmed, and uncut, Parks offered sermons to the camera that truly makes one believe he is Abin Cooper offering a deep intellectual connection to the film beyond the level of a passive recipient and into an active consumer (I prefer theories that take the audience members experience into account).
With fear of becoming too wordy, pointless, and giving away the film I will end my review of my experience at the world premier of Kevin Smith’s Red State saying, the film is best delivered with a side of Kevin Smith so, join him on his rock star film tour in March that will tour the film through New York, Boston, Chicago, and other usual suspects. Other than that I must offer one more bit of creativity, as creativity sparks creativity, right Mr. Kevin Smith? Jesus died for Kevin Smith’s Sins; Thank God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)