Gold Pass Ale

Though it's only officially summer today, it's never too early to start thinking about your pass for next season.  If you're like me, you might already be disappointing that once again you read about the Ski Utah and Ski Colorado Gold Passes and once again you just don't have the money to afford a $2000 snowboard pass.  Well, don't worry, I have crafted a Gold Pass of my own.  Gold Pass ale, an affordable and delicious malty golden ale that is sure to help you drown away the sorrows of not growing up rich enough to afford a Ski Utah Gold Pass.


The appearance is hazy and hard to see through like a big March dump up at Snowbird.  The taste is heavily malty, but not overly sweet.  It is a relatively strong beer, especially for a golden, coming in at about 5.8%, but it's unnoticeable in flavor and aroma.  Overall, I'm pretty happy with how this beer came out and can't wait to have some more!

Unfortunately, this week also came with a few home brew hardships.  The Gold Pass Ale was my first ever bottle bomb!  However, the cardboard and garbage bag took care of a good majority of the mess.

Likewise, in starting my next beer, I decided to brew a Belgian pale Ale after having Epic Brewing's Belgian IPA and Upslope's Belgian Pale Ale.  I really enjoy these styles and wanted to try out my own.  Unfortunately, my yeast got a bit aggressive and blew through my airlock!

I cleaned up the mess and all should be good.  I'll rack this one to a secondary next week, and by next weekend, I'll be brewing my award winning Chilli Pepper Pale Ale again!

I also stumbled upon an interesting quote today:  "Kids today who are 21 are graduating with better taste in beer than their parents," he says. "Before when you came home your father may have said, 'Sit down, let me open you a Pabst Blue Ribbon.' Now, it's, 'No, Dad, let me offer you an IPA."

(Source)

In my experience, if one were to trade "Pabst Blue Ribbon" for "Long Trail Ale," I think this quote would be spot on.  Though maybe some old timers would like to disagree?

I also almost forgot, my Vanilla Nut Brown placed third n the 4th Annual Greg Noonan Memorial Homebrew Competition in my hometown!

Slainte!

Radical Red

So, the day has come and gone.  St. Patrick's day in Utah was fun, though I still thin my last two in Vermont and Costa Rica top it.  However, this was my first St. Patrick's where I got to drink my own homebrew!

Radical Red, as I am calling it, is a dry-hopped red ale that with prominent, crisp, floral hop flavor and a malty to sweet back.  It's a red pale ale if you wish.  I tried it alongside a Hop Head Red from Green Flash not long ago, to see how mine compares.  Of course, Hop Head Red is a red IPA and was therefore much hoppier than mine.  Overall, I would say mine is more akin to a red than the HHR, but again, it's a red pale ale.

Overall, I think this beer is rivaling C.P.P.A. for my favorite beer I've brewed.  The Vanilla Nut Brown comes in a close third.  I received a few comments back on the VNB, and many of them commented on the low carbination of the beer.  I have rectified that situation here in Radical Red.  I used brown sugar rather than table sugar and it turned out quite well, there are no under carb issues in this one!  I will wait to see how this one ages before I decide if I will entire this batch of Radical Red in the Beehive Brewoff, or brew again before August.

Cheers!

Radical Red

Dry Hopped Red Ale For St. Patrick's Day

So, even though I have now lived in Salt Lake City, UT for almost three years now, I have never spent a St. Patrick's Day in the state.  No, it's not because of the alcohol laws, I have just had to be elsewhere the past two years, Costa Rica my first year and Vermont last year.  Anyway, a post on Reddit got me thinking last month, how can I make this St. Patrick's as memorable as all the others?  Why, brew beer of course!  So, I have had a recipe for a hoppy red ale for a while now, and figured now is the time.  As this is the first recipe I piecemealed together on my own I thought I'd share:

Dry-hopped Red Ale (Extract Brew):

6lbs Light LME
1lb Cara Red Malt, crushed
1/2 lb - Crystal 60L malt, crushed
2oz Black Roasted Barley malt, crushed
1oz German Perle Hops (60 mins)
1oz Crystal Hops (15 mins)
1oz Zythos Hops (5 mins)
1oz Zythos Hops (dry hop)
California Ale Yeast (White Labs California Ale Yeast WLP001)


Today, I just bottled the beer so it should be bottle conditioned and ready to go for the big day.  Though I still need to come up with a name, but I have a bit of time.  Suggestions are always welcome.

 

My set up

 

Wort with 3 of 4 hop additions

 Cooling the wort in true Utah style

 

 Bottled, now just time to wait....

On a side note, I have also gotten into m own craft projects, all of which are of course beer related.  Anyway, I recently learned how to make my own tumblers and coaster out of old beer bottles, so I thought I'd share my most recent work.  Utah doesn't have the greatest recycling program, so I decided to take matters into my own hands, and create beer accessories out of some of my favorites.

Cheers.

Summer's End Saison

So, my brewing adventures continue, or rather they continued through the summer of 2012.  Since winning my category in the 2012 Beehive Brewoff, my desire to home brew only grew.  When trying to think of the next beer to brew, Hillary was actively growing her summer plants on the porch of her apartment.  Not surprisingly, she came up with the idea to try and use her plants in our beer.  I agreed, thinking this sounded like a great idea, if we're brewing the beer, why not grow the ingredients too?  We also wanted to try out creating our own recipe rather than following a kit.  So, after some searching we found a few saison recipes and one specifically, a lime-basil recipe.  So, we modified each of the recipie into our own.  In the end we decided on a lemon basil saison.  So off we went, brewing out next beer!

A few weeks later, we bottled the very "herby" smelling beer, excited about how it might turn out.  This was around the same time Epic Brewing released their Utah Saige Saison.  As we bottled, the aroma constantly reminded us of this delicious beer, also made with local Utah herbs, from one of our favorite breweries.  As a result, we were once again overly excited about our beer and we decided, before we had even tasted it, that were were ready to enter another competition!  So, we found one in Las Vegas and sent down our newest brew "Summer's End Saison."  Once again, we won a ribbon!  This time we got second place in our catefory of spice, herb or vegetable beer.  Ironically, the first place winner this time was the second place brewer from the Beehive Brewoff.  Seems like there might be a some competition here, haha.

Anyway, we were quite happy with second place.  Since then we have also brewed "Crimson Stout," a sour cherry Irish Stout and my newest beer that is still unnamed as of now, but it is a Vanilla Nut Brown.  i go t the inspiration after having a vanilla hazelnut coffee at work, thinking "hey, I could totally turn this into a beer!"  So, I went and did just that.  They just finished bottle conditioning earlier this month and since then a few people have tried them out.  Glowing reviews from all.  Hopefully, they actually are enjoying the beer and not just being nice, haha.

Anyway, now I am in the process of entering yet another home brew comp, this one in Colorado.  I think I'll enter the C.P.P.A., in hopes it has aged well, definitely the VNB, and am debating entering the sour cherry stout.  Though I like Crimson Stout, I am not sure it's a competition winner.

At this point I am just going to consider myself caught up, as clearly I'm not doing so well with that, Sundance ended this week and I didn't post once.  So, I will just consider this my second beginning to this blog, that nobody reads anyway.

C.P.P.A. Bue Ribbon Winner, Eat Your Heart Out Pabst

So, it's clearly been a while since I have last posted anything on this blog.  I have found myself overwhelmingly busy working my new full-time job, working in film and photography, and most exiting, lots and lots of traveling.  Anyway, more on all of those things to come.

For now, I want to focus on a bit of old news.  Back in August of 2012 I entered my second beer C.P.P.A. into my first homebrew competition, and it took first place in it's category!  The competition was open to anyone interested, but attracted mostly entries from Utah, Nevada and California (I believe) and had over 500 entries.

I was extatic to learn my beer was not only delicious according to me and my friends, but apparently so does the beer community of Salt Lake City.  Th head brewer of Red rock brewing was one of the judges on my beer, and he gave it many positive accolades.

A quick note about the name, C.P.P.A. as the beer is technically a Jalpeno Pale Ale.  It is named after the department where I earned my Master's degree, the Center for Public policy and Administration, or CPPA, for short.  However, the acronym also easily stands for Chilli Pepper Pale Ale, as such I named my beer C.P.P.A.!

Unfortunately this was so long ago and I am so behind, I only have about six of these left, hot commodities now.  This is however, one of those rare instances where I am proud enough of what I create I want to share it with others, so i probably ont hoard them all to myself.  i am also saving three for entry into a homebrew competition in my home state of Vermont, hopefully they;ll hold up till then.

Well, the next few days will hopefully be filled with a bunch of new posts in trying to catch up to date.  Hopefully I will be ready and up to date by the time I rejoin the Sunadnace Film Festival up in park City in two weeks.

Where My Degree Has Got Me Now...Brewing Beer!

So, as I'm sure anyone who has tried to check for a new post recently, I haven't post a review in a while.  That's because this past school year kept me too busy for me to follow up, even as I attended Sundance this past year.  I have was very busy with snowboarding, traveling, internships, jobs, etc.  Though if you are at all interested definitely check out the Bones brigade Documentary and John Dies at the End as those were my two favorites by far.

As far as this blog, I will now be turning it into a more random assortment of posts about my life as I navigate this economy post graduate school.  The next pot to look forward to will be about another interest of mine, beer.  I recently got into homebrewing and am in the process now of fermenting my first full (5-gallon batch).  It will be a E.S.B., rating at about 4.7% ABV (measured by my first attempt at measuring the Gravity of beer using a hydrometer).

Insidious. It Sucks.

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

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

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

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

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

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 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