This is an academic approach I took to the great 1983 film, Local Hero.
Mac, the hotshot executive for Knox Oil, is the main character. Although there are some very interesting side characters and subplots, he is the protagonist. Mac wants to close the deal for his company so he will impress his boss and get ahead. Mac really needs to get away from the office and his fast-paced life, as he comes to discover.
The inciting incident is Mac going to Scotland in the first place. Mac’s world is disrupted by his assignment, because he’s usually a guy who does his work by telephone. This face-to-face travel is new to him, and he isn’t even Scottish, so it presents a challenge.
The second act tension centers around whether or not Mac and Gordon can make a deal for the town to build the refinery. It begins when Mac first makes an offer to Gordon, when he realizes that Gordon is also the accountant. It resolves with Ben rejecting them- Mac and Gordon cannot get a deal together at that point, but Mr. Happer may be able to.
The third act tension is, basically, can Mr. Happer fix things? Can he make Ben come to an agreement? He does, but not as expected.
It seems like this film is making a joke at the idea of small town pastoralism. Mac discovers that he yearns for the simple life that Gordon has with Stella, but as the townspeople show, they are not a bunch of sentimental fools- they want cash. Ben and Mr. Happer (and maybe Marina) seem to be the only ones who “get it.” Nature is very important is this film, as is love, and the two are connected throughout the film. I guess the theme, on a basic level, could be that money can’t buy happiness.
The subplot of Olsen and Marina comes into play nicely at the end. He uses her knowledge to impress Mr. Happer, and he then uses Mr. Happer’s plans for a observatory to impress her. Mac’s longing for Stella underscores his true desire to live a simpler life. Mr. Happer’s eccentric obsession with the sky underscores the importance of nature in the film, and it allows him to connect with Ben.
Mac goes from a skeptical, curious company man to a wannabe local. At first, he is uptight and wary of the area. He asks for a telephone and a charger for his briefcase and is shocked by the locals’ reaction to it. He admires the meteor showers and Northern lights with awe. As he learns to love the town, he relaxes. His leaves his watch with the annoying alarm in the sea. He tries to impress the locals with his toast. He tells Gordon very directly that he wants to switch places with him. He finally pronounces Gordon’s last name correctly. When he gets back to his apartment in Houston, he hangs up photos of his trip and looks at them longingly.
Gordon’s introduction sets up his character nicely. We instantly get a sense of him and his life. We know that he’s a relaxed hotel owner who has a very sensual relationship with his wife. We know that he has a good relationship with the townspeople. We know that he laughs at Mac’s formal requests and that he doesn’t take him too seriously.
First off, the scientists that Mac and Olsen visit early on seem to provide a goofy scene, but the introduction of Marina is important. They tell Mac and Olsen that she works in the area and to look out for her, which is what Olsen does later. Secondly, Mac’s initial meeting with Mr. Happer sets up the idea of nature and leaving a legacy. Mr. Happer wants to discover a comet to name after himself, but in the end he realizes that he can do more by funding the observatory.
A great example of dramatic irony comes with the townsfolk. We know that they are eager to sell and financially knowledgeable, but Mac does not. Besides giving the film humor, it makes us sympathize with Mac, knowing he is in for more than he bargained for. We also feel better for the townspeople, knowing they will not be fleeced by an important American corporation.
Forsyth does not waste time in setting up the world of the film. Within the first few minutes, we know the purpose of his assignment, the Texas business world he lives in, and the eccentricities of his boss. His back story, and Mr. Happer’s back story about the company and his eccentricities, gives us lots of information about the problems Mac will face. His character introduction, a young hotshot who’s good with over-the-phone deals but awkward with women, is apparent easily.
Film reviews, criticism, discussions, rants, raves, and random pictures of Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Saturday, October 8, 2005
Thursday, July 21, 2005
About a Boy
Hugh Grant has never had a more perfect role. Grant plays a selfish, shallow bachelor in the British romantic comedy About A Boy. Directed by brothers Chris and Paul Weitz, this film follows him as he learns that being shallow will eventually leave him alone and depressed.
Grant’s life is changed not by a woman, but by a young boy, Nicholas Hout, wholives with an unbalanced, flower-child mother. Grant first meets the boy at a session for single parents. He pulls off the callous role well, without any feeling towards his numerous love interests.
Of course, since this is a predictable romantic comedy, Grant begins to mature and become more sensitive. Hout constantly shows up at his house, bugging Grant to do cool things and teach him stuff. Grant is uneager at first, but with the boy’s persistence, eventually begins to act as a father figure. He then tries to capitalize on his newfound maturity to gain the affections of single mom Rachel Weisz. The movie moves from a typical beginning to a sappy, everyone-is-a-winner end.
The film does have a certain charm. Hout is cute as the boy who teaches Grant about maturity. Toni Collette plays the zany role of Hout’s mother well. Grant seems at ease with the callous bachelor part, but when the film tries to get serious, he looks out of place. The good new for audiences is that the film rarely tries to probe too deeply, albeit with a suicide attempt that seems out of place. For the most part, it remains predictable and cute, just another date movie on the cinematic landscape.
Grant’s life is changed not by a woman, but by a young boy, Nicholas Hout, wholives with an unbalanced, flower-child mother. Grant first meets the boy at a session for single parents. He pulls off the callous role well, without any feeling towards his numerous love interests.
Of course, since this is a predictable romantic comedy, Grant begins to mature and become more sensitive. Hout constantly shows up at his house, bugging Grant to do cool things and teach him stuff. Grant is uneager at first, but with the boy’s persistence, eventually begins to act as a father figure. He then tries to capitalize on his newfound maturity to gain the affections of single mom Rachel Weisz. The movie moves from a typical beginning to a sappy, everyone-is-a-winner end.
The film does have a certain charm. Hout is cute as the boy who teaches Grant about maturity. Toni Collette plays the zany role of Hout’s mother well. Grant seems at ease with the callous bachelor part, but when the film tries to get serious, he looks out of place. The good new for audiences is that the film rarely tries to probe too deeply, albeit with a suicide attempt that seems out of place. For the most part, it remains predictable and cute, just another date movie on the cinematic landscape.
Friday, July 8, 2005
The Life of David Gale
Capital punishment remains one of the most controversial political subjects in the country, but if you’re looking for insightful commentary, The Life of David Gale may be a disappointment. Kevin Spacey’s 2003 film is suspenseful and engaging, but lacking in political depth. I hadn't seen this, but wanted to familiarize myself with all of Spacey's work.
Spacey stars as David Gale, a Texas college professor and anti-death penalty activist. Ironically, he sits on death row after being convicted of murder. His alleged victim, played by Laura Linney, is a friend and fellow activist. The story begins when he agrees to an interview with famed reporter Bitsey Bloom, ably managed by Kate Winslet. During the week before his execution, Gale must convince Bloom that he has been framed. Much of the film consists of flashbacks to the time before the murder. As Gale discloses his story, Bloom starts to believe him and the suspense rises. Bloom’s discoveries lead to a shocking finish.
Director Alan Parker chooses to focus more on the suspense and the shock surrounding the murder mystery, rather than on the controversial subject of capital punishment. Because of this, the movie plays out like a typical thriller, not something probing like Dead Man Walking. Still, it has its philosophical moments, and the acting shines. Spacey carries a lot of the movie on his portrayal of the main character, and as he’s shown before, he is up to the task. Linney performs well as his friend and alleged victim. The Life of David Gale is undoubtedly captivating and entertaining, but on a different level than what one might expect in a film about capital punishment.
Spacey stars as David Gale, a Texas college professor and anti-death penalty activist. Ironically, he sits on death row after being convicted of murder. His alleged victim, played by Laura Linney, is a friend and fellow activist. The story begins when he agrees to an interview with famed reporter Bitsey Bloom, ably managed by Kate Winslet. During the week before his execution, Gale must convince Bloom that he has been framed. Much of the film consists of flashbacks to the time before the murder. As Gale discloses his story, Bloom starts to believe him and the suspense rises. Bloom’s discoveries lead to a shocking finish.
Director Alan Parker chooses to focus more on the suspense and the shock surrounding the murder mystery, rather than on the controversial subject of capital punishment. Because of this, the movie plays out like a typical thriller, not something probing like Dead Man Walking. Still, it has its philosophical moments, and the acting shines. Spacey carries a lot of the movie on his portrayal of the main character, and as he’s shown before, he is up to the task. Linney performs well as his friend and alleged victim. The Life of David Gale is undoubtedly captivating and entertaining, but on a different level than what one might expect in a film about capital punishment.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Issues in European Cinema: an academic reading
As Ginette Vincendeau explains in her article, “Issues in European Cinema,” French and other European cinema has long been defined as art cinema dominated by famous auteurs. She notes that the full study of European cinema, besides these famous directors, is only a recent development. One recent film that does take a look as this history is Olivier Assayas’s film Irma Vep, made in 1996.
In this film, Assayas both mocks and pays tribute to the old ideas of auteur theory. He respects the old standard, but also questions its relevance in the contemporary film world. He references many of the facets of European cinema that Vincendeau uses in her article.
A tribute used to celebrate a major auteur in French cinema comes in Assayas’s choice of casting Jean-Pierre Leaud, who portrayed several characters based on Francois Truffaut in the famed director’s films. Truffaut is a major figure in film history, especially in France. His name certainly is synonymous with the French New Wave and 1960’s European cinema in general. Truffaut was one of the Cahiers du Cinema critics who most strongly supported the auteur theory. His career, in fact, became a testament to his theory.
Vincendeau takes Truffaut’s theory of autuers and gives a list of the best directors in Europe’s history, putting him in the second-highest category (444). By making the director in the film a reference to a famous French master filmmaker, Assayas clearly draws a connection between Rene (the director) and the traditional, artistic-minded cinema that pervades French history.
As he pays tribute to it, Assayas also mocks the auteur system as Rene loses control of his sanity. He is clearly a director in decline, unable to keep up with the new film language. He flips out on his wife, develops a crush on lead Maggie Cheung, and ends up with a very peculiar version of Les Vampires. His instability shows how the pressure of controlling too many aspects of the film may unhinge a filmmaker, especially one as detail-oriented as the greats. Assayas thus may be saying that one person cannot possibly handle all the aspects of filmmaking, which nearly goes against the auteur theory.
Assayas uses an interesting character to spell out some of the thoughts of the new generation. The young man interviewed during the shooting speaks of art cinema as a dead form. He yearns for big Hollywood productions with action and star power. His attitude goes against the old views on cinema in Europe. Vincendeau sees these old views as art cinema with an aversion to Hollywood (444). Instead of artists, the fan wants to see pulp. This is a very key moment to the film.
Nationality is also an important part of this film and Vincendeau’s article. Many European films today have a mix of funds and talent from foreign and domestic sources (Vincendeau 442). The important casting call in the film within the film is Maggie as the title character. Many of the characters in the film question Rene’s decision to use her. The original film, a series, is a French classic with a famous French silent actress. The story, as they remind Rene, calls for a rough French prostitute. Having a Hong Kong star of Martial Arts films in this role confuses them. This relates to Vincendeau’s claim that fewer European films today use actors from just one nationality (442). Rene wants to use Maggie because he sees her as a new approach to the old story. She represents a battle between the traditionalists and the progressive filmmakers.
The idea of nationalism is also important for Stephen Crofts in his article, ‘Concepts of National Cinema.” Crofts points out that films today mix not just nationalities, but also cultures very easily (386). European cinema was once very nationalistic, but with international co-productions, the barriers have been broken (Crofts 389). Assayas works to do that, while honoring the old tradition with the characters who question Maggie.
In all, Irma Vep touches on a number of subjects in modern European (and especially French) cinema. Assayas weaves a film that says that perhaps the art film is dead and filmmakers must move on, or perhaps the new generation needs to respect it. He manages to present several sides to it, and in the end, the audience is left to decide for themselves if the final product is a work of art or nonsense done by an old hack.
The split between narrative and avant-garde cinema began as soon as narrative cinema developed. As Roberta Pearson notes in her article, “Transitional Cinema,” films began moving towards a narrative structure around 1907 and they years after (29). Filmmakers came up with changes in the cutting from shot to shot and the distances uses to accommodate better storytelling (Pearson 29). Editing and writing especially involved in this period, helping the audience identify with the characters and progressing the story (Pearson 31). Companies began releasing different types of film, foreshadowing the many genres that would exist (Pearson 33). In the early 1910’s, studios began releasing films that lasted several reels, as the first attempts at features were made (Pearson 38).
In 1910, the major film companies in America joined together with a few major foreign distributors to form the Motion Pictures Patents Company, or MPPC (Pearson 25). “The Trust,” as it was called, controlled most of the industry, but it could not last long (Pearson 27). Some of their independent rivals joined together to make their own competing trust, and these two groups dominated film for some years (Pearson 27).
As more companies moved toward the narrative form, characters became important and the star system developed. Studios formed and the major ones were beginning to grow. Meanwhile, some filmmakers saw film as a definite art from that had to stay pure. Through their experiments, they kept alive the idea of cinema as art, especially avant-garde art.
As A. L. Rees explains in his article, “Cinema and the Avant-Garde,” there were many approaches to art cinema (96). The cubists were interested in rebuking narrative, but many other different artists joined the alternative movement (Rees 96). Some filmmakers like Carl Dreyer and F. W. Murnau saw film as a way to preserve cultural traditions in art (Rees 96). Some filmmakers like Luis Bunuel and Dziga Vertov straddled the line between narrative and abstraction (Rees 97). Some filmmakers wanted total chaos and full abstraction, and some saw it as a new kind if painting (Rees 98).
Instead of engaging audiences and keeping their interest in a story, some filmmakers tried purposely to disrupt audiences and their worlds (Rees 103). There were different approaches to it, but they all fought the developing narrative structure.
A closer look at Bunuel and Jean Cocteau’s films shows how artistic-mided directors could fight the narrative structure without denying it completely. Bunuel’s Un Chien Andalou follows no real story and makes sudden shifts in setting and imagery. Its dreamlike quality combats logical, narrative structure. His documentary, Land without Bread, mocks narrative stories about real people by including likely staged moments, playing around with the audience’s view of the townspeople, and ignoring certain parts of life in the area. Even when Bunuel is trying to make a point and tell somewhat of a story, such as in The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie,” he does it in a surreal style that goes against typical storytelling.
Cocteau’s films may include stories, but they do not always have a logical structure. His version of Beauty and the Beast involves many dream and fantasy images, and it resolves very whimsically (perhaps unexpectedly). His “Blood of a Poet” follows less of a pattern, using unreal situations and a lack of sense to create a dreamy mood.
Avant-garde cinema sought to make atypical uses of film as film became a mass product. The avant-garde filmmakers rejected this idea and sought to make cinema as art, pure and free of illusions (Rees 96). Today, artistic filmmakers continue what the original rebels created.
WORKS CITED
Crofts, Stephen. “Concepts of National Cinema.” The Oxford Guide to Film Studies. Ed. John Hill and Pamela Church Gibson. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998. 385-394.
Pearson, Roberta. “Transitional Cinema.” The Oxford History of World Cinema. Ed. Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996. 29-42.
Rees, A. L. “Cinema and the Avant-Garde.” The Oxford History of World Cinema. Ed. Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996. 95-105.
Vincendeau, Ginette. “Issues in European Cinema.” The Oxford Guide to Film Studies. Ed. John Hill and Pamela Church Gibson. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998. 440-447.
In this film, Assayas both mocks and pays tribute to the old ideas of auteur theory. He respects the old standard, but also questions its relevance in the contemporary film world. He references many of the facets of European cinema that Vincendeau uses in her article.
A tribute used to celebrate a major auteur in French cinema comes in Assayas’s choice of casting Jean-Pierre Leaud, who portrayed several characters based on Francois Truffaut in the famed director’s films. Truffaut is a major figure in film history, especially in France. His name certainly is synonymous with the French New Wave and 1960’s European cinema in general. Truffaut was one of the Cahiers du Cinema critics who most strongly supported the auteur theory. His career, in fact, became a testament to his theory.
Vincendeau takes Truffaut’s theory of autuers and gives a list of the best directors in Europe’s history, putting him in the second-highest category (444). By making the director in the film a reference to a famous French master filmmaker, Assayas clearly draws a connection between Rene (the director) and the traditional, artistic-minded cinema that pervades French history.
As he pays tribute to it, Assayas also mocks the auteur system as Rene loses control of his sanity. He is clearly a director in decline, unable to keep up with the new film language. He flips out on his wife, develops a crush on lead Maggie Cheung, and ends up with a very peculiar version of Les Vampires. His instability shows how the pressure of controlling too many aspects of the film may unhinge a filmmaker, especially one as detail-oriented as the greats. Assayas thus may be saying that one person cannot possibly handle all the aspects of filmmaking, which nearly goes against the auteur theory.
Assayas uses an interesting character to spell out some of the thoughts of the new generation. The young man interviewed during the shooting speaks of art cinema as a dead form. He yearns for big Hollywood productions with action and star power. His attitude goes against the old views on cinema in Europe. Vincendeau sees these old views as art cinema with an aversion to Hollywood (444). Instead of artists, the fan wants to see pulp. This is a very key moment to the film.
Nationality is also an important part of this film and Vincendeau’s article. Many European films today have a mix of funds and talent from foreign and domestic sources (Vincendeau 442). The important casting call in the film within the film is Maggie as the title character. Many of the characters in the film question Rene’s decision to use her. The original film, a series, is a French classic with a famous French silent actress. The story, as they remind Rene, calls for a rough French prostitute. Having a Hong Kong star of Martial Arts films in this role confuses them. This relates to Vincendeau’s claim that fewer European films today use actors from just one nationality (442). Rene wants to use Maggie because he sees her as a new approach to the old story. She represents a battle between the traditionalists and the progressive filmmakers.
The idea of nationalism is also important for Stephen Crofts in his article, ‘Concepts of National Cinema.” Crofts points out that films today mix not just nationalities, but also cultures very easily (386). European cinema was once very nationalistic, but with international co-productions, the barriers have been broken (Crofts 389). Assayas works to do that, while honoring the old tradition with the characters who question Maggie.
In all, Irma Vep touches on a number of subjects in modern European (and especially French) cinema. Assayas weaves a film that says that perhaps the art film is dead and filmmakers must move on, or perhaps the new generation needs to respect it. He manages to present several sides to it, and in the end, the audience is left to decide for themselves if the final product is a work of art or nonsense done by an old hack.
The split between narrative and avant-garde cinema began as soon as narrative cinema developed. As Roberta Pearson notes in her article, “Transitional Cinema,” films began moving towards a narrative structure around 1907 and they years after (29). Filmmakers came up with changes in the cutting from shot to shot and the distances uses to accommodate better storytelling (Pearson 29). Editing and writing especially involved in this period, helping the audience identify with the characters and progressing the story (Pearson 31). Companies began releasing different types of film, foreshadowing the many genres that would exist (Pearson 33). In the early 1910’s, studios began releasing films that lasted several reels, as the first attempts at features were made (Pearson 38).
In 1910, the major film companies in America joined together with a few major foreign distributors to form the Motion Pictures Patents Company, or MPPC (Pearson 25). “The Trust,” as it was called, controlled most of the industry, but it could not last long (Pearson 27). Some of their independent rivals joined together to make their own competing trust, and these two groups dominated film for some years (Pearson 27).
As more companies moved toward the narrative form, characters became important and the star system developed. Studios formed and the major ones were beginning to grow. Meanwhile, some filmmakers saw film as a definite art from that had to stay pure. Through their experiments, they kept alive the idea of cinema as art, especially avant-garde art.
As A. L. Rees explains in his article, “Cinema and the Avant-Garde,” there were many approaches to art cinema (96). The cubists were interested in rebuking narrative, but many other different artists joined the alternative movement (Rees 96). Some filmmakers like Carl Dreyer and F. W. Murnau saw film as a way to preserve cultural traditions in art (Rees 96). Some filmmakers like Luis Bunuel and Dziga Vertov straddled the line between narrative and abstraction (Rees 97). Some filmmakers wanted total chaos and full abstraction, and some saw it as a new kind if painting (Rees 98).
Instead of engaging audiences and keeping their interest in a story, some filmmakers tried purposely to disrupt audiences and their worlds (Rees 103). There were different approaches to it, but they all fought the developing narrative structure.
A closer look at Bunuel and Jean Cocteau’s films shows how artistic-mided directors could fight the narrative structure without denying it completely. Bunuel’s Un Chien Andalou follows no real story and makes sudden shifts in setting and imagery. Its dreamlike quality combats logical, narrative structure. His documentary, Land without Bread, mocks narrative stories about real people by including likely staged moments, playing around with the audience’s view of the townspeople, and ignoring certain parts of life in the area. Even when Bunuel is trying to make a point and tell somewhat of a story, such as in The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie,” he does it in a surreal style that goes against typical storytelling.
Cocteau’s films may include stories, but they do not always have a logical structure. His version of Beauty and the Beast involves many dream and fantasy images, and it resolves very whimsically (perhaps unexpectedly). His “Blood of a Poet” follows less of a pattern, using unreal situations and a lack of sense to create a dreamy mood.
Avant-garde cinema sought to make atypical uses of film as film became a mass product. The avant-garde filmmakers rejected this idea and sought to make cinema as art, pure and free of illusions (Rees 96). Today, artistic filmmakers continue what the original rebels created.
WORKS CITED
Crofts, Stephen. “Concepts of National Cinema.” The Oxford Guide to Film Studies. Ed. John Hill and Pamela Church Gibson. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998. 385-394.
Pearson, Roberta. “Transitional Cinema.” The Oxford History of World Cinema. Ed. Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996. 29-42.
Rees, A. L. “Cinema and the Avant-Garde.” The Oxford History of World Cinema. Ed. Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996. 95-105.
Vincendeau, Ginette. “Issues in European Cinema.” The Oxford Guide to Film Studies. Ed. John Hill and Pamela Church Gibson. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998. 440-447.
Monday, April 18, 2005
Cradle Will Rock
I'll give a brief review of the forgotten 1999 film, Cradle Will Rock. I'd been wanting to check this out for a while, based on its cast list: both Cusacks, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Bill Murray, Hank Azaria, Cherry Jones, Vanessa Redgrave, John Turturro, the D (yes, JB and KG, in a hilarious cameo), Philip Baker Hall, Paul Giamatti, Emily Watson, Cary Elwes, and a host of other people you might recognize.
This is the story of a depression-era theater company trying to put on a production of a play about labor unions and revolution, along with the government plans to stop it, plus the rich people trying to take control of art. Since Robbins wrote and directed it, you might guess that it's full of political commentary, and it is, from red scares to Orson Welles being a pompous ass to Nelson Rockefeller and W.R. Hearst plotting to take over the art world. Robbins tries to weave a very Altman-esque tale of several stories, and it works on people recognition value and humor, but it's a little messy. An interesting piece, it doesn't really live up to its great cast name, but provides a look at the times.
This is the story of a depression-era theater company trying to put on a production of a play about labor unions and revolution, along with the government plans to stop it, plus the rich people trying to take control of art. Since Robbins wrote and directed it, you might guess that it's full of political commentary, and it is, from red scares to Orson Welles being a pompous ass to Nelson Rockefeller and W.R. Hearst plotting to take over the art world. Robbins tries to weave a very Altman-esque tale of several stories, and it works on people recognition value and humor, but it's a little messy. An interesting piece, it doesn't really live up to its great cast name, but provides a look at the times.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Classics in short: Contempt
I've been trying to continue my film education beyond class by dissecting the old auteurs. Right now, I'm trying to understand the works of Jean Luc Godard, one of the more extreme foreign filmmakers. This week, I watched Contempt. Interesting that I watched this now, because who would I see in it but a young Jack Palance. Actually, not really young, but not the old guy we were used to. I didn't expect to see him in a French New Wave film, but he was playing a boisterous American, so it worked.
This is an interesting film because it deals with filmmaking, like a lot of those critic-auteurs do. A spoiled American producer tries to make Homer's Odyssey with a European crew and cast, including legendary Fritz Lang as the director. Lang plays himself, which is fun. (For the record, Mr. Lang, I prefer M as well.) Unfortunately, all this takes a back seat to the personal life of the French screenwriter, who arrives on set with his beautiful but annoying wife. The film shifts to their arguments and troubles, and it lost me. It went from a biting satire on filmmaking to a relationship movie where two people lash out at each other as much as they can. Their marriage is failing. You could even say.... (dun-dun-dun!) .... that they have CONTEMPT for each other!!!!! I kid, I kid. I would not recommend this to the average citizen, but for those interested in the New Wave, it is a solid piece.
This is an interesting film because it deals with filmmaking, like a lot of those critic-auteurs do. A spoiled American producer tries to make Homer's Odyssey with a European crew and cast, including legendary Fritz Lang as the director. Lang plays himself, which is fun. (For the record, Mr. Lang, I prefer M as well.) Unfortunately, all this takes a back seat to the personal life of the French screenwriter, who arrives on set with his beautiful but annoying wife. The film shifts to their arguments and troubles, and it lost me. It went from a biting satire on filmmaking to a relationship movie where two people lash out at each other as much as they can. Their marriage is failing. You could even say.... (dun-dun-dun!) .... that they have CONTEMPT for each other!!!!! I kid, I kid. I would not recommend this to the average citizen, but for those interested in the New Wave, it is a solid piece.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Old School
Late 90's films such as American Pie and Road Trip allude to the glory days of college comedies, when John Belushi was alive and the genre was still somewhat fresh. Nowadays, these films may garner box office success and be hits with younger audiences, but they just don’t match up with the originals. Old School is no different.
Director Todd Phillips tries to emulate the old campus flicks with a film that has many connections with his first major comedy, Road Trip. They’re both awful. Luke Wilson, Will Ferrell, and Vince Vaughn are three near-thirty buddies with a midlife crisis. Wilson finds out his girlfriend is a sex fiend, Ferrell’s new married life isn’t what he wants, and Vaughn pushes both of them to his new scheme. When Wilson moves into an old college frat house, Vaughn decides that they should create a fraternity that anyone can join. Wannabe- Animal House hijinks ensue.
The film, as expected, is a cheap comedy aimed at younger audiences. It does what it says, but it’s not very funny or original. Phillips uses hackneyed situations and really one-dimensional characters for a story that isn’t that interesting. The minor characters are annoying and unreal. Vaughn does well as the guy who starts the mess, but Ferrell can do much better, as his starring take in Anchorman attests. Wilson aptly handles his lead role, but this is a far cry from the heights he reached in The Royal Tenenbaums.
Ultimately, this film is a comedy that isn’t that funny, and an original story that really isn’t that original. Thankfully, it only lasts 90 minutes. I knew there was a reason I waited until now to see it.
Director Todd Phillips tries to emulate the old campus flicks with a film that has many connections with his first major comedy, Road Trip. They’re both awful. Luke Wilson, Will Ferrell, and Vince Vaughn are three near-thirty buddies with a midlife crisis. Wilson finds out his girlfriend is a sex fiend, Ferrell’s new married life isn’t what he wants, and Vaughn pushes both of them to his new scheme. When Wilson moves into an old college frat house, Vaughn decides that they should create a fraternity that anyone can join. Wannabe- Animal House hijinks ensue.
The film, as expected, is a cheap comedy aimed at younger audiences. It does what it says, but it’s not very funny or original. Phillips uses hackneyed situations and really one-dimensional characters for a story that isn’t that interesting. The minor characters are annoying and unreal. Vaughn does well as the guy who starts the mess, but Ferrell can do much better, as his starring take in Anchorman attests. Wilson aptly handles his lead role, but this is a far cry from the heights he reached in The Royal Tenenbaums.
Ultimately, this film is a comedy that isn’t that funny, and an original story that really isn’t that original. Thankfully, it only lasts 90 minutes. I knew there was a reason I waited until now to see it.
Saturday, January 8, 2005
Welcome
Welcome to cinematics schematics! I'm currently in film school, studying for a Master's degree in Film & Writing. I love watching movies, writing scripts, directing short films, and discussing big movies in both casual and academic settings. Hopefully, this blog will serve as a springboard for discussions about all kinds of films - indie, popcorn, classic, foreign, and anything else. If you have any recommendations, questions, complaints, I'll listen to anyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)