Atonement (in short)

This British adaptation is getting lots of critical attention. I can see this winning the big awards (it got the Globe for Best Pic). It has good acting, fantastic direction, a strong emotional pull, and it just feels like an English Patient or such type that could win. I'd be okay with that, I guess. It's not bad. But I wonder if people who don't like No Country for its nontraditional ending will go for this instead, because it's a curious last hour here as well.

No End in Sight

I realized recently that I hadn't seen any new docs this year, after plowing through a ton of great ones last year. 2006 might have been The Year of the Documentary, but I wanted to see some of the touted ones this year. This one is another Iraq doc, done by Charles Ferguson, who is not a normal filmmaker but just a concerned guy who had the cash to make this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/movies/26ferg.html?fta=y

I didn't need another doc to tell me that things are f----d up over there or that it was a big mistake. Kinda knew that, people. But this is interesting for its detailed list of how things went bad after Baghdad was "freed" and its impressive talking head cast. Ferguson managed to get interviews with a lot of key people who were over there, including Colin Powell's number one assistant. This is very in-depth on details that most didn;t pay attention to. The conclusion? Power brokers like Rumsfeld and Jerry Bremer didn't just f--k up, they really, really, really, really, REALLY f----d up after they thought it was over, even though they had people working for them who said otherwise. Terrific.

I Could Never Be Your Woman

I have always loved Paul Rudd, from his appearance in Clueless to his association with members of The State in films like Wet Hot American Summer and The Ten. He carries this film to a sweet level. You might have loved him before, but in the rare case you didn't, you will now. He's a struggling actor and the love interest of TV producer Michelle Pfeiffer, who is in charge of a Degrassi- type teen show. She leans on him as her new star (yes, he's playing an actor, who is playing a high schooler, when he's almost 40 in real life, which is part of the fun). She also leans on her daughter, Saoirse Ronan, better known as the young girl in Atonement, for hip new ideas and high school slang. This is a pretty funny satire of Hollywood, a charming rom com, and a warm family story all at once. Amy Heckerling, who directed Clueless and Fast Times at Ridgemont High, scores again with a fun look at life in SoCal that has heart. In fact, I'd say it's a lot like Clueless: cute, but also much funnier and more interesting than you expected.

So why, you may be wondering, haven't you heard of it? Well, basically, Heckerling got the shaft from studios. They bounced it around and never gave it a theatrical release, even though it's very deserving of one. Unbelievable. The only thing I can find wrong with it is a strange character played by Tracey Ullman, who acts like Pfeiffer's conscience. She's annoying, but that's about it. This is a really likable film, and you'd think they capitalize on Rudd's growing popularity. See it for him (and sweet cameos from Jon Lovitz, Fred Willard, Wallace Shawn, and the Fonz) and love the Rudd like never before.

I'm Not There

I'm Not There -

Todd Haynes' biopic on Bob Dylan is...ummm... a lot of things, really, but I'm not sure what to make of it yet. It seems like he realized after he started filming that he couldn't go with a docudrama, because there have been lots of documentaries, most of them very good, about the man. So he went into fantasy and metaphorical depictions of Dylan's life, most notably by using different names and actors for various stages of Dylan's career. It works sometimes, but other times it's weird (still don't get what the Richard Gere segment is all about). Maybe Haynes made this hard to define purposefully to emulate Dylan. I can see that.

There are some great performances and ridiculous cameos, and the music is great, but it's such a strange mix of elements. This is coming from someone who loves Luis Bunuel and Terry Gilliam.... I can love weird, but I don't know if I love this. Still, if you like Dylan, or you like offbeat films, I think it's a great choice. It deserves to be seen, and heard (some of the covers here are fantastic - Malkmus? Vedder? Tengo????)

Charlie Wilson's War

After a lot of hype and big names, this hasn't really been getting great reviews. For good reason: it's not nearly as rollicking as it promised to be. Tom Hanks is fine and squinty (is he turning into Ian McKellan?) as the title man, a boozing Texas congressman who gets help from annoying Julia Roberts to fund a war for Afghanistan. He then turns to Phil Hoffman as a CIA agent for know-how. Hilarity ensues. Kind of.

I'm disappointed that Mike Nichols, a theater guy who always gets great performances, let Hanks and Roberts waltz through this without any gusto. Phil is good, but that's just Phil. Amy Adams is wasted. The action scenes seem out of place. The idea of mixing comedy and tragedy works when it's dark, not fast and flashy. It feels more like a longer version of the West Wing, and you can see Aaron Sorkin trying a little too hard here to be snazzy. Somehow, every building has long hallways to walk through.... just like the Studio 60 set.... and the Bartlett White House... I'm just saying. A decent attempt, but really short of potential, especially in the end when they try to get serious about how they ignored Afghanistan and created more problems, and then it's just over. You can do better.

Juno

The parallels between this and Little Miss Sunshine are interesting. They were indie flicks with some good character actors and some decent names; cute, very cute; quirky and funny, in the modern indie tradition; with good scripts by first-time writers. I also, however, though they had some flaws, and shouldn't have made the Best Picture race. Apparently, this will be in the running.

Juno has a lot going for it, from Michael Cera's face to Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner surprising you to the ubiquitous J. K. Simmons. Ellen Page is a great and smart actress at such a young age. Sometimes, however, the dialogue veers toward overkill, and the conflict comes and goes. Don't get me wrong, it's very good; it's just not on par with No Country for Old Men and the top films of the year for me. I would absolutely recommend it, though. It caught me off guard in places with dramatic turns, and the soundtrack was cheerily strange.

films in brief

Here are some quick reviews for a few things I saw recently.

Once -

everyone has been glowing about this very low-key Irish film about two musicians struggling to make ends meet and fill happiness. I was surprised initially at how much there ISN'T besides singing, because it's not a stage musical, they're just playing songs here and there. But that becomes the main point, and it works. When they pour their souls out, it becomes a touching and deeply emotional story.

Sweeney Todd -

this seemed like the perfect project for Tim Burton. And Helena Bonham Carter. And Johnny Depp, once they were in. It all makes sense... but does it make sense as a film? It's the weirdest musical that comes from a normal musical setting, and Burton embraces that. While visually great, the story wanders a little, and musically... I guess that's how the musical goes. But every player is up to task, especially Sacha and his kid assistant, who has some great cockney numbers. Alan Rickman and the guy from Harry Potter are creepy as the villains, but I think one red herring that keeps popping up gives away too much. It's hard for me to judge, not knowing standard musicals all that well (especially this one), but I like their moxie.

December Boys -

this sweet nostalgia tale may not have gotten far if not for the casting of one Daniel Radcliffe. Yes, Harry Potter is expanding his serious scope, and he's doing good. He's one of four orphaned boys living in a lonely convent in 1960's Australia. He and three others, who have bonded over their near-Christmas birthdays, get to spend some vacation time on the coast. They hear that the ultra-cool young couple nearby might adopt one of them, and they begin amping for their love... but not the older Radcliffe, as he finds a teenage girl with a burgeoning crush. This may be an old standard of a looking-back tale, but it's good.

No Country for Old Men & some others in brief

Spartan -

This came out a few years ago, but I don't remember hearing much about it. Now I find out that David Mamet wrote and directed a war movie with Val Kilmer and Kristen Bell????? We had to find out. This is a very good thriller, with Kilmer as a rogue commando set to rescue the president's missing daughter (Bell), even though the president may not want her back... Pretty damn good for a military conspiracy movie, and more action than I ever expected Mamet to be capable of.

No Country For Old Men -

Finally snuck away to the theater to see the Coens get back in the saddle. They didn't disappoint. This is an awesome combination of western motifs and modern thrillers. Everyone is on their game, but Javier Bardem is downright terrifying as the hitman with no rules at all. I'm calling a nom for him. Has to. I was a little curious as to how they handled the last half hour or so, but it doesn't diminish the accomplishment. Who knew they could get serious again, and not only that, but make one of the more suspenseful movies in the past few years - without resulting to easy scare tactics like so many do these days? The silence and the great cinematography added to this great work.

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead -

Also managed to grab this little-seen drama before it went out. It's a sad story of two shmuck brothers (Ethan Hawke, in full sad-sack loser Dead Poets / Tape mode, and the great Phil S Hoffman) robbing their own parents' store, and things going horribly wrong. I liked it, but there are a lot of questions about how Sidney Lumet handled this. He uses multi perspectives for everyone involved, but it doesn't always help, and they end up repeating a lot. The main thing to watch in this movie is to see Phil take an unlikable character and just run with it. He's a total heel, and he doesn't care. For a Phil-phanatic like myself, it's nice to see him back doing stuff others maybe wouldn't. But the rest of the film is just okay at best.

The Number 23 -

I waited for this on DVD after being suspicious of it earlier... and I was right. It's got a compelling visual style and the stigma behind 23 is intriguing. It's got a dramatic murder mystery and a Bud Cort cameo. But the story is so weirdly drawn out. Much of the film is a flashback to the book Jim Carrey is reading, which makes sense (I guess?) in the end but doesn't do much for excitement. It's a decent story, but then it ends up being not about 23 so much as one guy's weird problems. Funny, Joel Schumacher is probably the only guy who can offer so much promise and disappointment in the same film. At least Virginia Madsen is still capable.

And they missed the most obvious connection to that number, one that I've suspected for many years: Michael Jordan has the power of Satan. I knew it!

The Darjeeling Limited

At last, I got a chance to see Wes Anderson's latest opus. I was not disappointed. This is a fantastic mix of melancholy family struggles and deadpan humor. It's classically Wanderson styled, and resembles (to me) Royal T-baums, my favorite of his works. The trio of Owen, Brody, and Schwartzman delivers the goods as three brothers with a shaky family history. On top of his usual formula, Wanderson adds an infusion of Indian music (which apparently came from a lot of calssic Indian films) and fantastic imagery. It's soulful and funnt and pretty much perfect. For all lovers of Wes, and movies in general, this is a must.

Matewan: an academic reading

The miners of West Virginia have faced many hardships throughout the years of their service. They have endeared health problems, arguments with business leaders, and even government force in their campaign for better working conditions. Filmmaker John Sayles wanted to make a realistic portrayal of their struggles in the early part of the Twentieth century. Sayles’ film Matewan, for the most part, follows the guidelines of classic film realism. There is, however, an exception, and that makes the film somewhat radical.
The real action in Matewan begins with the arrival of Joe Kenehan, a union backer. Kenehan suggests several ideas and helps the miners organize their union. In this sense, the film follows Hill’s idea of the narrative fairly well. The start of the film, the first equilibrium, has the miners arguing with the company. This is not what we might think of as a stable situation, but it is the regular setting for this era. The next step of the narrative is a disruption in this equilibrium, and that disruption is Kenehan. He is an outsider who comes into the situation and disrupts things. He helps organize the strike and gets the miners to accept the African-Americans and Italians into their union.
For the traditional narrative to continue, this action then requires a force from the other side to bring back a setting equal to the opening. That force is the company’s reaction to the powerful strike. They send in their agents and the shootout ensues. This is their answer to solving the problem. At the end of the film, the setting is indeed close to the original: the miners are still fighting with the company, and Kenehan is gone. In that sense, it seems that the equilibrium has been reestablished. The setting, however, must also be somewhat different, according to the rules of narrative, and it is. Kenehan has left his mark and the fight has intensified. Some of the townspeople are dead, and that is obviously a change from the beginning. Thus, the film follows one idea of Hill fairly well.
Hill also discusses the ideology of affirmation. This idea states that people control the events in their lives. Sayles tries to assure the audience that this is true. The miners fight to deny the idea that they are slaves to the company. They always have had to listen to their employers and follow their orders exactly, or else they would not survive. Kenehan helps convince them that they can fight back; that they can make a difference. There is a great line from James Earl Jones’ character in a conversation with another black miner character, where they realize that they are still basically slaves to the white folk. Their lives have not improved much. When the native miners allow them (and the Italians) to join the union, it is likely the first time in their lives that they have stood up to their superiors. As Jones said of his character, “I saw Few Clothes as an activist in the sense that he only wanted the best for [his fellow outsiders]. He knows that if he talks back [to any white boss], he may get a noose put around his neck.”
Another ideology that Hill discusses is that of containment. This suggests that one person’s attitude is the cause of the problem; on a larger scale, the problem lies with a few outcasts, not many people. In this film, Kenehan is the outsider whose attitude affects everyone else. He does not want violence, he does want the miners to include the African-Americans and Italians, and he even admits his communist ideas. His ideas are radical to everyone involved, especially the company’s agents. They are out to destroy him and defile him in the minds of the workers. Once again, Sayles’ film follows Hill’s idea. The problem (which is the company’s problem) comes from Kenehan. He inspires the miners. He gets help from Few Clothes, Danny, and other people, and the miners are already angry with the company, but he directly causes much of the action. When he dies at he shootout, it solves their problem in a way.
Matewan is very much on the side of the union miners. Sayles has the audience feeling sorry for their plight at all times, while making the agents evil, unmerciful villains. They are ridiculously mean to the townspeople at all times. They laugh at church! Sayles does not take an impartial view in this, and that is why this movie emits left-wing, radical ideas.
Sayles does and does not follow the ideas of classic film realism in his film Matewan. He goes along with most of the ideas, but shows bias and directs the audience’s feelings towards one side of the fight. Matewan is a powerful testament to the struggles of the West Virginia miners, but the radical ideas may turn off conservative viewers. Even so, Sayles has made a strong statement.

The Lives of Others & films in brief

BUG - This came out early in the year as the latest horror/thriller to come in and out of theaters quickly. But it's more than that. This came from a play, which sounds strange for such a genre. It starts out as an indie-type reality drama and then suddenly becomes a paranoid thriller that spirals way out of control. Ashley Judd signed up for this because it's really an acting showcase, believe it or not... if you like acting crazy.

THE LIVES OF OTHERS - I've meant to see this, last year's Best Foreign Picture winner, for a while. It's dynamic. During the Soviet regime in East Germany, a member of the secret police is instructed to spy on a famous writer. The writer hasn't done anything, but a high official wants the writer's girlfriend, and so this drone begins spying. He soon realizes that the writer hasn't done anything wrong, but he knows the boss will push him to make up something, and he has a struggle of conscience.

This is a great film and worth its awards. It's tragic and heartfelt and also a reminder of Communism and the troubles it produced (this may seem obvious to most, but I sometimes need to be assured). Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck is quite a director.

YEAR OF THE DOG - This cute indie dramedy from Mike White, writer of such slacker fare, goes in places you might expect it to but ends with a nice statement. Molly Shannon is a fairly boring single woman who loves her dog and simple life. When it dies, she has a crisis and starts to reach out to new people and places, and finds a new purpose in animal protection. This has a great cast with John C. Reilly, Peter Saarsgard, and Laura Dern on board, and though it doesn't seem that much different from the previous indie films of this nature (The Good Girl, You and Me and Everyone We Know, You Can Count on Me), it works well and finishes on a surprising upbeat. Good for indie lovers, and dog lovers everywhere.

films in brief

Some quick reviews:

The Namesake -

This drama caught attention earlier in the year when people were surprised by how good a movie based around Kumar could be. He's not bad, but the parents (both veterans of Indian cinema) are very good in this tale of immigrants adjusting to America. It's a solid drama, and the only problem is that they perhaps tried to jam too much into one movie (from the book) and may have worked better as a mini-series. Still, Mira Nair is a great director, and this is a fine piece of work on its own.

The Family Stone -

Finally saw this indie comedy from two years ago. I don't know why it took this long, because it's a likable cast... except for the two main lovers, which I'm still curious about. If my family had Diane Keaton, Craig T. Nelson, Rachel McAdams, Luke Wilson, and a lovable gay and deaf man, would I even give a darn about Dermot Mulroney? I say no. But they like him, and when he brings home Sarah Jessica Parker as his date, she doesn't fit in, and hilarity ensues.

This was genuinely funny and a solid Christmas / family relationship movie. Luke is on his game, relaxed, but I couldn't feel a moment of sympathy for Parker, and wasn't that the point? And then Claire Danes shows up and Dermot suddenly has a change of heart? Weird plot, but an enjoyable treat.

Urban Legends: Bloody Mary

Did you know that the 1998 semi-successful horror film that featured deaths based on popular urban legends and a young Jared Leto (and Josh Jackson) is still spawning sequels? Did you know that Kate Mara stars in this, even though she already had a breakthrough in Brokeback Mountain and comes from an uber-rich family? Did you know that it was written by the same guys who did X Men 2 and Superman Returns? Did you know that Utah is now considered an acceptable place to shoot a horror film that revolves around murder and date rape? Ah, the things you learn while watching late night cable.

Rescue Dawn -

Really wanted to see this, but it was in and out so quickly. Werner Herzog, one of the most famous German directors, takes a Vietnam movie and focuses on just the escape of one man. That man is Christian Bale, and he went through all sorts of trouble to film this. He and Steve Zahn are toughing it out in a POW camp with Jeremy Davies, when Bale decides to escape. This is shot beautifully and acted well, especially concerning the physical side. It remains a simple, but intense, story of survival. How does Patrick Bateman (I still can't call him Batman) keep doing this crazy stuff?

Two popcorn flicks in brief (Die Hard 4, Transformers)

Live Free or Die Hard -

what's the point of Crank or The Transporter when even the standard action franchises aren't even trying anymore? This is... ridiculous. Fun, but really, really ridiculous. Timothy Olyphant got some money this year, and I'm okay with that, but he and everyone in this should be kinda ashamed of themselves... especially The Bruce, who made John McClane so popular as a normal guy who made it through a tough situation, but is now steering trucks while a jet shoots him with missiles, and sending cars into helicopters. Gawd.

Speaking of mindless action....

Transformers -

Yeah, I couldn't resist. I was ready to give this a shot for one of my childhood treats, and, well, it gave us what we wanted. You could say that least Michael Bay is winking at how impossible this is and adding a little humor, but then, of course, he goes too far. Shia LeBeouf is for real, though. He's genuinely good comic relief while others are flailing.

But what is it about these action movies that boils all conflicts down to a few random people in a room? I call it the Independence Day Effect (which, by the way, is ripped off here repeatedly). What if I told you that the fate of the world was in some room in the Hoover Dam, and the only people in that room were Anthony Anderson, Jon Voigt, some British too-hot-to-be-a-nerd girl, and a possibly drunk John Turturro? Why not?

Ratatouille

Well, as bizarre as the voice roles can be (Patton is the lead of a Disney family movie? Jeanane Garafolo and Brad Garret playing French? Ian Holm is the bad guy?), this is actually a pretty classic Disney tale: outcast clashes with family, gets separated and finds new friend, but discovers he needs family after all and gets them to help in climactic scene. I was wondering if Fievel would show up at some point (is that even Disney? You know what I mean...) Every voice does well here, and Brad Bird knows how to use the new animation style to dazzle but not distract. Still, it's surprisingly old school and not too funny, but cute. You can watch it with kids and not kill yourself, which is getting hard these days.

Retro: Spiderman (the first)

With Spiderman 3 coming out soon, I thought I'd post this review from my old blog on the very first one. Memories are good.

After years of speculation, Spider-Man has finally arrived on the big screen. This release, which should be a huge success with young audiences, follows the story of one of the most popular super-heroes in the history of Marvel Comics.
The unlikely tale begins when Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), the stereotypical nerd of his high school, gets bitten by a radioactive spider during a field trip. He gains new and strange powers from this bite: he can climb walls, shoot a sticky substance from his wrists, and easily pummel any bully. He wants to impress Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), his attractive neighbor, but she doesn’t notice him. His odd friend, Harry Osborne (James Franco), also wants to impress her. Peter is confused about what to do with his newfound abilities.


The story shifts to focus on Harry’s dad, Norman (Willem Dafoe), the head of a defense technology company. Norman has a special drug that will make soldiers into supermen, but it has caused some insanity in animal testing, and is ruled unsafe. Government leaders are considering to stop funding his projects when he uses the formula on himself. This drives him to develop another personality as the Green Goblin, an insane criminal. This alter ego takes revenge on the people who stand in Norman’s way to success.
Peter continues to think about ways to use his powers. His struggles are special, but the film compares them with the average teenage angst felt by high schoolers. Peter lives with his Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) and Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson), and they attribute his behavior to this normal angst. Ben tries to talk to him, but Peter is too agitated. After seeing his uncle killed in a crime that Peter unknowingly had been able to stop, he decides that he should help people with his powers. Spider-Man is born.
Naturally, since Spider-Man is the hero and the Green Goblin is the villain, they become adversaries. This creates an interesting situation between Peter, Harry, and Norman. When Peter learns that Harry is going out with Mary Jane, the two buddies then are also entangled in an awkward love triangle. Norman/The Green Goblin realizes this and uses it to plot Peter/Spider-Man’s doom. The stage is set for classic battles.
This movie is not for everyone. Audiences looking for something serious will be disappointed. The corny dialogue seems lifted right out of the old comic books and includes many clichés. The comic book setting of an older New York also doesn’t match the movie, which takes place in the present. The screaming-damsel-in-distress is out of place in today’s equal-opportunity environment. The plot follows a predictable pattern and includes many scenes that are powerful, but unoriginal.
The producers chose two different generations for the cast, which includes strong up-and-coming stars (Maguire, Dunst, and Franco) mixed with established veterans like Dafoe and Robertson. These actors are too good to deliver these cheesy lines, but they will profit from this film. The characters in this film certainly come from the comic book characters, which means that they’re not overly developed. When Spider-Man faces the Green Goblin, it’s pure good and pure evil squaring off.
Despite its predictability, the film has a lot to like. The special effects are dazzling, and the fluid camera shots follow Spider-Man’s dizzying journeys through the city. Director Sam Raimi, known more for horror and noir films, delivers a quality action-hero flick. It is a safe bet for family audiences, although it may be too intense for very young kids. Spider-Man, as expected, provides comic book action and cheap laughs for solid entertainment value.

Lost in La Mancha

Hollywood has had its shares of “The Making Of” specials in the past few years. Most major box office smashes have follow-up videos about how they were made. Lost in La Mancha was supposed to be another one of these promotional specials, but ended up being an interesting documentary on the complete failure of a film.
Filmmakers Keith Fulton and Louis Pepe follow the making of The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, Terry Gilliam’s pet project. Gilliam, known for directing unconventional, mind-bending films such as Brazil, Twelve Monkeys, and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, wants badly to create the tale of the famous Spanish character. He enlists French actor Jean Rochefort to play the main role, and Johnny Depp as a variation on sidekick Sancho Panza.
The filmmakers track Gilliam as he oversees the pre-production of the film. Gilliam’s delight with the film is obvious as he looks at costumes, storyboards the action, and finds actors to portray ogres. His project runs smoothly, even though he and his producers admit that they are on a tight budget. This documentary shows that films shot outside the Hollywood system have to be careful about their expenses. It is a prime lesson of the film.
When the actual shooting of The Man Who Killed Don Quixote begins, all sorts of problems pop up. Rochefort develops a kidney stone that will not allow him to be on a horse, which is crucial for many of his scenes. This delay hurts the film’s progress, and Gilliam and his assistant struggle to reorganize their schedule.
More problems occur during the shooting when heavy rain changes the scenic desert into a mud pit. Not only that, but Gilliam must deal with planes flying overhead more often than had been planned. All of these problems, plus more, ultimately lead up to the film being called off.
Fulton and Pepe do a masterful job of capturing the emotions and opinions of everyone involved. Gilliam’s disappointment at the end is so obvious, as is that of his producers and crew. This is in stunning contrast to their idealistic, excited mood in the beginning. The filmmakers take us behind the scenes to see the various conflicts that go on between production members. There is also a short segment that explains Gilliam’s history and the characteristics of his films.
This film shows all the things that can go wrong with filmmaking. Some of the problems could be due to a lack of planning, but many of them are stranger acts of circumstance. A sufficient blow comes when one of Gilliam’s producers admits that he does not have all the money he said he had.
It is fortunate to the filmmakers that everyone responds with such honesty and insight. Gilliam happily lets them into his working world, even when the film is going to hell. Jeff Bridges, who worked with Gilliam in The Fisher King, ably narrates the documentary with an even tone.
In the end, this film shows a whimsical project that could have been- and possibly still might be. Gilliam, ever the idealist (another main point of the film), discloses in a late segment that he plans to buy back the rights to this film and finish it someday.
This documentary gives a real look to filmmaking, not like those aforementioned “Making Of” promos. The lessons learned in the filming of Gilliam’s project are sad, but helpful to any potential filmmaker.

College classics: A Clockwork Orange

A lot of people have been asking me for recommendations on films to watch in preparation for college. Some of them are interested in film school, while others just want to be cool and know the classics that all teachers and students will bring up. This is an excellent question. I am going to review several films that I believe are important for anyone entering college to watch - for fun, for knowing pop culture, for class discussions, or for late night viewings with a cold brew. The first one is a film that shocked audiences and still causes trouble in classrooms today.




A Clockwork Orange debuted in America in 1971, even though the copyright in the film is officially 1969. It was directed by Stanley Kubrick, who had just finished 2001: A Space Odyssey. Kubrick adapted the screenplay from Anthony Burgess’s novel of the same name. This film was made in Britain with mostly British actors, and distributed by Warner Brothers. It was nominated for Best Picture, Best Direction, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Film Editing at the 1971 Academy Awards, but won nothing.
The film follows the feats of Alexander De Large (played by Malcolm McDowell), a criminal youth in futuristic Britain. The teenaged Alex is the leader of a gang that enjoys rape, drugs, and causing various other kinds of mischief. Alex’s parents are weak and do not know how to control him, and his guidance counselor/ probation officer, Deltoid (Aubrey Morris), is not much of a force, either. After Alex breaks into a house and murders a woman, his gang turns on him and lets him be captured by the police. He is sent to prison, where he tries to be nice to the Chaplain (Godfrey Quigley) so as to get favorable treatment. He signs up for a new procedure that the government is backing. This procedure tortures him with mandatory films of violence and destruction while a harsh drug makes him extremely ill. The product of this treatment is that Alex cannot use violence without becoming sick, making him harmless. After he enters back into society, all of the people he has hurt get their revenge on him, and, being unable to fight back, he suffers extreme pain.
The film has an interesting chronological feel to it. It was made in the thick of the cultural revolution in the Sixties, and its depiction of a crumbling society reflects how many people saw the world then. Druggie youths causing problems were a major fear to older people at this time. It takes place in the future, though, so it also applies to any destructive time period. The film uses lots of classical music such as Beethoven, which is Alex’s favorite, but it also synthesizes some of these classical pieces for a futuristic effect. The result is a mix of old standards and futuristic ideas. The set designs achieve this effect as well, with shiny, futuristic shopping malls in one scene and a castle-like prison in another.
The movie is historically important for many reasons. It is perhaps the greatest work of Stanley Kubrick’s career, which is remarkable given Kubrick’s place in history. It is widely praised by critics as a masterpiece and a true cinematic classic. Controversy, however, followed this film’s release. Its stark depictions of sex and violence upset many viewers. It was banned in Britain for a few years after some youths admitted to copying violent acts in the film. It was originally rated “X” in the United States when that rating was used, but today it has been lowered to ‘R.” The language in the film can also be frustrating, because Burgess created a new version of slang in his novel by mixing Russian and English words that sound alike.
Critics hail the film as groundbreaking for many of its philosophical and political qualities. The main theme comes from Alex’s new condition at the end of the film. The prison’s chaplain believes that Alex has no freedom if he cannot choose to do good or bad. The minister (Anthony Sharp) focuses on how it will prevent him from doing harm. This is an important ethical issue to the film. The minister also has to deal with accusations that he has used Alex as a pawn to get votes. The film thus makes a statement about government tactics in new programs and elections. The film also mocks the police in various ways.
Kubrick included an ambiguous ending, even though Burgess originally ended the novel happily, with Alex maturing. Kubrick’s denial of this reinforces the cynical feeling of the film, and perfectly demonstrates why it is both loved and hated by so many.