After the success of Pineapple Express, I wanted to take a look back on the first David Gordon Green movie I saw, All the Real Girls. I actually got to meet Green and star Paul Schneider at a screening after I wrote this.
There has been a trend in several low-budget, independent films made within the past few years, focusing on the struggles of relationships between rustic people in small (often Southern) towns. Films in this pattern include The Good Girl, In the Bedroom, You Can Count on Me, and now, All the Real Girls.
David Gordon Green, who wrote the screenplay and directed, gives audiences a simple but stunning look at a small town in Appalachia. Paul (Paul Schneider) is a goofy but seemingly good-natured young man. His womanizing, however, has left him with a bad reputation. He hangs out with his buddies like Tip (Shea Whigham) and Bust-Ass (Danny McBride), drinking beer and talking about girls. Things change when Tip’s little sister Noel (Zooey Deschanel) returns home after graduating from an all-girls private school. Paul instantly becomes enamored with Noel, and Tip, knowing Paul’s ways with women, warns her not to fall in love.
Paul begins to let his guard down with Noel. He becomes more sympathetic with her and shows signs of maturation. Paul has slept with many different girls, and Noel is a virgin, but Paul does not push anything too fast. Just when the film seems like a lower-budgeted version of a sappy romantic comedy, Noel turns the tables on Paul. Now he must deal with the feelings of loss and heartbreak that he has caused so many girls.
Paul also has to deal with a depressing situation at home. His single mother, wonderfully portrayed by Patricia Clarkson, takes a job as a clown. Paul wants to help her, but he also wants to keep some of his individuality.
Paul eventually learns something about relationships, young love, and maturation. After his breakup with Noel, he begins to see how his past mistakes have hurt many people. Even Tip and several other characters go through a maturation process. These are simple people, but they can learn. In the end, it seems as though every character has learned something.
This is a solid film, supported by Green’s appropriate cinematic work. He captures the stale atmosphere of the town beautifully. He shows the monotony of the factory that holds the town together and the decaying neighborhoods on its riverbanks. In a memorable sequence, he juxtaposes drawings made by sick children with their actual facial responses to Paul and his mother dancing at the hospital. He includes enough comedy to keep things from being overdone, but for the most part, it is a serious and well-made drama.
The cast includes some unheralded actors, but performs well. The one film veteran, Clarkson, does a fantastic job. Deschanel, who was in The Good Girl (and makes the connection between these two films stronger), aptly portrays the naïve but unique love interest of Paul. Schneider, who helped come up with the story, handles the main role with a good amount of goofiness and seriousness. McBride, another newcomer, is a hilarious scene-stealer.
Green succeeds in his second feature film. Sometimes it seems a bit hokey, and a little overdramatic, but All the Real Girls holds up amazingly well for a film with its budget. This heartwarming and serious tale of young love is as strong as most independent films can hope to be.
Film reviews, criticism, discussions, rants, raves, and random pictures of Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
College classics: Fight Club (with a Tao twist)
Here's another film that I think most college students are familar with, especially guys: Fight Club. The 1999 David Fincher dark-comedy-actioner has been a pretty strong hit with 19 year old males, but women and adults should take a look at it as well. Here, I compared it with Tao philosophy. Hopefully, this will show students how to take a new spin on popular movies.
Philosophical lessons do not usually saturate Hollywood action movies. Most of the time, a movie about people kicking and punching each other is not going to amount to much more than that. Sometimes, however, great ideas are hidden underneath layers of flash and advertising. Much like The Matrix, Fight Club is an action movie geared for younger audiences that also has deep philosophical teachings that audiences (and perhaps even the filmmakers) missed. Fight Club is a work of social criticism and contains many teachings of the Tao, which we have learned in this class. More importantly, I have recognized these lessons and they have changed my life. The Taoist teachings reflected in this movie show how modern American society can make people ill.
The story begins with a young man, age 30, who works for a major automobile manufacturer. His job is to investigate crash sites where the vehicle’s safety features may have malfunctioned. Basically, he checks to make sure that his product does not kill enough people to issue a costly recall. This relates to recent exposures of corporate greed and deception, most notably the Firestone Tires scandal. Like the chiefs of that company, he knows his product can kill but his job states that he must try to report it in other ways as to save his corporation money.
He is, like many of his generation, a nameless face: a person working in a huge office building, trying to make some money. In fact, one of the quirks of this movie is that he does not have a name (the credits call him “the Narrator”). He is not a smashing hero or exceptional individual, and he spends his free time shopping for furniture and name brand items that will spruce up his apartment. In all, he leads a pointless existence and knows it. He does not go out often, and his job takes up his life.
His boring life and his pursuit of empty possessions lead him to insomnia. He is so bored and apathetic that he cannot sleep, and he tries various methods to cease his monotony. His real problem is that he has tried to make himself happy with brand names and possessions. As the Tao Te Ching states, “Chase after money and security and your heart will never unclench”(9). He talks about the imported Swedish tables and handcrafted dishware he bought and wonders sarcastically why they do not please him. His life has become completely useless because he has not filled it with anything real.
A doctor, upon hearing his pleas for help, tells him that real pain comes with real problems, and suggests he try seeing cancer patients in pain before deciding that his life is horrible. This piece of advice leads the insomniac to various support groups. He visits with cancer patients, pretending that he is afflicted, and sees true pain. “If you open yourself to loss,” the Tao Te Ching states, “you are at one with loss and you can accept it completely”(23). Of course, the movie presents his visits in a dry humor, which can be offending to anyone who has gone through cancer. The point is that he realizes he has less to worry about than he originally thought, and begins to “sleep” better.
For his work, he travels across the country to check out claims. During these flights, he makes a terrific point about American business and hospitality, which he calls “the single-serving life”. He describes the single-serving meals on the plane; the single-serving coffee at offices; the single-serving shampoo bottles in the hotel bathrooms; the single-serving packets of condiments at these bland, uninteresting places; and the “single-serving friends,” who are the people he meets during flights and has brief conversations with. His annoyance is with America’s tendency to be convenient and quick without establishing any quality, which sounds much like Robert Pirsig’s grievances in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance about quality and the people in a hurry. The Narrator knows that he cannot create a serious conversation with someone he will likely never see again, and thus his life is full of business terms and idle small talk, while completely lacking any depth.
This changes on one flight home when he meets Tyler Durden. Tyler is outgoing and completely unreserved in his mannerisms. He is nearly the opposite of the Narrator, and from their brief conversation he learns that they live near each other. The Narrator then returns home to find his apartment in ruins. An explosion completely wiped out his apartment and destroyed everything he owned. He has relied on these possessions, as I have mentioned, and so he is heartbroken and unsure of what to do next. He has no friends, so he calls up Tyler, who lets him stay at his place.
Tyler and the Narrator go out often and discuss the problems that they face. The Narrator is so unhappy because all of the things that he has worked for are gone, and how he almost had enough stuff. Tyler begins to shed light on his new friend. He explains that the important thing is no one died, and urges the Narrator to forget about his clothes and furniture and other items. “The things you own,” Tyler says, “end up owning you.” This is a very Tao statement, much like “If you realize that you have enough, you are truly rich”(33). I will note the relation to Christian teaching in this, as Jesus taught this idea many times. It makes his friend realize even more the pathetic nature of his life.
Another point that Tyler tries to make is that the Narrator should be himself and quit worrying about his appearance. As the Tao Te Ching states, “Care about people’s approval and you will be their prisoner”(9). Tyler knows how to let insults go, and thus has an extreme amount of confidence. This reflects on his friend, who is very uptight and unhappy when they first meet.
The two continue to live and talk, and the Narrator is very impressed with Tyler’s views on life. Both of them were raised without much help from their fathers and are stuck in a mid-life confused state; they are looking for the meaning to life and trying to convince themselves that they are special. Tyler, who makes soap in his basement and works odd jobs at night, is an interesting character. Without ever admitting it, he is quite a Taoist master.
He encourages the Narrator to have “near-life experiences,” which are random stunts designed to help him accept death and not fear it so much. “You’re one step closer to rock bottom,” he tells the frightened Narrator after he burns his hand and makes him miserable for one night. “It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.” This relates to the Tao The Ching, which states several times that death is your wisest advisor. “He [the Master] knows that he is going to die, and he has nothing left to hold on to… He holds nothing back from life; therefore he is ready for death”(50). “If you want to be given everything, give everything up”(22). The Narrator has given up the comforts of home to live in a rundown house without all of his possessions. He accepts it, and then enjoys it because there is no pressure.
The two friends decide on one of their early nights out that they need to release some aggravation. This is where the namesake of the film comes in. They find it refreshing to engage in hand-to-hand battle, just for the rush. “All of them [athletes and others] embody the virtue of non-competition. Not that they don’t love to compete,” as the Tao Te Ching says, “but they do it in the spirit of play”(68). They create the Fight Club in a local bar’s basement, and its popularity grows because it is strictly a positive release from the modern world. It is a place where men can go and let out their pain. The point is no to hurt the other person or even to win, but to release bottled emotions. It becomes an absurd, alternative therapy session for men.
Tyler continues his odd teaching of the Tao. He uses his platform as the creator of the Fight Club to say a few words to its members about society. “Look at the guys in Fight Club,” he says. “The strongest and smartest men who have ever lived -- and they're pumping gas and waiting tables; or they're slaves with white collars.” Tyler is unhappy with modern American society. Many of the members come to release the stress they get from pointless jobs, and Tyler bemoans the system. This relates to the Tao Te Ching’s sections on society in general. “When the upper class is extravagant and irresponsible,” it says, “while the poor have nowhere to run-all this is robbery and chaos”(53). Tyler sympathizes with his working-class fellows, and voice this to them.
Tyler continues to describe America’s preoccupation with materialism, saying, “Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes. A whole generation working in jobs we hate, just so we can buy shit we don't need. We were raised by television to believe that someday we'll all be millionaires and movie stars and rock stars- but we won't.” He realizes the futility of his culture and wants to change it. He rejects our cultural traditions, which goes along with the Tao Te Ching passage reading, “Ritual is the husk of true faith, the beginning of chaos”(38).
Unfortunately, this platform creates problems. As the movie goes on, the Narrator realizes that Tyler’s great ideas are getting more and more radical. They are also getting more and more dangerous. He threatens a stranger working at a mini-mart to either die or change his useless life. The Narrator fears these changes and begins to see Tyler as a dangerous reactionary. Tyler continues to preach to the members of Fight Club and eventually recruits them into a sort of underground army. He does not encourage them to fight a traditional battle, but fight the facets of society that he finds useless. “We're the middle children of history,” he tells them, “with no special purpose or place. We don't have a great war in our generation, or a great depression. Our great depression is our lives. Our great war is a spiritual war.”
His spiritual war becomes a series of random pranks around the city. Each member has a certain prank to pull that mocks corporate America. Tyler contends that corporations are not even human anymore. His idea seems justified, as once again the Tao Te Ching backs him up, saying, “Throw away industry and profit, and there won’t be any thieves”(19). Eventually, however, these pranks increase from childish vandalism to major destruction of property, as stores are smashed and buildings set ablaze. Tyler again tries to justify his actions with the fact that no actual person is hurt, but the Narrator sets out to stop his actions before they get way out of control.
The Narrator’s search proves difficult. New clubs begin popping up all over the country, and Tyler is the official leader of all of them. The Narrator quits his job and trails Tyler all over the country, hoping to halt the spread of his messages. Tyler, however, stays a step ahead of the frustrated Narrator. To make matters worse, Tyler has been involved in a relationship with a weird lady whom the Narrator met at the self-help meetings (she, like him, was just going to observe). This girl, Marla, acts very strangely around the Narrator, as if he is the one having an affair with her. Eventually, after days of searching, he calls her up to ask for clues about Tyler’s whereabouts.
The movie reaches its shocking climax here, because Marla tells the Narrator that he is Tyler Durden! Everything comes into focus for the Narrator, who realizes the truth. Tyler Durden is a fictional character; a split personality created by the Narrator to be everything that he was not. For the entire time, the Narrator has been the actual radical in charge of all the plans. He sometimes has imagined himself watching Tyler, but when Tyler has interacted with anyone else, it has just been the unconscious Narrator. He actually has not cured his insomnia; rather, when he believes he is asleep he really “becomes” Tyler. He blew up his own apartment because he hated it.
Armed with this revelation, the Narrator figures he can stop all the plans easily because it was actually himself who created them. His unconscious mind, however, is a step ahead of his conscious being. “Tyler” told his followers that nothing could change, even under direct orders from himself. Thus, the Narrator cannot undo the orders for Tyler’s final project, which turns out to be the complete bombing and destruction of several buildings. These buildings hold offices for major credit card magnates, as Tyler wants to eliminate all credit debt.
Exhausted, the Narrator turns himself in to the police in a final ploy to stop the destruction. Even the police officers, however, are under orders from Tyler. The Narrator makes it to one of the sites and tries to diffuse the bombs when his imaginary friend shows up and “stops” him from doing it. He cannot get over this mental block fast enough, and the explosions occur.
At the end of the movie, the Narrator approaches his problem directly. He overcomes his block and mentally “kills” Tyler, but it is too late. He realizes what has happened and he finally understands why he created this mess. He reaches his enlightenment, and then the film ends.
As I think about what really happened in the story, the Taoist teaching becomes clear to me: take the middle path. “Reach for the center,” as it says many times. The Narrator was an extremely boring person with a pointless life based upon useless items. He created this split personality that was the opposite of himself because he was in such an extremely dull state. This personality engaged him and made him think. Tyler, however, was not a good thing for him. He was too extreme. He placed too much emphasis on action and was far out of control. Therefore, both characters are lost because they are extremes. At the heart of one extreme, the Narrator, is another extreme, Tyler. They are the ying and yang. The Narrator needs to follow the middle path and destroy the extreme influences in his life on both sides.
Another common theme in the Tao Te Ching is “Know thyself,” and the Narrator did not. He did not realize that this was his own soul, crying out for action. He created this person because he was so ridiculously empty, and instead of fixing his life, he simply took it from one extreme to the other. At the end of the movie, he realizes this.
When I first saw this movie, I was amazed. The philosophy that Tyler showed spoke to me. Of course, I have no desire to attempt near-death stunts or blow up buildings because I realize that Tyler is not complete. I also, however, realize that the Narrator is far from complete. When you take the middle path, and look at the both of them as whole (because they are the same person), you see how sick this man has become.
I loved some of Tyler’s ideas about modern American society and our worship of useless things. It always amazes me how much the average person wishes to be rich and famous, as if that is all there is to life. We treat our celebrities like Gods, and then gasp when they fail and become human to us. His attitude about death also really made me think. Personally, I have always been very afraid of death, but I am now starting to understand how it can be a helpful tool for living. I can also see why he lived in a real shoddy house- he wanted to have nothing.
The Narrator’s experiences show how unsatisfying a career can be when it does not positively affect the community. He practiced non-being in a literal sense- he did nothing. As I have learned, that is not true non-being. He needed to take action to make his life worthwhile. He was calmer and more flowing than Tyler at most points, but he was not awake. He was not aware of his own true problems and did not seek them out until it was too late.
Many of the lessons that I enjoyed from this movie have been reflected in our class. We live in a spiritually unhealthy society, and we must realize that the teachings of the Tao can help us live better and see things more clearly. Fight Club serves as an unexpected source of life lessons. As Tyler told his disciples, “You are not your job. You are not your car. You’re not the clothes you wear.” We are human beings, and we are more important than the things we own or how much money we have. If only everyone in America could see this truth (this reality), we would be at peace.
Works Referenced
Fincher, David,Dir. Fight Club. 1998, Regency Films.
Mitchell, Stephen, and Lao-Tzu. Tao Te Ching. Harper: New York, 1988.
Pirsig, Robert. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Harper: New York, 1999.
Philosophical lessons do not usually saturate Hollywood action movies. Most of the time, a movie about people kicking and punching each other is not going to amount to much more than that. Sometimes, however, great ideas are hidden underneath layers of flash and advertising. Much like The Matrix, Fight Club is an action movie geared for younger audiences that also has deep philosophical teachings that audiences (and perhaps even the filmmakers) missed. Fight Club is a work of social criticism and contains many teachings of the Tao, which we have learned in this class. More importantly, I have recognized these lessons and they have changed my life. The Taoist teachings reflected in this movie show how modern American society can make people ill.
The story begins with a young man, age 30, who works for a major automobile manufacturer. His job is to investigate crash sites where the vehicle’s safety features may have malfunctioned. Basically, he checks to make sure that his product does not kill enough people to issue a costly recall. This relates to recent exposures of corporate greed and deception, most notably the Firestone Tires scandal. Like the chiefs of that company, he knows his product can kill but his job states that he must try to report it in other ways as to save his corporation money.
He is, like many of his generation, a nameless face: a person working in a huge office building, trying to make some money. In fact, one of the quirks of this movie is that he does not have a name (the credits call him “the Narrator”). He is not a smashing hero or exceptional individual, and he spends his free time shopping for furniture and name brand items that will spruce up his apartment. In all, he leads a pointless existence and knows it. He does not go out often, and his job takes up his life.
His boring life and his pursuit of empty possessions lead him to insomnia. He is so bored and apathetic that he cannot sleep, and he tries various methods to cease his monotony. His real problem is that he has tried to make himself happy with brand names and possessions. As the Tao Te Ching states, “Chase after money and security and your heart will never unclench”(9). He talks about the imported Swedish tables and handcrafted dishware he bought and wonders sarcastically why they do not please him. His life has become completely useless because he has not filled it with anything real.
A doctor, upon hearing his pleas for help, tells him that real pain comes with real problems, and suggests he try seeing cancer patients in pain before deciding that his life is horrible. This piece of advice leads the insomniac to various support groups. He visits with cancer patients, pretending that he is afflicted, and sees true pain. “If you open yourself to loss,” the Tao Te Ching states, “you are at one with loss and you can accept it completely”(23). Of course, the movie presents his visits in a dry humor, which can be offending to anyone who has gone through cancer. The point is that he realizes he has less to worry about than he originally thought, and begins to “sleep” better.
For his work, he travels across the country to check out claims. During these flights, he makes a terrific point about American business and hospitality, which he calls “the single-serving life”. He describes the single-serving meals on the plane; the single-serving coffee at offices; the single-serving shampoo bottles in the hotel bathrooms; the single-serving packets of condiments at these bland, uninteresting places; and the “single-serving friends,” who are the people he meets during flights and has brief conversations with. His annoyance is with America’s tendency to be convenient and quick without establishing any quality, which sounds much like Robert Pirsig’s grievances in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance about quality and the people in a hurry. The Narrator knows that he cannot create a serious conversation with someone he will likely never see again, and thus his life is full of business terms and idle small talk, while completely lacking any depth.
This changes on one flight home when he meets Tyler Durden. Tyler is outgoing and completely unreserved in his mannerisms. He is nearly the opposite of the Narrator, and from their brief conversation he learns that they live near each other. The Narrator then returns home to find his apartment in ruins. An explosion completely wiped out his apartment and destroyed everything he owned. He has relied on these possessions, as I have mentioned, and so he is heartbroken and unsure of what to do next. He has no friends, so he calls up Tyler, who lets him stay at his place.
Tyler and the Narrator go out often and discuss the problems that they face. The Narrator is so unhappy because all of the things that he has worked for are gone, and how he almost had enough stuff. Tyler begins to shed light on his new friend. He explains that the important thing is no one died, and urges the Narrator to forget about his clothes and furniture and other items. “The things you own,” Tyler says, “end up owning you.” This is a very Tao statement, much like “If you realize that you have enough, you are truly rich”(33). I will note the relation to Christian teaching in this, as Jesus taught this idea many times. It makes his friend realize even more the pathetic nature of his life.
Another point that Tyler tries to make is that the Narrator should be himself and quit worrying about his appearance. As the Tao Te Ching states, “Care about people’s approval and you will be their prisoner”(9). Tyler knows how to let insults go, and thus has an extreme amount of confidence. This reflects on his friend, who is very uptight and unhappy when they first meet.
The two continue to live and talk, and the Narrator is very impressed with Tyler’s views on life. Both of them were raised without much help from their fathers and are stuck in a mid-life confused state; they are looking for the meaning to life and trying to convince themselves that they are special. Tyler, who makes soap in his basement and works odd jobs at night, is an interesting character. Without ever admitting it, he is quite a Taoist master.
He encourages the Narrator to have “near-life experiences,” which are random stunts designed to help him accept death and not fear it so much. “You’re one step closer to rock bottom,” he tells the frightened Narrator after he burns his hand and makes him miserable for one night. “It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.” This relates to the Tao The Ching, which states several times that death is your wisest advisor. “He [the Master] knows that he is going to die, and he has nothing left to hold on to… He holds nothing back from life; therefore he is ready for death”(50). “If you want to be given everything, give everything up”(22). The Narrator has given up the comforts of home to live in a rundown house without all of his possessions. He accepts it, and then enjoys it because there is no pressure.
The two friends decide on one of their early nights out that they need to release some aggravation. This is where the namesake of the film comes in. They find it refreshing to engage in hand-to-hand battle, just for the rush. “All of them [athletes and others] embody the virtue of non-competition. Not that they don’t love to compete,” as the Tao Te Ching says, “but they do it in the spirit of play”(68). They create the Fight Club in a local bar’s basement, and its popularity grows because it is strictly a positive release from the modern world. It is a place where men can go and let out their pain. The point is no to hurt the other person or even to win, but to release bottled emotions. It becomes an absurd, alternative therapy session for men.
Tyler continues his odd teaching of the Tao. He uses his platform as the creator of the Fight Club to say a few words to its members about society. “Look at the guys in Fight Club,” he says. “The strongest and smartest men who have ever lived -- and they're pumping gas and waiting tables; or they're slaves with white collars.” Tyler is unhappy with modern American society. Many of the members come to release the stress they get from pointless jobs, and Tyler bemoans the system. This relates to the Tao Te Ching’s sections on society in general. “When the upper class is extravagant and irresponsible,” it says, “while the poor have nowhere to run-all this is robbery and chaos”(53). Tyler sympathizes with his working-class fellows, and voice this to them.
Tyler continues to describe America’s preoccupation with materialism, saying, “Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes. A whole generation working in jobs we hate, just so we can buy shit we don't need. We were raised by television to believe that someday we'll all be millionaires and movie stars and rock stars- but we won't.” He realizes the futility of his culture and wants to change it. He rejects our cultural traditions, which goes along with the Tao Te Ching passage reading, “Ritual is the husk of true faith, the beginning of chaos”(38).
Unfortunately, this platform creates problems. As the movie goes on, the Narrator realizes that Tyler’s great ideas are getting more and more radical. They are also getting more and more dangerous. He threatens a stranger working at a mini-mart to either die or change his useless life. The Narrator fears these changes and begins to see Tyler as a dangerous reactionary. Tyler continues to preach to the members of Fight Club and eventually recruits them into a sort of underground army. He does not encourage them to fight a traditional battle, but fight the facets of society that he finds useless. “We're the middle children of history,” he tells them, “with no special purpose or place. We don't have a great war in our generation, or a great depression. Our great depression is our lives. Our great war is a spiritual war.”
His spiritual war becomes a series of random pranks around the city. Each member has a certain prank to pull that mocks corporate America. Tyler contends that corporations are not even human anymore. His idea seems justified, as once again the Tao Te Ching backs him up, saying, “Throw away industry and profit, and there won’t be any thieves”(19). Eventually, however, these pranks increase from childish vandalism to major destruction of property, as stores are smashed and buildings set ablaze. Tyler again tries to justify his actions with the fact that no actual person is hurt, but the Narrator sets out to stop his actions before they get way out of control.
The Narrator’s search proves difficult. New clubs begin popping up all over the country, and Tyler is the official leader of all of them. The Narrator quits his job and trails Tyler all over the country, hoping to halt the spread of his messages. Tyler, however, stays a step ahead of the frustrated Narrator. To make matters worse, Tyler has been involved in a relationship with a weird lady whom the Narrator met at the self-help meetings (she, like him, was just going to observe). This girl, Marla, acts very strangely around the Narrator, as if he is the one having an affair with her. Eventually, after days of searching, he calls her up to ask for clues about Tyler’s whereabouts.
The movie reaches its shocking climax here, because Marla tells the Narrator that he is Tyler Durden! Everything comes into focus for the Narrator, who realizes the truth. Tyler Durden is a fictional character; a split personality created by the Narrator to be everything that he was not. For the entire time, the Narrator has been the actual radical in charge of all the plans. He sometimes has imagined himself watching Tyler, but when Tyler has interacted with anyone else, it has just been the unconscious Narrator. He actually has not cured his insomnia; rather, when he believes he is asleep he really “becomes” Tyler. He blew up his own apartment because he hated it.
Armed with this revelation, the Narrator figures he can stop all the plans easily because it was actually himself who created them. His unconscious mind, however, is a step ahead of his conscious being. “Tyler” told his followers that nothing could change, even under direct orders from himself. Thus, the Narrator cannot undo the orders for Tyler’s final project, which turns out to be the complete bombing and destruction of several buildings. These buildings hold offices for major credit card magnates, as Tyler wants to eliminate all credit debt.
Exhausted, the Narrator turns himself in to the police in a final ploy to stop the destruction. Even the police officers, however, are under orders from Tyler. The Narrator makes it to one of the sites and tries to diffuse the bombs when his imaginary friend shows up and “stops” him from doing it. He cannot get over this mental block fast enough, and the explosions occur.
At the end of the movie, the Narrator approaches his problem directly. He overcomes his block and mentally “kills” Tyler, but it is too late. He realizes what has happened and he finally understands why he created this mess. He reaches his enlightenment, and then the film ends.
As I think about what really happened in the story, the Taoist teaching becomes clear to me: take the middle path. “Reach for the center,” as it says many times. The Narrator was an extremely boring person with a pointless life based upon useless items. He created this split personality that was the opposite of himself because he was in such an extremely dull state. This personality engaged him and made him think. Tyler, however, was not a good thing for him. He was too extreme. He placed too much emphasis on action and was far out of control. Therefore, both characters are lost because they are extremes. At the heart of one extreme, the Narrator, is another extreme, Tyler. They are the ying and yang. The Narrator needs to follow the middle path and destroy the extreme influences in his life on both sides.
Another common theme in the Tao Te Ching is “Know thyself,” and the Narrator did not. He did not realize that this was his own soul, crying out for action. He created this person because he was so ridiculously empty, and instead of fixing his life, he simply took it from one extreme to the other. At the end of the movie, he realizes this.
When I first saw this movie, I was amazed. The philosophy that Tyler showed spoke to me. Of course, I have no desire to attempt near-death stunts or blow up buildings because I realize that Tyler is not complete. I also, however, realize that the Narrator is far from complete. When you take the middle path, and look at the both of them as whole (because they are the same person), you see how sick this man has become.
I loved some of Tyler’s ideas about modern American society and our worship of useless things. It always amazes me how much the average person wishes to be rich and famous, as if that is all there is to life. We treat our celebrities like Gods, and then gasp when they fail and become human to us. His attitude about death also really made me think. Personally, I have always been very afraid of death, but I am now starting to understand how it can be a helpful tool for living. I can also see why he lived in a real shoddy house- he wanted to have nothing.
The Narrator’s experiences show how unsatisfying a career can be when it does not positively affect the community. He practiced non-being in a literal sense- he did nothing. As I have learned, that is not true non-being. He needed to take action to make his life worthwhile. He was calmer and more flowing than Tyler at most points, but he was not awake. He was not aware of his own true problems and did not seek them out until it was too late.
Many of the lessons that I enjoyed from this movie have been reflected in our class. We live in a spiritually unhealthy society, and we must realize that the teachings of the Tao can help us live better and see things more clearly. Fight Club serves as an unexpected source of life lessons. As Tyler told his disciples, “You are not your job. You are not your car. You’re not the clothes you wear.” We are human beings, and we are more important than the things we own or how much money we have. If only everyone in America could see this truth (this reality), we would be at peace.
Works Referenced
Fincher, David,Dir. Fight Club. 1998, Regency Films.
Mitchell, Stephen, and Lao-Tzu. Tao Te Ching. Harper: New York, 1988.
Pirsig, Robert. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Harper: New York, 1999.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Summer movie blowout
Here's a quick recap of some summer movies I had the chance to see recently.
Hellboy 2: The Golden Army - in theaters now -
To complete my recent Guillermo-obsession, I saw the original and now the sequel. I enjoyed both of them a lot. Del Toro has a great visual style, loving the whimsical and fantasy but using it the right way. He also knows this series deserves a sense of humor, and it delivers. I don't know about the bad guys, but the heroes are great.
Wanted - in theaters now -
Another comic book adaptation, but this one is all flash and not much else. I like James McAvoy, and he does well as a loser who finds out he's actually special. This has some crazy action sequences, but it might have the most annoying script I've heard in a while. The dialogue and most of the story is grating, but the action pulls it out just enough for it to be decent.
Mamma Mia! - in theaters now -
N wanted to see this, and I can't argue with a rock musical. If you like ABBA, you'll like it. It's boisterous and fluffy without ever getting too serious.
The X Files: I Want to Believe - in theaters now -
A lot of people have been complaining about this because it's not very groundbreaking. While I do agree that it is mostly just a longer regular episode, I like that. I never thought they were great at continuing story lines; I just went for the freak of the week. This has some juicy developments on Mulder and Scully, but it's mostly just one more story of someone creating weird problems somewhere. Billy Conolly is creepy as a priest with dark secrets and maybe psychic powers. It might be a long episode, but it's a good one, and I was happy to see Duchovny and Anderson back on screen.
Step Brothers - in theaters now -
A great pairing of Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly trying to outdo each other in ridiculousness, this doesn't have much structure but is hilarious for the most part. The guys do everything they can to be destructive and immature, although it nearly falls apart in the end. Add in some great cameos, and it's a lot like Apatow's recent hits: great humor, some slow spots, not much story, relationships, and male genitalia.
The New World - 2005 -
I never sat down and watched this long epic throughout, but I'm glad I did. Terrence Malik is a visual master who doesn't mind if he takes too long, because he wants to get a beautiful picture and mood down. Colin Farrell is surprisingly toned down as John Smith, early pioneer, and Christian Bale arrives halfway to keep things interesting. This was shot by Emmanuel Lubezki (Children of Men), so it's worth it just for the cinematics.
Lars and the Real Girl - 2007 -
As with many offbeat indies, this film has an eccentric main character, who lives in a small town and has a nowhere job... but this time, the protagonist has a real delusional problem: he's in love with a doll. It sounds silly, and it is, but of course the gentle townsfolk don't want to hurt him, so they play along. It's easy to be cynical of this movie, but the acting is good enough that you can believe it. Ryan Gosling, one of the best young actors there is, throws himself into the main role, and damned if he doesn't make you feel for him. Emily Mortimer and Paul Schneider are his family that have to put up with him. This is a sweet tale with some comedy, but it wants more touching and acceptance than all-out laughs. It's hard at times to play along, but the people in the film do, and it creates a nice indie piece.
Fido - 2006 -
Here's another offbeat indie that had a goofy premise: what if there was a big zombie outbreak, but we figured out how to control them and made them slaves? Yeah, it sounds kind of like the ending and bonus material of Shaun of the Dead, but with a satiric take on corporate life and false 50's life.... so I guess it's ripping off Pleasantville as well. But it's got some nice gags and swipes at society.
It begins as a young boy gets his first zombie (Billy Conolly, making quite a career for himself). His parents, the underrated Dylan Baker and a feisty Carrie-Ann Moss, are mixed. The dad doesn't like it, but the mom grows to understand why the boy needs him. They are threatened by new neighbor and big brother honcho Matt Czerny, who is high up at the all-powerful zombie corporation / dystopian force. Throw in a solid Tim Blake Nelson as another nutty neighbor, and this faux-50's but also post-zompocalypse neighborhood is a strange place. When the zombie (affectionately named Fido) eats the neighbor, it creates a panic, and the boy has to save him. It's a nice mix of humor and horror, but not nearly on the same level as SOTD. It's a bit too smarmy for its own good, and although writer/director Andrew Currie is cleverly trying to make a social commentary, it doesn't have the success of other new mixes. But it's a good shot, and a nice early effort for him.
Hellboy 2: The Golden Army - in theaters now -
To complete my recent Guillermo-obsession, I saw the original and now the sequel. I enjoyed both of them a lot. Del Toro has a great visual style, loving the whimsical and fantasy but using it the right way. He also knows this series deserves a sense of humor, and it delivers. I don't know about the bad guys, but the heroes are great.
Wanted - in theaters now -
Another comic book adaptation, but this one is all flash and not much else. I like James McAvoy, and he does well as a loser who finds out he's actually special. This has some crazy action sequences, but it might have the most annoying script I've heard in a while. The dialogue and most of the story is grating, but the action pulls it out just enough for it to be decent.
Mamma Mia! - in theaters now -
N wanted to see this, and I can't argue with a rock musical. If you like ABBA, you'll like it. It's boisterous and fluffy without ever getting too serious.
The X Files: I Want to Believe - in theaters now -
A lot of people have been complaining about this because it's not very groundbreaking. While I do agree that it is mostly just a longer regular episode, I like that. I never thought they were great at continuing story lines; I just went for the freak of the week. This has some juicy developments on Mulder and Scully, but it's mostly just one more story of someone creating weird problems somewhere. Billy Conolly is creepy as a priest with dark secrets and maybe psychic powers. It might be a long episode, but it's a good one, and I was happy to see Duchovny and Anderson back on screen.
Step Brothers - in theaters now -
A great pairing of Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly trying to outdo each other in ridiculousness, this doesn't have much structure but is hilarious for the most part. The guys do everything they can to be destructive and immature, although it nearly falls apart in the end. Add in some great cameos, and it's a lot like Apatow's recent hits: great humor, some slow spots, not much story, relationships, and male genitalia.
The New World - 2005 -
I never sat down and watched this long epic throughout, but I'm glad I did. Terrence Malik is a visual master who doesn't mind if he takes too long, because he wants to get a beautiful picture and mood down. Colin Farrell is surprisingly toned down as John Smith, early pioneer, and Christian Bale arrives halfway to keep things interesting. This was shot by Emmanuel Lubezki (Children of Men), so it's worth it just for the cinematics.
Lars and the Real Girl - 2007 -
As with many offbeat indies, this film has an eccentric main character, who lives in a small town and has a nowhere job... but this time, the protagonist has a real delusional problem: he's in love with a doll. It sounds silly, and it is, but of course the gentle townsfolk don't want to hurt him, so they play along. It's easy to be cynical of this movie, but the acting is good enough that you can believe it. Ryan Gosling, one of the best young actors there is, throws himself into the main role, and damned if he doesn't make you feel for him. Emily Mortimer and Paul Schneider are his family that have to put up with him. This is a sweet tale with some comedy, but it wants more touching and acceptance than all-out laughs. It's hard at times to play along, but the people in the film do, and it creates a nice indie piece.
Fido - 2006 -
Here's another offbeat indie that had a goofy premise: what if there was a big zombie outbreak, but we figured out how to control them and made them slaves? Yeah, it sounds kind of like the ending and bonus material of Shaun of the Dead, but with a satiric take on corporate life and false 50's life.... so I guess it's ripping off Pleasantville as well. But it's got some nice gags and swipes at society.
It begins as a young boy gets his first zombie (Billy Conolly, making quite a career for himself). His parents, the underrated Dylan Baker and a feisty Carrie-Ann Moss, are mixed. The dad doesn't like it, but the mom grows to understand why the boy needs him. They are threatened by new neighbor and big brother honcho Matt Czerny, who is high up at the all-powerful zombie corporation / dystopian force. Throw in a solid Tim Blake Nelson as another nutty neighbor, and this faux-50's but also post-zompocalypse neighborhood is a strange place. When the zombie (affectionately named Fido) eats the neighbor, it creates a panic, and the boy has to save him. It's a nice mix of humor and horror, but not nearly on the same level as SOTD. It's a bit too smarmy for its own good, and although writer/director Andrew Currie is cleverly trying to make a social commentary, it doesn't have the success of other new mixes. But it's a good shot, and a nice early effort for him.
Friday, July 11, 2008
films in brief
Once again, some short reviews of things I saw recently.
Super High Me - 2007 - on DVD now
Doug Benson once made a joke that he should stop smoking weed, then smoke nonstop for 30 days and make a documentary out of it like Morgan Spurlock's Super Size Me. Well, a couple weed-loving producers decided why not do it? And so ever-stoner Benson quits smoking, sees the results, and then goes all out and compares. In between, he does stand up, chats with pals like Paul Tompkins, Patton Oswalt, all the UCB guys, and the like, and also gives a brief history of medical marijuana and how easy it is to get in California (uhh... reallllly easy.... why didn't anyone tell me this?). This is a funny take on personal docs, but it also has more information than I expected about the fine line between legal weed and not (which has been a controversial topic out here). If you can put up with a million stoner jokes, it's a great doc/expose, funny and interesting.
Sex and Death 101 - 2007 - on DVD now
Speaking of the great Mr. Oswalt, his appearance in this film prompted us to look it up, along with an interesting premise. A man (Simon Baker) finds a list that has every woman he's ever slept with on it, but then it also has many more names, so it appears it can predict the name of every woman he will ever sleep with too. This causes him to freak out and end his engagement, while questioning fate. Meanwhile, Winona Ryder stars as a black widow woman who puts lothario men in comas... and may factor into his life.
For such an interesting premise, this doesn't live up to it, going in many weird directions. I like indie movies that take chances, but this goes way off track too often, trying to mix in romantic satire with R-rated slapstick, serious questions about fate and love, goofy sci-fi, and a host of other things that just don't quite work together.
Iron Man - in theaters now
So much has been said, so I can't add anything. For all the people who doubted Robert Downey Jr. as the lead, he's by far the best (maybe only) reason to watch it. It's a solid comic action movie, with good humor, and one of the best to come out recently.
But I overlooked some of those, like...
Hellboy - 2004
I never paid attention to it when it came out, but my new obsession with Guillermo Del Toro led me to watch this in full. He's the real master of comic books now, mixing in great visuals with fun and humor and not getting full of himself. Now I'm excited for part 2, which is right around the corner.
Gerry - 2002
As part of Gus Van Sant's avant-garde movement this decade, he has been making some minimalist films with non-actors or few actors, very long takes, minimal dialogue, long shots, and open endings. This was the first entry in that strand, but it at least has real name people in it (Matt Damon and Casey Affleck). Basically, two guys named Gerry get lost in the desert. Why did they go? What is the point? Why does one... That's up to you to decide.
Return to Me - 2000
Bonnie Hunt's directorial debut is a romantic comedy without a ton of comedy, but a lot of feeling. David Duchovny stars as a man who loses his wife, and after a long grieving period, meets sparky waitress Minnie Driver, happy to be living with a heart transplant. What they don't know is that her heart came from his wife. Sounds cheesy? It's light and heartfelt, and serious at times, and it works. Hunt puts herself and some other random people to work surrounding these two and pushing them towards each other. One of the better chick flicks, even if it sounds like a too-Hollywood premise.
Super High Me - 2007 - on DVD now
Doug Benson once made a joke that he should stop smoking weed, then smoke nonstop for 30 days and make a documentary out of it like Morgan Spurlock's Super Size Me. Well, a couple weed-loving producers decided why not do it? And so ever-stoner Benson quits smoking, sees the results, and then goes all out and compares. In between, he does stand up, chats with pals like Paul Tompkins, Patton Oswalt, all the UCB guys, and the like, and also gives a brief history of medical marijuana and how easy it is to get in California (uhh... reallllly easy.... why didn't anyone tell me this?). This is a funny take on personal docs, but it also has more information than I expected about the fine line between legal weed and not (which has been a controversial topic out here). If you can put up with a million stoner jokes, it's a great doc/expose, funny and interesting.
Sex and Death 101 - 2007 - on DVD now
Speaking of the great Mr. Oswalt, his appearance in this film prompted us to look it up, along with an interesting premise. A man (Simon Baker) finds a list that has every woman he's ever slept with on it, but then it also has many more names, so it appears it can predict the name of every woman he will ever sleep with too. This causes him to freak out and end his engagement, while questioning fate. Meanwhile, Winona Ryder stars as a black widow woman who puts lothario men in comas... and may factor into his life.
For such an interesting premise, this doesn't live up to it, going in many weird directions. I like indie movies that take chances, but this goes way off track too often, trying to mix in romantic satire with R-rated slapstick, serious questions about fate and love, goofy sci-fi, and a host of other things that just don't quite work together.
Iron Man - in theaters now
So much has been said, so I can't add anything. For all the people who doubted Robert Downey Jr. as the lead, he's by far the best (maybe only) reason to watch it. It's a solid comic action movie, with good humor, and one of the best to come out recently.
But I overlooked some of those, like...
Hellboy - 2004
I never paid attention to it when it came out, but my new obsession with Guillermo Del Toro led me to watch this in full. He's the real master of comic books now, mixing in great visuals with fun and humor and not getting full of himself. Now I'm excited for part 2, which is right around the corner.
Gerry - 2002
As part of Gus Van Sant's avant-garde movement this decade, he has been making some minimalist films with non-actors or few actors, very long takes, minimal dialogue, long shots, and open endings. This was the first entry in that strand, but it at least has real name people in it (Matt Damon and Casey Affleck). Basically, two guys named Gerry get lost in the desert. Why did they go? What is the point? Why does one... That's up to you to decide.
Return to Me - 2000
Bonnie Hunt's directorial debut is a romantic comedy without a ton of comedy, but a lot of feeling. David Duchovny stars as a man who loses his wife, and after a long grieving period, meets sparky waitress Minnie Driver, happy to be living with a heart transplant. What they don't know is that her heart came from his wife. Sounds cheesy? It's light and heartfelt, and serious at times, and it works. Hunt puts herself and some other random people to work surrounding these two and pushing them towards each other. One of the better chick flicks, even if it sounds like a too-Hollywood premise.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Across the Universe
I was wrong.
I was initially excited about this after a mind-bending trailer popped up last year. Others warned me that it would be lame and a bit silly, but I was hopeful. You can't keep down the Beatles, right?
Well, the songs were mostly good, but the actual film was .... what? Pretty much nothing. There is a generic plot about the 60's and the crazy stuff that happened that tries to connect musical segments, but it doesn't go anywhere and leaves huge holes. The idea of naming characters after songs is.... awkward. The dialogue that's not sung is ... incredibly awkward. The trippy musical segments are not nearly as cool as I thought they'd be visually, and don't really add anything to the plot, since there really isn't one. I did like some of the covers various actors and singers did. No, it's not worth watching; I'd just download two excellent covers by the Secret Machines - "Flying" and "Blue Jay Way". Also, I liked "Falling," "I Want to Hold Your Hand," and "Dear Prudence," just how they sounded. They might be worth your time... the feature is not.
It was a good.... no, it wasn't a good idea, but I think their hearts were in the right place. Just please come up with something more for a story next time.
I was initially excited about this after a mind-bending trailer popped up last year. Others warned me that it would be lame and a bit silly, but I was hopeful. You can't keep down the Beatles, right?
Well, the songs were mostly good, but the actual film was .... what? Pretty much nothing. There is a generic plot about the 60's and the crazy stuff that happened that tries to connect musical segments, but it doesn't go anywhere and leaves huge holes. The idea of naming characters after songs is.... awkward. The dialogue that's not sung is ... incredibly awkward. The trippy musical segments are not nearly as cool as I thought they'd be visually, and don't really add anything to the plot, since there really isn't one. I did like some of the covers various actors and singers did. No, it's not worth watching; I'd just download two excellent covers by the Secret Machines - "Flying" and "Blue Jay Way". Also, I liked "Falling," "I Want to Hold Your Hand," and "Dear Prudence," just how they sounded. They might be worth your time... the feature is not.
It was a good.... no, it wasn't a good idea, but I think their hearts were in the right place. Just please come up with something more for a story next time.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
films in brief
Here's a few quick reviews of some things I saw recently.
The Da Vinci Code - 2006 -
Yes, it took me this long to watch it. I'm kinda played out on all the conspiracy flicks (which this helped cause), but I see why it was addictive and popular. It's a nice thriller, very exciting and all, and it's one of the better blockbusters to come out recently. I was wondering where Audrey Tatou went, so that's cool. I just thought it was hilarious that Hanks got to costar with Ian McKellan, whom he is starting to look like more and more.
In America - 2001 -
Jim Sheridan's modern immigrant tale is a heartfelt light drama, with lots of emotion. Paddy Considine and Samantha Morton are poor Irish who come to New York looking for something and end up in a junkie-filled tenant. Their cute daughters, though, have fun exploring the new world, making friends with reclusive artist Djimon Honsou. This is a very sweet and touching tale, with strong performances from the young cast.
At the Death House Door - 2008 - on IFC now -
IFC presents this stunning doc about capital punishment, focusing on the intersecting lives of a man who was most likely innocent but had a raw deal and was executed, and the longtime prison chaplain who saw his last day. As they present the facts in the case of Carlos De Luna, the filmmakers also go over the life of the pastor who consoled him and hundreds of other convicted men. It all took place in one of the most famous prisons in Texas, where lots of executions happened.
This is a biased piece, for sure, but it's not deceitful. It's presenting a case against the death penalty, through factual evidence from the case, and adding emotional testimony from the pastor (who now campaigns hard against it). The police overlooked a lot of obvious things in the De Luna case, and it now looks pretty clearly like he was innocent, and in fact knew the man who did it. It's a powerful argument in a very strong political doc.
Wristcutters: A Love Story - 2006 -
I had the chance to see this indie film at Sundance two years ago, but I didn't, mainly because it was getting mixed reviews. Now I see why. Despite a very interesting premise and the potential for sharp dark comedy, it drags at times. The idea here is that suicide takes you to an afterlife that is a lot like real life, just slightly worse. Everyone in this world (which looks like the crappiest parts of this country) is dull and disillusioned... which makes sense, because they all killed themselves. But in a weird way, they're at peace with suffering. The black humor they aim for at the start fades when protagonist Patrick Fugit learns his ex-girlfriend may have killed herself too, in guilt over his death. He sets off on a quest to find her, but runs into Shannyn Sossamon, who claims to have not killed herself on purpose.
The film drags for a while and then tries to look positive, undermining its dark comedy. Despite great cameos from Tom Waits and Will Arnett, it's uneven. The world they set up is bleak, but it also looks like they didn't have the money to do much else. It was a cool idea, but it just doesn't work out as well.
In the Valley of Elah - 2007 - on DVD now -
Paul Haggis' military drama was overlooked last year, but it did get some award notices. Tommy Lee Jones got a surprise nom for best actor, so critics were high on it, even if audiences aren't watching anything Iraq-themed. Ironically, I think it's much better then Crash, which won it all several years ago (I still don't know why). Jones is stoic as usual, but shows a lot of pain as man whose soldier son disappears after he comes home. Being a former police officer and an army man himself, he sets on a mission to find out what happened. The local police chief, Charlize Theron, doesn't appreciate him getting in the way of her investigation, but he has some good insights. The military base and its officials are being shady, causing them to wonder if there's something up.
This is a solid mystery with a lot of emotional pull. It starts to push an anti-war feeling toward the end, but it's a good film
The Da Vinci Code - 2006 -
Yes, it took me this long to watch it. I'm kinda played out on all the conspiracy flicks (which this helped cause), but I see why it was addictive and popular. It's a nice thriller, very exciting and all, and it's one of the better blockbusters to come out recently. I was wondering where Audrey Tatou went, so that's cool. I just thought it was hilarious that Hanks got to costar with Ian McKellan, whom he is starting to look like more and more.
In America - 2001 -
Jim Sheridan's modern immigrant tale is a heartfelt light drama, with lots of emotion. Paddy Considine and Samantha Morton are poor Irish who come to New York looking for something and end up in a junkie-filled tenant. Their cute daughters, though, have fun exploring the new world, making friends with reclusive artist Djimon Honsou. This is a very sweet and touching tale, with strong performances from the young cast.
At the Death House Door - 2008 - on IFC now -
IFC presents this stunning doc about capital punishment, focusing on the intersecting lives of a man who was most likely innocent but had a raw deal and was executed, and the longtime prison chaplain who saw his last day. As they present the facts in the case of Carlos De Luna, the filmmakers also go over the life of the pastor who consoled him and hundreds of other convicted men. It all took place in one of the most famous prisons in Texas, where lots of executions happened.
This is a biased piece, for sure, but it's not deceitful. It's presenting a case against the death penalty, through factual evidence from the case, and adding emotional testimony from the pastor (who now campaigns hard against it). The police overlooked a lot of obvious things in the De Luna case, and it now looks pretty clearly like he was innocent, and in fact knew the man who did it. It's a powerful argument in a very strong political doc.
Wristcutters: A Love Story - 2006 -
I had the chance to see this indie film at Sundance two years ago, but I didn't, mainly because it was getting mixed reviews. Now I see why. Despite a very interesting premise and the potential for sharp dark comedy, it drags at times. The idea here is that suicide takes you to an afterlife that is a lot like real life, just slightly worse. Everyone in this world (which looks like the crappiest parts of this country) is dull and disillusioned... which makes sense, because they all killed themselves. But in a weird way, they're at peace with suffering. The black humor they aim for at the start fades when protagonist Patrick Fugit learns his ex-girlfriend may have killed herself too, in guilt over his death. He sets off on a quest to find her, but runs into Shannyn Sossamon, who claims to have not killed herself on purpose.
The film drags for a while and then tries to look positive, undermining its dark comedy. Despite great cameos from Tom Waits and Will Arnett, it's uneven. The world they set up is bleak, but it also looks like they didn't have the money to do much else. It was a cool idea, but it just doesn't work out as well.
In the Valley of Elah - 2007 - on DVD now -
Paul Haggis' military drama was overlooked last year, but it did get some award notices. Tommy Lee Jones got a surprise nom for best actor, so critics were high on it, even if audiences aren't watching anything Iraq-themed. Ironically, I think it's much better then Crash, which won it all several years ago (I still don't know why). Jones is stoic as usual, but shows a lot of pain as man whose soldier son disappears after he comes home. Being a former police officer and an army man himself, he sets on a mission to find out what happened. The local police chief, Charlize Theron, doesn't appreciate him getting in the way of her investigation, but he has some good insights. The military base and its officials are being shady, causing them to wonder if there's something up.
This is a solid mystery with a lot of emotional pull. It starts to push an anti-war feeling toward the end, but it's a good film
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Recount (TV movie)
HBO couldn't resist, in this election year, to make a definitive film about the 2000 election nuttiness. Even though it might not be fairly balanced, it's really good. They skip over most of the election to just what happened after Election Day, and though it is a great ensemble cast, the protagonist is clearly Kevin Spacey. Ah, I missed the Spaceman. Really bad. He's excellent as Ron Klain, a guy who helped Gore through the recount even as he was having issues with the VP. On his side are Dennis Leary, John Hurt, and Ed Begley Jr. (natch). The opposing side comes with Tom Wilkinson, who plays James Baker a little bit too boss-villain-y, and Laura Dern, who makes Katherine Harris look overwhelmed. Bob Balaban is the only nice guy on the GOP side. I mean, I felt it could be real, but I'm biased.
Like I said, it's not exactly a balanced story, but they are trying to paint the Dems as underdogs rising up in adversity. They had to push through public outrage and lots of legal difficulties, and they never had the "lead" as reported by media, which hurt. The film touches on the voter discrimination problems, but doesn't accuse too much. The worst facet probably is that the Republicans basically paid for their protesters and then encouraged them to riot in the local voting offices. This claim has been made before, so who knows. It brought back some bad memories for me, and of course, the last 8 years kinda... well, you know.
It may not be fair, but it's really good, and it's a great return for Spacey.
Like I said, it's not exactly a balanced story, but they are trying to paint the Dems as underdogs rising up in adversity. They had to push through public outrage and lots of legal difficulties, and they never had the "lead" as reported by media, which hurt. The film touches on the voter discrimination problems, but doesn't accuse too much. The worst facet probably is that the Republicans basically paid for their protesters and then encouraged them to riot in the local voting offices. This claim has been made before, so who knows. It brought back some bad memories for me, and of course, the last 8 years kinda... well, you know.
It may not be fair, but it's really good, and it's a great return for Spacey.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
films in brief
Here are some short reviews for a few things I saw recently.
FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL - 2008 (in theaters) -
Just like most Apatow projects, this is a relaxed comedy with romantic tinges; a relationship story with some great gags. Jason Segal is a lovable lunk, and Mila Kunis steps it up as his new love interest. The comedy comes in moments here and there, and it's good but not overwhelming. I just love Segel, Kristen Bell, Jack McBrayer, and Paul Rudd too much to give it a bad name. It's decent comedy without much fanfare.
DOGVILLE - 2003 -
I'll be honest. I have no idea what to make of it. I wanted to see this for years and I finally got around to it and, well, let's just say that Lars von Trier is an intriguing director. This looks like a play, but it's a film: an original concept, shot on a stage, but with no audience, and with some of the set fixtures missing.... like, I don't know, WALLS! Yeah.... very strange way of filming, mixing theater standards with film and leaving that out. I think it could be comparable to dark stage plays like Ibsen. I also thought of William Faulkner, not that this is the same class as those great writers, but that's kind of the dark tone. It goes in weird directions, but the cast is amazing. Lauren Bacall jumped in and Nicole Kidman had just won an Oscar when she did this.
I'm torn because I think he could've done well if he shot it normally, but of course he won't, because he started that whole Dogma 95 movement and he has to be different. I found that a lot of people think it's anti-American, but it seems more to me like a dark examination of human nature, especially regarding the myth of small towns making good people. If you like indie or foreign pieces, it's def worth a look, but know that it's three hours long and a trip.
LUST, CAUTION - 2007 (just out on DVD) -
Ang Lee's erotic thriller is a strong period piece. In 1930's China, a woman caught up in rebellion tries to get close to a powerful government man. This starts a little slow, but picks up dramatically towards the end. Beautiful, intense, and emotional, this might have lost audiences because of its rough sexual scenes, but it's a very good drama.
THE BRAVE ONE - 2007 (just out on DVD) -
I skipped this Jodie Foster drama last year, skeptical of vigilante films, and it most certainly is that. But then I saw that it's also directed by Neil Jordan, who does a lot of sensitive and gender-confusing fare (The Crying Game, Breakfast on Pluto), so it shouldn't be totally macho. Foster, a popular NPR-type radio host in New York, goes into full revenge mode when some thugs kill her husband (Sayid from Lost). She also befriends a detective, Terence Howard, who starts to wonder about her intentions, while unknowingly steering her towards a crime boss he can't convict. This is emotional and pretty dark, and I'm not sure if the message is deeper than I want it to be. I can't imagine Jordan ever wanting to remake Death Wish with a female lead, but I get that feeling here. Maybe there's more than I see, and I suggest taking a look. It's gripping, but does it take sides too easily?
FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL - 2008 (in theaters) -
Just like most Apatow projects, this is a relaxed comedy with romantic tinges; a relationship story with some great gags. Jason Segal is a lovable lunk, and Mila Kunis steps it up as his new love interest. The comedy comes in moments here and there, and it's good but not overwhelming. I just love Segel, Kristen Bell, Jack McBrayer, and Paul Rudd too much to give it a bad name. It's decent comedy without much fanfare.
DOGVILLE - 2003 -
I'll be honest. I have no idea what to make of it. I wanted to see this for years and I finally got around to it and, well, let's just say that Lars von Trier is an intriguing director. This looks like a play, but it's a film: an original concept, shot on a stage, but with no audience, and with some of the set fixtures missing.... like, I don't know, WALLS! Yeah.... very strange way of filming, mixing theater standards with film and leaving that out. I think it could be comparable to dark stage plays like Ibsen. I also thought of William Faulkner, not that this is the same class as those great writers, but that's kind of the dark tone. It goes in weird directions, but the cast is amazing. Lauren Bacall jumped in and Nicole Kidman had just won an Oscar when she did this.
I'm torn because I think he could've done well if he shot it normally, but of course he won't, because he started that whole Dogma 95 movement and he has to be different. I found that a lot of people think it's anti-American, but it seems more to me like a dark examination of human nature, especially regarding the myth of small towns making good people. If you like indie or foreign pieces, it's def worth a look, but know that it's three hours long and a trip.
LUST, CAUTION - 2007 (just out on DVD) -
Ang Lee's erotic thriller is a strong period piece. In 1930's China, a woman caught up in rebellion tries to get close to a powerful government man. This starts a little slow, but picks up dramatically towards the end. Beautiful, intense, and emotional, this might have lost audiences because of its rough sexual scenes, but it's a very good drama.
THE BRAVE ONE - 2007 (just out on DVD) -
I skipped this Jodie Foster drama last year, skeptical of vigilante films, and it most certainly is that. But then I saw that it's also directed by Neil Jordan, who does a lot of sensitive and gender-confusing fare (The Crying Game, Breakfast on Pluto), so it shouldn't be totally macho. Foster, a popular NPR-type radio host in New York, goes into full revenge mode when some thugs kill her husband (Sayid from Lost). She also befriends a detective, Terence Howard, who starts to wonder about her intentions, while unknowingly steering her towards a crime boss he can't convict. This is emotional and pretty dark, and I'm not sure if the message is deeper than I want it to be. I can't imagine Jordan ever wanting to remake Death Wish with a female lead, but I get that feeling here. Maybe there's more than I see, and I suggest taking a look. It's gripping, but does it take sides too easily?
Monday, April 28, 2008
Sicko
I wanted to pair this with No End in Sight. It took longer to get to, but was similar: another nominated documentary, another guy telling me things I know. Really, Michael Moore, you think health care is a problem in this country? You think I didn't know that after my leg almost fell off and I had to triangulate three doctors in Orange County who didn't understand that my health insurance was fully transferable under my mother's work plan? Yes, I've been through it. I know it sucks. I know almost all of Europe has much better plans; that's not news, it's been well-documented for years.
I give him credit, however, for not taking the spotlight as much as he has done before. He focused on other people, and gave a lot of stories about how ridiculous things get. He's making his case, not as an impartial observer, but as a rabble-rouser, which is his real position. But that's okay. He's trying to get something positive done, and he's very clear in this that America's health coverage is s--t and we could do much better. Other countries that don't have the resources are thriving. Get on the ball and think about it in November. Yes, yes, I get it. Don't we all? I guess we need him to make this obvious to everyone else.
I give him credit, however, for not taking the spotlight as much as he has done before. He focused on other people, and gave a lot of stories about how ridiculous things get. He's making his case, not as an impartial observer, but as a rabble-rouser, which is his real position. But that's okay. He's trying to get something positive done, and he's very clear in this that America's health coverage is s--t and we could do much better. Other countries that don't have the resources are thriving. Get on the ball and think about it in November. Yes, yes, I get it. Don't we all? I guess we need him to make this obvious to everyone else.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
films in brief
More quick reviews....
Be Kind Rewind -
This is a loopy, crazy, not-all-that realistic film. But since when has Gondry been interested in realism? He's more determined to find creative ways to shoot things from a childlike perspective, and this lets him do that, as JB and Mos put together amateur remakes. It's fun and heart-warming, even if seemingly stupid at points.
Things We Lost in the Fire -
This overlooked drama didn't get much attention last year, but it should have. It features a great performance by Benicio Del Toro as a junkie who moves in with his best friend (DUCHOVNY!!!)'s family after said best pal dies (I know, it's sad to have Duchovny and then see him pulled away). His wife is Halle Berry, and his house is nice, but it's an awkward arrangement. This probably turned off people because it has the cliches of a typical indie relationship drama, but the performances are good (even Berry) and the pain seems real. Add Benicio to the lost of actors who couldn't get any notice last year.
Dead Again -
Back in 1991, Kenneth Branagh took a break from Shakespeare to direct and star in a supernatural murder mystery. It's funny to see him as a sarcastic 80's L.A. cop, but he pulls it off. He tries to help out amnesia victim Emma Thompson, who may have known him in a past life, as may have other crazy people. This has some interesting twists and enough suspense to make it worth watching.
King of California -
This likable quirkfest about a crazy guy who's still endearing (Michael Douglas, channeling good comedy vibes) is a solid pick. Read the Bill Wine review, it will give you everything I wanted to say.
http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/1037815.php?
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban -
The only J.K. Industries film I hadn't seen all the way through was this, the third, which is when it really began to pick up. The kids are older, the stories are darker, and new characters are better (David Thewilis, Gary Oldman, and Timothy Spall all appear here). Also, they finally got a real director (Alfonso Cuaron). This is almost 2 and a half hours, but doesn't seem like it.
La Vie En Rose -
The film that got Marion Cotillard a surprise Oscar details the life of Edith Piaf. Like a lot of the recent musician biopics, it's got problems dramatically but the performances are amazing. Cotillard, a shy, soft-spoken, gorgeous actress, completely transforms into this wild, frightening, furious singer. The story moves around a lot, with flashbacks and flash forwards, which could have been smoother, but the imagery and the fire that she gives are great. The structure can be annoying, and the drama goes overboard, but you can't take your eyes off Cotillard for one second.
Be Kind Rewind -
This is a loopy, crazy, not-all-that realistic film. But since when has Gondry been interested in realism? He's more determined to find creative ways to shoot things from a childlike perspective, and this lets him do that, as JB and Mos put together amateur remakes. It's fun and heart-warming, even if seemingly stupid at points.
Things We Lost in the Fire -
This overlooked drama didn't get much attention last year, but it should have. It features a great performance by Benicio Del Toro as a junkie who moves in with his best friend (DUCHOVNY!!!)'s family after said best pal dies (I know, it's sad to have Duchovny and then see him pulled away). His wife is Halle Berry, and his house is nice, but it's an awkward arrangement. This probably turned off people because it has the cliches of a typical indie relationship drama, but the performances are good (even Berry) and the pain seems real. Add Benicio to the lost of actors who couldn't get any notice last year.
Dead Again -
Back in 1991, Kenneth Branagh took a break from Shakespeare to direct and star in a supernatural murder mystery. It's funny to see him as a sarcastic 80's L.A. cop, but he pulls it off. He tries to help out amnesia victim Emma Thompson, who may have known him in a past life, as may have other crazy people. This has some interesting twists and enough suspense to make it worth watching.
King of California -
This likable quirkfest about a crazy guy who's still endearing (Michael Douglas, channeling good comedy vibes) is a solid pick. Read the Bill Wine review, it will give you everything I wanted to say.
http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/1037815.php?
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban -
The only J.K. Industries film I hadn't seen all the way through was this, the third, which is when it really began to pick up. The kids are older, the stories are darker, and new characters are better (David Thewilis, Gary Oldman, and Timothy Spall all appear here). Also, they finally got a real director (Alfonso Cuaron). This is almost 2 and a half hours, but doesn't seem like it.
La Vie En Rose -
The film that got Marion Cotillard a surprise Oscar details the life of Edith Piaf. Like a lot of the recent musician biopics, it's got problems dramatically but the performances are amazing. Cotillard, a shy, soft-spoken, gorgeous actress, completely transforms into this wild, frightening, furious singer. The story moves around a lot, with flashbacks and flash forwards, which could have been smoother, but the imagery and the fire that she gives are great. The structure can be annoying, and the drama goes overboard, but you can't take your eyes off Cotillard for one second.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Post-awards blues, films in brief
I've been in my post-Oscar daze for several days now, or is it weeks? I was stunned by a show that didn't infuriate me for once. I was happy with most of the winners, and left kind of subdued by the whole thing. It was pretty low key. I am now in the weird state of not being upset.
The Independent Spirit Awards were much feistier. Rainn Wilson had some wild fun and I might have liked some of the winners there better (Tamara Jenkins and the almighty Phil finally got some rec for The Savages). For the foreign film category, people had to choose between Once, Persepolis, Lady Chatterly, and two very highly rated films that I want to see.... that's tough.
Some reviews.....
Margot at the Wedding -
Much like Who's Afriad of Virgina Woolf and other such emotional train wrecks, this a fun look at dysfunction. Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Jason Leigh are sisters from a privileged but crazy family who haven't spoken in years. Now they are putting it aside to celebrate Leigh's wedding to Jack Black, except that they're still bitter and sniping at each other. Both these actresses are great as unstable people who keep undermining each other, and there are fine supporting roles by JB (keeping comedy), Ciarin Hinds, John Turturro, and some good kid actors. This builds up a fine mess, but then... well, it's over too soon. Noah Bambauch almost had a considerable follow-up to the Squid and the Whale, but he might have done more... although, he's made his point. This family is effed up, and it's not stopping.
Rocket Science -
I almost saw this at the L.A. festival, but it was sold to an indie distributor. It seems right out of the Thumbsucker / Napoleon Dynamite / Igby Goes Down mode of a quirky film about a teenager trying to fit in and adjust to life. It's not anything new in the Sundance world, but it is enjoyable. The kids in this are funny, and the classic underdog story goes off track enough to make it different. Watch for Claire's flying boyfriend from Heroes.
Also, this has one big thing going for it: newcomer Anna Kendrick. She was very good. I hear she is getting a ton of offers now, and I hope to see more of her.
George Washington -
I'd wanted to see the first film of David Gordon Green, a new age indie guy who loves to make slice-of-life, realism driven, uncompromising films. Like his hero Terrence Malick, he gets a lot of great visuals out of the forgotten parts of the country. The problem with making things so much like reality is that the story can drag. Here, it seems like just a big picture of a poor Southern town, but when a boy accidentally dies, it picks up. This was pretty impressive for a young guy without any money or major actors (it was a festival sensation a few years ago). For those interested in this wave of indie neo-realism, it's an important piece.
Gone Baby Gone -
Maybe the biggest surprise of the year for me was finding out that people were praising Ben Affleck. He was getting good marks for directing and his brother for acting. I was skeptical, but it's true: Baffleck is remarkable behind the camera. This is a solid drama with some intense moments that that really hooked me. Casey Affleck is good as a detective who has to ask on some of his shady old pals to help him find a missing girl. I'm still wondering if Amy Ryan got snubbed too hard, because she does great in the most unflattering role a woman can have. Ed Harris and Morgan Freeman add with their usual charm, but Baffleck gets the most out of the supporting people, some of whom were real drifters from Mass. He builds up an interesting story that goes into unexpected places, and ends with a tough question. It's a strong emotional pull. In fact, I was thinking how this is really the movie that Mystic River was trying to be, but it doesn't fall apart at the end. Yes, it's good. Who knew? I can only hope that a certain someone realizes that he should never act again and stay behind the camera.
The Independent Spirit Awards were much feistier. Rainn Wilson had some wild fun and I might have liked some of the winners there better (Tamara Jenkins and the almighty Phil finally got some rec for The Savages). For the foreign film category, people had to choose between Once, Persepolis, Lady Chatterly, and two very highly rated films that I want to see.... that's tough.
Some reviews.....
Margot at the Wedding -
Much like Who's Afriad of Virgina Woolf and other such emotional train wrecks, this a fun look at dysfunction. Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Jason Leigh are sisters from a privileged but crazy family who haven't spoken in years. Now they are putting it aside to celebrate Leigh's wedding to Jack Black, except that they're still bitter and sniping at each other. Both these actresses are great as unstable people who keep undermining each other, and there are fine supporting roles by JB (keeping comedy), Ciarin Hinds, John Turturro, and some good kid actors. This builds up a fine mess, but then... well, it's over too soon. Noah Bambauch almost had a considerable follow-up to the Squid and the Whale, but he might have done more... although, he's made his point. This family is effed up, and it's not stopping.
Rocket Science -
I almost saw this at the L.A. festival, but it was sold to an indie distributor. It seems right out of the Thumbsucker / Napoleon Dynamite / Igby Goes Down mode of a quirky film about a teenager trying to fit in and adjust to life. It's not anything new in the Sundance world, but it is enjoyable. The kids in this are funny, and the classic underdog story goes off track enough to make it different. Watch for Claire's flying boyfriend from Heroes.
Also, this has one big thing going for it: newcomer Anna Kendrick. She was very good. I hear she is getting a ton of offers now, and I hope to see more of her.
George Washington -
I'd wanted to see the first film of David Gordon Green, a new age indie guy who loves to make slice-of-life, realism driven, uncompromising films. Like his hero Terrence Malick, he gets a lot of great visuals out of the forgotten parts of the country. The problem with making things so much like reality is that the story can drag. Here, it seems like just a big picture of a poor Southern town, but when a boy accidentally dies, it picks up. This was pretty impressive for a young guy without any money or major actors (it was a festival sensation a few years ago). For those interested in this wave of indie neo-realism, it's an important piece.
Gone Baby Gone -
Maybe the biggest surprise of the year for me was finding out that people were praising Ben Affleck. He was getting good marks for directing and his brother for acting. I was skeptical, but it's true: Baffleck is remarkable behind the camera. This is a solid drama with some intense moments that that really hooked me. Casey Affleck is good as a detective who has to ask on some of his shady old pals to help him find a missing girl. I'm still wondering if Amy Ryan got snubbed too hard, because she does great in the most unflattering role a woman can have. Ed Harris and Morgan Freeman add with their usual charm, but Baffleck gets the most out of the supporting people, some of whom were real drifters from Mass. He builds up an interesting story that goes into unexpected places, and ends with a tough question. It's a strong emotional pull. In fact, I was thinking how this is really the movie that Mystic River was trying to be, but it doesn't fall apart at the end. Yes, it's good. Who knew? I can only hope that a certain someone realizes that he should never act again and stay behind the camera.
Friday, February 22, 2008
The Quiet American (2003)
Love and war make for an interesting combination in The Quiet American. This fine adaptation of Graham Greene’s novel of the same name focuses on the love triangle between a British journalist, his Vietnamese lover, and a mysterious American in 1952 Vietnam. It also hints at the beginning of the war in Vietnam with the Americans.
Michael Caine stars as Thomas Fowler, an old British reporter sending out wire stories to his London newspaper. The film opens with the death of Fowler’s American friend, and the majority of the movie is a flashback by Fowler as he recounts his interactions with this man.
The real story begins when Fowler, who has already been in Saigon for several years, meets with Alden Pyle (Brendan Fraser), a young American medical volunteer. Fowler enjoys the American’s good-natured manner and shows him around the exotic nightlife of Saigon. When Pyle sees Fowler’s beautiful Vietnamese mistress, Phuong (Do Thi Hai Yen), he falls in love immediately.
The problem for Fowler is that he can’t get his wife in England to divorce him, despite the fact that he hasn’t seen her for years. Phuong wants to get away from increasingly violent Vietnam, and her sister (Pham Thi Mai Hoa) demands that Phuong marry someone properly. Pyle offers shelter, true marriage, and financial stability to Phuong. When Fowler is caught lying to her about marriage, she leaves him for Pyle.
From here, the story takes a different direction. Fowler, depressed and angry, turns his thoughts toward the war. The French have been struggling with the communists, and the arrival of more Americans to help intrigues him. He is surprised to see how a new party’s general, Thé (Quang Hai), can gather resources so quickly. Fowler suspects that the Americans are helping this new faction get supplies.
Fowler also begins to question Pyle’s true reasons for coming to Vietnam. At first, Pyle seems like an honest, bright-eyed, idealistic American youth. He and his fellow Americans, however, are always lurking around the new party’s camp. Fowler initially wants to be an impartial observer, but he eventually questions the underground dealings of the Americans. When he witnesses a suspicious bombing, his fears rise. He questions Pyle and discovers that the American’s idealism has many sides. The movie ends as it started, with the American dead and Fowler questioning his situation.
Director Phillip Noyce (Patriot Games, The Bone Collector) portrays 1952 Vietnam beautifully. He effectively captures both the dark tone of the war and the romantic background of Saigon. The opening sequence with Fowler remarking on the beauty of the country (while bombs light up the sky) only emphasizes the tragedies that are to come. Caine performs well for his role as the gentlemanly Fowler. Fraser’s schoolboy looks and gee-whiz attitude are perfect for his character, who seems very naive. Yen quietly displays great sensuality and devotion to the two men.
The emphasis on the love triangle may disappoint those looking for an explosive Vietnam War film, but it is essential to the story. There are some questions about the ending, and some of the details have been left out of the book, but the film remains very well made. The tension between the different groups in Vietnam becomes very evident in this excellent drama. The comparison between love and war does as well.
Michael Caine stars as Thomas Fowler, an old British reporter sending out wire stories to his London newspaper. The film opens with the death of Fowler’s American friend, and the majority of the movie is a flashback by Fowler as he recounts his interactions with this man.
The real story begins when Fowler, who has already been in Saigon for several years, meets with Alden Pyle (Brendan Fraser), a young American medical volunteer. Fowler enjoys the American’s good-natured manner and shows him around the exotic nightlife of Saigon. When Pyle sees Fowler’s beautiful Vietnamese mistress, Phuong (Do Thi Hai Yen), he falls in love immediately.
The problem for Fowler is that he can’t get his wife in England to divorce him, despite the fact that he hasn’t seen her for years. Phuong wants to get away from increasingly violent Vietnam, and her sister (Pham Thi Mai Hoa) demands that Phuong marry someone properly. Pyle offers shelter, true marriage, and financial stability to Phuong. When Fowler is caught lying to her about marriage, she leaves him for Pyle.
From here, the story takes a different direction. Fowler, depressed and angry, turns his thoughts toward the war. The French have been struggling with the communists, and the arrival of more Americans to help intrigues him. He is surprised to see how a new party’s general, Thé (Quang Hai), can gather resources so quickly. Fowler suspects that the Americans are helping this new faction get supplies.
Fowler also begins to question Pyle’s true reasons for coming to Vietnam. At first, Pyle seems like an honest, bright-eyed, idealistic American youth. He and his fellow Americans, however, are always lurking around the new party’s camp. Fowler initially wants to be an impartial observer, but he eventually questions the underground dealings of the Americans. When he witnesses a suspicious bombing, his fears rise. He questions Pyle and discovers that the American’s idealism has many sides. The movie ends as it started, with the American dead and Fowler questioning his situation.
Director Phillip Noyce (Patriot Games, The Bone Collector) portrays 1952 Vietnam beautifully. He effectively captures both the dark tone of the war and the romantic background of Saigon. The opening sequence with Fowler remarking on the beauty of the country (while bombs light up the sky) only emphasizes the tragedies that are to come. Caine performs well for his role as the gentlemanly Fowler. Fraser’s schoolboy looks and gee-whiz attitude are perfect for his character, who seems very naive. Yen quietly displays great sensuality and devotion to the two men.
The emphasis on the love triangle may disappoint those looking for an explosive Vietnam War film, but it is essential to the story. There are some questions about the ending, and some of the details have been left out of the book, but the film remains very well made. The tension between the different groups in Vietnam becomes very evident in this excellent drama. The comparison between love and war does as well.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Oscar preview
Here it is! My annual Oscar Night awards. My picks for the big night, as well as my own personal awards for all things in film.
First, some last minute reviews:
White Noise 2 -
In between all the award hopefuls, we had to fit in a straight-to-DVD sequel of a horror film that wasn't even successful. BUT, this one stars Nathan Fillion instead, which is a nice surprise. And it doesn't really have anything to do with electronic recording as much as it does with a man getting powers after a near-death experience - which makes it more of a low-budget mix of The Dead Zone and that awful Jessica Alba movie that just came out, as well as copying off of various X Files episodes, than a sequel. After his NDE, Fillion can tell if people are going to die soon, and he begins to save them. Sounds normal, but then he finds out that saving them ruins their natural time-line, and creates even more chaos... chaos the devil himself may be behind. That was cool. This still has too many bad actors and cheap scares to be good, but if they just invested a little more, it would have been interesting. Fillion deserves better.
American Gangster -
I was a little skeptical of this when it hit theaters, having grown tired of the Russ Crowe and Ridley Scott combo, not to mention Denzel trying too hard. This is, however, pretty good. Scott cuts down a lot of excess and goes for a real crime story, almost like Goodfellas with black people. The dual storylines of Crowe as a detective and Washington as the crime boss work together to make a story about the drug trade in New York in the 70's. Denzel cools it down here, not going too crazy, which works for his criminal, who treats his business like, well, a real business. After a long start with loads of information, this starts growing into an intense action crime drama. More interesting is how the real story ended, with the two main people becoming friends and even allies in bringing down corruption. So, this is worthy of a lot of praise. It might have the most random supporting cast ever (RZA, Josh Brolin, Armand Assante, the guy who was Buffalo Bill), and more.
Grindhouse -
Yeah, I know, I waited too long to see it initially and then they split it up. I really couldn't pay for both after that, no matter how much I wanted to, but using free passes, I decided to get both sides of this schlock-fest.
Planet Terror, Robert Rodriguez's part, might have topped Kill Bill for the title of Most Ridiculous (but Fun) Movie Ever. It's hard to say, because I've seen a lot of films that could be described as "utterly ridiculous." This one has so much cheap laughs, cheap gore, and cheap melodrama, though, that I can't handle it. It's genius-ly trashy, with the random cast to prove it.
Death Proof was a little calmer... just slightly... and maybe not as good, but still fun. I would've just liked to have been on the set when Tarantino was ogling Kurt Russell with 100 questions about John Carpenter and such.
Of course, the best part was the fake trailers in between, especially DON'T! Which ought to seal the Hot Fuzz team as a great writing force. Although, I think I read a couple scripts at my last job that were just like Machete... but they were serious. Maybe they can use that trailer and just pretend.
PICKS
So what are the award picks for my best of the year? I'll do this by giving what SHOULD win/be nominated vs. what I PREDICT will win. I should note that this year, my favorite films aren't necessarily my picks for Best Picture. I'll give you my best films of the year list here, not my favorites. I'd rank Hot Fuzz and The Ten as my favorites of the year, but I wouldn't vote for them for the big one.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:
Actual nominees: Juno, The Savages, Michael Clayton, Lars and the Real Girl, Ratatouille
My top five: The Savages, Michael Clayton, Hot Fuzz, Fay Grim, Eastern Promises
I know Juno will win, since it keeps winning every writing award and people are so in love with it. Don't get me wrong, it's nice, and a hell of a first script for Diablo Cody. But, just like Little Miss Sunshine last year, it's not quite deserving of the best. If everyone is so excited to vote for an indie, hip, female writer who has a hilarious script with serious undertones, why don't they just pick Tamara Jenkins? I did. Tony Gilroy is a close second to me. And yes, if I was in the guild, I would probably vote for Hot Fuzz just so it would get nominated. Of all the great comedies this year, that was the best writing. I round it out with Hal Hartley, who deserves to at least get a writing nom some time, and the intense script of Eastern Promises, which I only realized recently was NOT an adaptation. I wanted to include The Darjeeling Limited, but it was just a late cut.
Almost making my list here, for Waitress, and for supporting actress, is the late Adrienne Shelly, who really ought to get something special posthumously.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Actual: No Country, There Will Be Blood, The Diving Bell & The Butterfly, Atonement, Away From Her
My top five: No Country, There Will Be Blood, Zodiac, American Gangster, The Diving Bell
Like the big awards, it's a tough choice between the Coens and PTA. I'm guessing No Country because they stayed faithful to the book and still made it their own. Zodiac deserves better. Atonement's script was the one thing that held it back from being great, so I don't see its inclusion here. (See what I just wrote about American Gangster). Diving Bell was good - they managed to keep the guy's sense of humor even after he was paralyzed.
I know it doesn't matter much, but I actually think the guy who wrote the script for Harry Potter this year gets deserves some credit for chopping down a huge book into a good movie. It's harder, I think, when you have to choose what to leave out. Same for Persepolis - even though she used her own graphic novels, she had to come up with the best material for 90 minutes, and it worked.
BEST DOC
I should have seen more here. No End in Sight was good, if nothing new. I'll try to see more at some point.
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE / and SONG
The fact that Johnny Greenwood's terrifying arrangements for TWBB aren't in this category makes me not care. That was a weird disqualification. He won all the early awards before they said no.... what gives?
Also, if the signature song from Once doesn't win, I will spend the next few months hunting people down here. No, really. I don't ask for much, but if there was ever an obvious pick, this is it.
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Actual: No Country, There WBB, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Atonement, The Diving Bell
I have no gripes here. Those are all shot exceptionally well. I can't think of one that I like better, although I was fond of Zodiac and Darjeeling Limited for imagery. Well, this is a good group, and it's hard to just pick one. I'm calling Jesse James mainly because that's what makes this movie worth it. I'd vote for it, I suppose, but I could take any of these.
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Actual: Ratatouille, Persepolis, Surf's Up
My top: Persepolis, The Simpsons, Ratatouille
Really? Surf's Up??? My friend who works at the City Paper didn't even have to review that one - I wrote a haiku for it in his place. I know The Simpsons movie was okay, not as special as the best years of the show, but it did well and everyone else seems to like it as an animated choice. Unbelievable. Anyway, I know Ratatouille will win because it's well-made and charming, and I can't dispute that, but Persepolis might be the greatest animated feature ever. Just saying.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Actual: Ruby Dee, Sairose Ronan, Cate Blanchett, Amy Ryan, Tilda Swinton
I'd vote for all of them, so I think this is a good group. I guess I like Swinton the best, but I think they will wise up and pick Amy Ryan. There's no good reason not to - Dee doesn't have much screen time, Blanchett is a little over the top, and the others don't have the emotional power.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Actual: Javier Bardem, Hal Holbrook, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Tom Wilkinson, Casey Affleck
My top: Bardem, Holbrook, Hoffman, Steve Zahn, Paul Dano, Wilkinson, Philip Bosco
Alright..... this is darn near impossible. Some years, there are tough choices, but this year, you could name 10 guys who could all be here. I think everyone they nominated is great; how can I say no to Phil and Tom, let alone Holbrook recapturing magic? I also think seven other people are great. Everyone knows Javier Bardem is going to win, and he should, but my God, this is an unfair year. Zahn nearly killed himself, totally reinvented his persona, and didn't even get nominated. Dano held his own with DDL but was overlooked. Josh Brolin, out of nowhere, has appeared in FOUR good films this year as a ragged/skeevy/tough guy, when we used to just remember him as the older brother in The Goonies. Russell Crowe made me finally like him - twice. Philip Bosco was great as the mean but dementia-ted dad in The Savages, but for some reason, he's not getting the love that Holbrook (and Julie Christie) are for similar great elder roles. I think any of the men in Juno - Michael Cera (getting points also for carrying Superbad), Jason Bateman, or J.K. Simmons - could get nominated. But it's so hard. They should have just made this 7 or 8 nominees.
BEST ACTRESS
Actual: Julie Christie, Ellen Page, Marion Cotillard, Cate Blanchett, Laura Linney
My top: Christie, Cotillard, Linney, Keri Russell, Helena Bonham-Carter
Julie Christie will win, maybe with sentiment, but she'll deserve it. I really like Ellen Page, but I actually think she'll have much better roles.... don't get so caught up in this. Blanchett played that before... meh. I like Keri for breaking through and really holding up Waitress, and HBC was the real key in Sweeney Todd (even more than Johnny, I'd say.) Linney did some of her best work in The Savages - I was happily surprised she made it. Cotillard looks great, and I haven't seen it all, but she was so good in Big Fish and Very Long Engagement. I'll trust them on that.
Also, I give props to Naomi Watts; Parker Posey, owning in the indie world with Fay Grim and Broken English; and Belen Rueda, who carried El Orfanato and gave a lot of depth to a horror film.
BEST ACTOR
Actual: Daniel Day-Lewis, George Clooney, Johnny Depp, Viggo Mortensen, Tommy Lee Jones
My top: DDL, Clooney, Viggo, Christian Bale, Depp
Daniel Day-Lewis is going to run away with this as he should. I like all these picks, but I really think Christian Bale deserves a nom for all his hard work this year. He should get something just for Rescue Dawn, which was amazing in how much he and Zahn did, but then he also had great turns in 3:10 to Yuma and I'm Not There. Jones is good, and I'm sure he's getting support for his role in No Country as well, but that's a tough pick.
BEST DIRECTOR
Actual: The Coen Brothers, Paul Thomas Anderson, Julian Schnabel, Tony Gilroy, Jason Reitman
My top: Coens, PTA, David Fincher, Schnabel, Gilroy
Finally, the academy is recognizing people I really like. It seems like this, best adaptation, and the big prize are a close race between the Coens and PTA. Really, I can't lose there. Schnabel is a dark horse, but his film isn't up for best pic, so it will be hard. I just can't believe that three indie/art/cult guys I love so much are up for the prize.... this never happens. I'm still waiting for them to read off Clint Eastwood's name. I think the Coens get a slight edge for making a comeback and being around longer, but I could see PTA or Schnabel getting it. I would give it to any of those three.... I'll take the Coens but I don't really have much preference. It was a good year for all.
I like 4 out of the 5 but I do have one gripe: their continued dissing of David Fincher. If they are now letting PTA in, why not him? He was one of the best up-and-comers last decade and they ignored him. Now, he tones it down, goes serious, and they give it nothing. I don't get it. They finally recognize some of these guys, and then they ignore one for Jason Reitman, who is a great up-and-comer, but doesn't belong here yet.
I also feel kind of bad for Joe Wright as the only director of a best-pic-nominated film that didn't get his own nom. Atonement was beautifully shot and well-acted; its main problem was in the script and story choices, as I said. So it's not all his fault. I think he deserves it a lot more than Reitman, and he would be my sixth pick.
BEST PICTURE
Actual: No Country, There WBB, Atonement, Michael Clayton, Juno
My top five: Persepolis, No Country, TWBB, Michael Clayton, Zodiac
My next seven (who wouldn't bother me if they were up for it): The Diving Bell, The Savages, Atonement, American Gangster, Eastern Promises, Rescue Dawn, I'm Not There
You know the academy's top five. I gave you twelve that I thought were worthy of inclusion, and then the best five out of those. It's been a pretty good year.
I can't tell for this and director who will win between the Coens and PTA. My gut tells me the Coens will get both, and I think I'm inclined to say that their chances are actually a little better for the big prize than director. Blood wouldn't surprise me, and I also have a feeling they could split votes and Atonement or Clayton could sneak in there. But I'm saying No Country and the Coens have a 55 % chance, TWBB 40 %, and others 5 %. It's tough, and I could see it any way.
As for my pick as the best? I feel the same way they do. I'm torn between No Country and There WBB. They're both great, made by great people, with great people in them. It's hard, and I will be happy if either wins. I don't think I've ever had a night like this, knowing I couldn't lose. But as I was debating them, I starting thinking about Persepolis as an alternate that could separate itself. It's got everything a best picture should - historical importance, romance, war, tragedy, humor, and Eye of The Tiger. It uses its distinctive animation to make real biting satire and sarcastic humor, not just the feel-good kind... but then it also shows a girl's terror and the bleakness of her new country. It's marvelous and one of a kind.
I was ready to give up and declare a three-way tie, but now, I think Persepolis can jussssssst squeak by the two giants. I'm glad they will be winning awards all night, because they haven't got many from them... but they have from me! They can't get any higher in my book.... I would have given them stuff for Fargo, Miller's Crossing, Boogie Nights, Punch Drunk Love, and many others. So I'll spread my praise around and give it to Marjane Satrapi, who needs some recognition.
2007 was a good year for movies. Here's hoping the Oscars reflect that.
First, some last minute reviews:
White Noise 2 -
In between all the award hopefuls, we had to fit in a straight-to-DVD sequel of a horror film that wasn't even successful. BUT, this one stars Nathan Fillion instead, which is a nice surprise. And it doesn't really have anything to do with electronic recording as much as it does with a man getting powers after a near-death experience - which makes it more of a low-budget mix of The Dead Zone and that awful Jessica Alba movie that just came out, as well as copying off of various X Files episodes, than a sequel. After his NDE, Fillion can tell if people are going to die soon, and he begins to save them. Sounds normal, but then he finds out that saving them ruins their natural time-line, and creates even more chaos... chaos the devil himself may be behind. That was cool. This still has too many bad actors and cheap scares to be good, but if they just invested a little more, it would have been interesting. Fillion deserves better.
American Gangster -
I was a little skeptical of this when it hit theaters, having grown tired of the Russ Crowe and Ridley Scott combo, not to mention Denzel trying too hard. This is, however, pretty good. Scott cuts down a lot of excess and goes for a real crime story, almost like Goodfellas with black people. The dual storylines of Crowe as a detective and Washington as the crime boss work together to make a story about the drug trade in New York in the 70's. Denzel cools it down here, not going too crazy, which works for his criminal, who treats his business like, well, a real business. After a long start with loads of information, this starts growing into an intense action crime drama. More interesting is how the real story ended, with the two main people becoming friends and even allies in bringing down corruption. So, this is worthy of a lot of praise. It might have the most random supporting cast ever (RZA, Josh Brolin, Armand Assante, the guy who was Buffalo Bill), and more.
Grindhouse -
Yeah, I know, I waited too long to see it initially and then they split it up. I really couldn't pay for both after that, no matter how much I wanted to, but using free passes, I decided to get both sides of this schlock-fest.
Planet Terror, Robert Rodriguez's part, might have topped Kill Bill for the title of Most Ridiculous (but Fun) Movie Ever. It's hard to say, because I've seen a lot of films that could be described as "utterly ridiculous." This one has so much cheap laughs, cheap gore, and cheap melodrama, though, that I can't handle it. It's genius-ly trashy, with the random cast to prove it.
Death Proof was a little calmer... just slightly... and maybe not as good, but still fun. I would've just liked to have been on the set when Tarantino was ogling Kurt Russell with 100 questions about John Carpenter and such.
Of course, the best part was the fake trailers in between, especially DON'T! Which ought to seal the Hot Fuzz team as a great writing force. Although, I think I read a couple scripts at my last job that were just like Machete... but they were serious. Maybe they can use that trailer and just pretend.
PICKS
So what are the award picks for my best of the year? I'll do this by giving what SHOULD win/be nominated vs. what I PREDICT will win. I should note that this year, my favorite films aren't necessarily my picks for Best Picture. I'll give you my best films of the year list here, not my favorites. I'd rank Hot Fuzz and The Ten as my favorites of the year, but I wouldn't vote for them for the big one.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:
Actual nominees: Juno, The Savages, Michael Clayton, Lars and the Real Girl, Ratatouille
My top five: The Savages, Michael Clayton, Hot Fuzz, Fay Grim, Eastern Promises
I know Juno will win, since it keeps winning every writing award and people are so in love with it. Don't get me wrong, it's nice, and a hell of a first script for Diablo Cody. But, just like Little Miss Sunshine last year, it's not quite deserving of the best. If everyone is so excited to vote for an indie, hip, female writer who has a hilarious script with serious undertones, why don't they just pick Tamara Jenkins? I did. Tony Gilroy is a close second to me. And yes, if I was in the guild, I would probably vote for Hot Fuzz just so it would get nominated. Of all the great comedies this year, that was the best writing. I round it out with Hal Hartley, who deserves to at least get a writing nom some time, and the intense script of Eastern Promises, which I only realized recently was NOT an adaptation. I wanted to include The Darjeeling Limited, but it was just a late cut.
Almost making my list here, for Waitress, and for supporting actress, is the late Adrienne Shelly, who really ought to get something special posthumously.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Actual: No Country, There Will Be Blood, The Diving Bell & The Butterfly, Atonement, Away From Her
My top five: No Country, There Will Be Blood, Zodiac, American Gangster, The Diving Bell
Like the big awards, it's a tough choice between the Coens and PTA. I'm guessing No Country because they stayed faithful to the book and still made it their own. Zodiac deserves better. Atonement's script was the one thing that held it back from being great, so I don't see its inclusion here. (See what I just wrote about American Gangster). Diving Bell was good - they managed to keep the guy's sense of humor even after he was paralyzed.
I know it doesn't matter much, but I actually think the guy who wrote the script for Harry Potter this year gets deserves some credit for chopping down a huge book into a good movie. It's harder, I think, when you have to choose what to leave out. Same for Persepolis - even though she used her own graphic novels, she had to come up with the best material for 90 minutes, and it worked.
BEST DOC
I should have seen more here. No End in Sight was good, if nothing new. I'll try to see more at some point.
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE / and SONG
The fact that Johnny Greenwood's terrifying arrangements for TWBB aren't in this category makes me not care. That was a weird disqualification. He won all the early awards before they said no.... what gives?
Also, if the signature song from Once doesn't win, I will spend the next few months hunting people down here. No, really. I don't ask for much, but if there was ever an obvious pick, this is it.
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Actual: No Country, There WBB, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Atonement, The Diving Bell
I have no gripes here. Those are all shot exceptionally well. I can't think of one that I like better, although I was fond of Zodiac and Darjeeling Limited for imagery. Well, this is a good group, and it's hard to just pick one. I'm calling Jesse James mainly because that's what makes this movie worth it. I'd vote for it, I suppose, but I could take any of these.
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Actual: Ratatouille, Persepolis, Surf's Up
My top: Persepolis, The Simpsons, Ratatouille
Really? Surf's Up??? My friend who works at the City Paper didn't even have to review that one - I wrote a haiku for it in his place. I know The Simpsons movie was okay, not as special as the best years of the show, but it did well and everyone else seems to like it as an animated choice. Unbelievable. Anyway, I know Ratatouille will win because it's well-made and charming, and I can't dispute that, but Persepolis might be the greatest animated feature ever. Just saying.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Actual: Ruby Dee, Sairose Ronan, Cate Blanchett, Amy Ryan, Tilda Swinton
I'd vote for all of them, so I think this is a good group. I guess I like Swinton the best, but I think they will wise up and pick Amy Ryan. There's no good reason not to - Dee doesn't have much screen time, Blanchett is a little over the top, and the others don't have the emotional power.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Actual: Javier Bardem, Hal Holbrook, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Tom Wilkinson, Casey Affleck
My top: Bardem, Holbrook, Hoffman, Steve Zahn, Paul Dano, Wilkinson, Philip Bosco
Alright..... this is darn near impossible. Some years, there are tough choices, but this year, you could name 10 guys who could all be here. I think everyone they nominated is great; how can I say no to Phil and Tom, let alone Holbrook recapturing magic? I also think seven other people are great. Everyone knows Javier Bardem is going to win, and he should, but my God, this is an unfair year. Zahn nearly killed himself, totally reinvented his persona, and didn't even get nominated. Dano held his own with DDL but was overlooked. Josh Brolin, out of nowhere, has appeared in FOUR good films this year as a ragged/skeevy/tough guy, when we used to just remember him as the older brother in The Goonies. Russell Crowe made me finally like him - twice. Philip Bosco was great as the mean but dementia-ted dad in The Savages, but for some reason, he's not getting the love that Holbrook (and Julie Christie) are for similar great elder roles. I think any of the men in Juno - Michael Cera (getting points also for carrying Superbad), Jason Bateman, or J.K. Simmons - could get nominated. But it's so hard. They should have just made this 7 or 8 nominees.
BEST ACTRESS
Actual: Julie Christie, Ellen Page, Marion Cotillard, Cate Blanchett, Laura Linney
My top: Christie, Cotillard, Linney, Keri Russell, Helena Bonham-Carter
Julie Christie will win, maybe with sentiment, but she'll deserve it. I really like Ellen Page, but I actually think she'll have much better roles.... don't get so caught up in this. Blanchett played that before... meh. I like Keri for breaking through and really holding up Waitress, and HBC was the real key in Sweeney Todd (even more than Johnny, I'd say.) Linney did some of her best work in The Savages - I was happily surprised she made it. Cotillard looks great, and I haven't seen it all, but she was so good in Big Fish and Very Long Engagement. I'll trust them on that.
Also, I give props to Naomi Watts; Parker Posey, owning in the indie world with Fay Grim and Broken English; and Belen Rueda, who carried El Orfanato and gave a lot of depth to a horror film.
BEST ACTOR
Actual: Daniel Day-Lewis, George Clooney, Johnny Depp, Viggo Mortensen, Tommy Lee Jones
My top: DDL, Clooney, Viggo, Christian Bale, Depp
Daniel Day-Lewis is going to run away with this as he should. I like all these picks, but I really think Christian Bale deserves a nom for all his hard work this year. He should get something just for Rescue Dawn, which was amazing in how much he and Zahn did, but then he also had great turns in 3:10 to Yuma and I'm Not There. Jones is good, and I'm sure he's getting support for his role in No Country as well, but that's a tough pick.
BEST DIRECTOR
Actual: The Coen Brothers, Paul Thomas Anderson, Julian Schnabel, Tony Gilroy, Jason Reitman
My top: Coens, PTA, David Fincher, Schnabel, Gilroy
Finally, the academy is recognizing people I really like. It seems like this, best adaptation, and the big prize are a close race between the Coens and PTA. Really, I can't lose there. Schnabel is a dark horse, but his film isn't up for best pic, so it will be hard. I just can't believe that three indie/art/cult guys I love so much are up for the prize.... this never happens. I'm still waiting for them to read off Clint Eastwood's name. I think the Coens get a slight edge for making a comeback and being around longer, but I could see PTA or Schnabel getting it. I would give it to any of those three.... I'll take the Coens but I don't really have much preference. It was a good year for all.
I like 4 out of the 5 but I do have one gripe: their continued dissing of David Fincher. If they are now letting PTA in, why not him? He was one of the best up-and-comers last decade and they ignored him. Now, he tones it down, goes serious, and they give it nothing. I don't get it. They finally recognize some of these guys, and then they ignore one for Jason Reitman, who is a great up-and-comer, but doesn't belong here yet.
I also feel kind of bad for Joe Wright as the only director of a best-pic-nominated film that didn't get his own nom. Atonement was beautifully shot and well-acted; its main problem was in the script and story choices, as I said. So it's not all his fault. I think he deserves it a lot more than Reitman, and he would be my sixth pick.
BEST PICTURE
Actual: No Country, There WBB, Atonement, Michael Clayton, Juno
My top five: Persepolis, No Country, TWBB, Michael Clayton, Zodiac
My next seven (who wouldn't bother me if they were up for it): The Diving Bell, The Savages, Atonement, American Gangster, Eastern Promises, Rescue Dawn, I'm Not There
You know the academy's top five. I gave you twelve that I thought were worthy of inclusion, and then the best five out of those. It's been a pretty good year.
I can't tell for this and director who will win between the Coens and PTA. My gut tells me the Coens will get both, and I think I'm inclined to say that their chances are actually a little better for the big prize than director. Blood wouldn't surprise me, and I also have a feeling they could split votes and Atonement or Clayton could sneak in there. But I'm saying No Country and the Coens have a 55 % chance, TWBB 40 %, and others 5 %. It's tough, and I could see it any way.
As for my pick as the best? I feel the same way they do. I'm torn between No Country and There WBB. They're both great, made by great people, with great people in them. It's hard, and I will be happy if either wins. I don't think I've ever had a night like this, knowing I couldn't lose. But as I was debating them, I starting thinking about Persepolis as an alternate that could separate itself. It's got everything a best picture should - historical importance, romance, war, tragedy, humor, and Eye of The Tiger. It uses its distinctive animation to make real biting satire and sarcastic humor, not just the feel-good kind... but then it also shows a girl's terror and the bleakness of her new country. It's marvelous and one of a kind.
I was ready to give up and declare a three-way tie, but now, I think Persepolis can jussssssst squeak by the two giants. I'm glad they will be winning awards all night, because they haven't got many from them... but they have from me! They can't get any higher in my book.... I would have given them stuff for Fargo, Miller's Crossing, Boogie Nights, Punch Drunk Love, and many others. So I'll spread my praise around and give it to Marjane Satrapi, who needs some recognition.
2007 was a good year for movies. Here's hoping the Oscars reflect that.
Monday, January 21, 2008
College classics: The Truman Show
The Truman Show was a fairly popular film when it came out, but few seem to remember it 10 years later. This is not like Liar Liar or Ace Ventura; this is Jim Carrey really breaking out as an actor. It also seems relevant in today's world of reality television. Students should know that someone saw this coming.
Jim Carrey pushes himself into an entire new level of films with the unexpectedly fantastic film, The Truman Show. Carrey stars as Truman Burbank, an insurance salesman who lives on an island off the California coast. Truman, however, is unaware of one important fact: everything and everyone he knows is fake.
Truman is actually an unknowing participant in the world’s longest and most extravagant reality television series. Laura Linney plays Meryl, his actress wife, whom he believes to be a simple nurse. The two live on an island that is really just a studio creation. Every person in the town is an actor who tries to convince Truman that his fictional life is real. Truman relies on his best buddy Marlon (Noah Emmerich) for support and sanity. Marlon keeps him in the veiled belief that everything is real.
The trouble starts when Truman notices a few odd things about town. The first disturbance in his everyday life comes when he father (Brian Delate) shows up on the island. Problem is, he supposedly has been dead since Truman was a child. Out of nowhere, several people come to take his father away. The next day, the local newspaper explains their actions as “homeless cleanup.”
Later on, Truman notices that an elevator in another office building has no backing. Before he can get a good look at it, security guards usher him outside. Marlon and Meryl try to ease his suspicions, but he cannot forget what he has seen. His paranoia leads him to question, for the first time, the validity of his life. When he cannot leave the island, he gets even more suspicious.
The film then shifts behind the scenes to show just how this series was created. A mysterious man named Christof (Ed Harris) started the show when orphan Truman was born, and has been following Truman for all of his life. In a rare interview, Christof defends his radical idea to a national audience.
After his initial questioning of reality, Truman seems to settle down, but he remembers one strange incident in his life. The film flashes back to his collegiate days, when his love interest was not his future wife but a mysterious girl he later fantasizes about (Natascha McElhone). After he tries to romanticize her, she tries to tell him the truth about his life, but is hauled away. Even though he married Meryl, he continually obsesses with this fantasy roommate. Her image, and his hope to find her really drive him to question everything.
Peter Weir directs a unique and original film with great care. Even though it is about a reality show, Weir treats the film with a great sense of dramatic seriousness. He does, however, play with the idea. Many of the shots in the film replicate the hidden cameras in Truman’s world. Weir blends the actual dramatic world of the film with the pseudo-real world of Truman.
This film establishes Carrey as more than a wacky comedian. His flashy, false style plays perfectly for his character, who is clueless. Linney and Emmerich have a strange task as actors playing actors playing real people, and they pull it off well. Harris keeps Christof enigmatic.
The real beauty of this film, besides its solid directing and acting, comes in its symbolism. It can be read as a Platonic message about seeing beyond the curtains of the world. Audiences may not get all of the deep social and philosophical subtext, but chances are they will enjoy this tale of a less than real life
Jim Carrey pushes himself into an entire new level of films with the unexpectedly fantastic film, The Truman Show. Carrey stars as Truman Burbank, an insurance salesman who lives on an island off the California coast. Truman, however, is unaware of one important fact: everything and everyone he knows is fake.
Truman is actually an unknowing participant in the world’s longest and most extravagant reality television series. Laura Linney plays Meryl, his actress wife, whom he believes to be a simple nurse. The two live on an island that is really just a studio creation. Every person in the town is an actor who tries to convince Truman that his fictional life is real. Truman relies on his best buddy Marlon (Noah Emmerich) for support and sanity. Marlon keeps him in the veiled belief that everything is real.
The trouble starts when Truman notices a few odd things about town. The first disturbance in his everyday life comes when he father (Brian Delate) shows up on the island. Problem is, he supposedly has been dead since Truman was a child. Out of nowhere, several people come to take his father away. The next day, the local newspaper explains their actions as “homeless cleanup.”
Later on, Truman notices that an elevator in another office building has no backing. Before he can get a good look at it, security guards usher him outside. Marlon and Meryl try to ease his suspicions, but he cannot forget what he has seen. His paranoia leads him to question, for the first time, the validity of his life. When he cannot leave the island, he gets even more suspicious.
The film then shifts behind the scenes to show just how this series was created. A mysterious man named Christof (Ed Harris) started the show when orphan Truman was born, and has been following Truman for all of his life. In a rare interview, Christof defends his radical idea to a national audience.
After his initial questioning of reality, Truman seems to settle down, but he remembers one strange incident in his life. The film flashes back to his collegiate days, when his love interest was not his future wife but a mysterious girl he later fantasizes about (Natascha McElhone). After he tries to romanticize her, she tries to tell him the truth about his life, but is hauled away. Even though he married Meryl, he continually obsesses with this fantasy roommate. Her image, and his hope to find her really drive him to question everything.
Peter Weir directs a unique and original film with great care. Even though it is about a reality show, Weir treats the film with a great sense of dramatic seriousness. He does, however, play with the idea. Many of the shots in the film replicate the hidden cameras in Truman’s world. Weir blends the actual dramatic world of the film with the pseudo-real world of Truman.
This film establishes Carrey as more than a wacky comedian. His flashy, false style plays perfectly for his character, who is clueless. Linney and Emmerich have a strange task as actors playing actors playing real people, and they pull it off well. Harris keeps Christof enigmatic.
The real beauty of this film, besides its solid directing and acting, comes in its symbolism. It can be read as a Platonic message about seeing beyond the curtains of the world. Audiences may not get all of the deep social and philosophical subtext, but chances are they will enjoy this tale of a less than real life
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)