Stardust

I almost saw this in theaters a few years ago, but reviews were shaky. That's not fair, because I liked it. I think the constant comparisons with Princess Bride were unnecessary. That's just an absolute classic that no one can match now. This is different; even though it's basically the same kind of film - a snarky, comical fantasy for kids and grown ups - it has a different tone and pace than the old Rodents of Unusual Size flick. I enjoyed it, not as much, but enough to recommend. It's a little more adult and slightly darker, but it has enough funny moments. Ricky Gervais is a lot better in his short cameo than Billy Crystal was, for one. Robert DeNiro and Michele Pfeiffer have fun hamming it up for Matthew Vaughn (who helped make the early - i.e. good - Guy Ritchie films.) It's got a nice mix of fantasy, tragedy, suspense, and comedy. Maybe it's not Princess Bride, but it's way better than all those wannabe Harry Potter flicks coming out right now.

Sunshine: Point / Counterpoint

The debate is on for Danny Boyle's 2007 film Sunshine. I didn't go to this when it premiered at the LA festival because a. I wasn't getting a free pass, b. it seemed a little too much like The Core, with an even more impossible task, and c. people were harsh on it. Now I can understand why people were so harsh, but I love it.

To me, this is a bold project that has a lot of things that could go wrong. Chris Evans is the heroic one, and I wouldn't trust him to save anything besides the keg at a Phi Kap parity, let alone Kim Basinger on a cell phone.... or in this case, humanity. He's no match for the great Cillian Murphy. But this strange crew mixes, and when they don't, it makes for intrigue. Their mission seems more than impossible, and they know it. But will that drive them? Can they get through the idea that they don't matter, and yet, are the only thing that matters?

This film has touches of great sci-fi thought like 2001 or Solaris, but it also has a basic story and action. Does it all mix? I think so. But you might say not.

I would like to print a respone from my friend Paul, who didn't like it:

"Here's why Sunshine didn't work. It had no idea whether it wanted to be a 2001/Solaris type sci fi with trippy, headache inducing brilliance and awesome effects. It didn't even decide if it wanted to be pure Alien style rock-em-sock-em horror or cult favorite Event Horizon. Instead, it was a confused mix of improbable and implausible headache inducing boredom. The scenes of conflict were boring, I didn't care about the characters and knew what was going to happen from the first few frames. Danny Boyle really let me down for the first time around."

Good points by Paul. Anyone else want to weigh in?

PHIL! HAPPINESS!

I don't know where this poster for Happiness came from, but it is awesome.

Retro: Insomnia

With all the excitement for Inception building, I thought I'd take a look at Christopher Nolan's remake of Insomnia in 2002.


Detective Will Dormer can’t get any sleep. Is it his conscience, or just the midnight sun?
Al Pacino stars as the famed Los Angeles detective Dormer in the thriller Insomnia. Director Christopher Nolan, who scored with last summer’s independent smash hit, Memento, takes a Norweigan thriller from 1997 and places it instead in a remote Alaskan village.
Dormer and his partner Hap (Martin Donovan) arrive in the small town of Nightmute, Alaska, to investigate the murder of a teenage girl. The two are happy to get out of Los Angeles, where they are the subject of internal investigations. Detective Ellie Burr (Hilary Swank), a huge fan of Dormer’s, guides them on their search throughout the Alaskan inlets.
Hap and Dormer put aside their investigative disagreements enough to concentrate on the murder case. After discovering a key piece of evidence, Dormer develops a trap that will nab the killer. Unfortunately, the trap fails when the killer escapes into a thick fog. Dormer and Hap go after him, but Dormer accidentally shoots and kills Hap. Aware of the tarnished image he already has back at home, Dormer immediately covers it up and blames the shooting on the escaped killer.
Dormer spends the rest of the film in agony over his mistake. The constant sunlight eats away at his sleep, leaving him more and more confused. He feels awful for shooting Hap, but keeps to his story.
The killer, however, knows what really happened. He blackmails Dormer, trying to set something up where they can both get away. He wants to blame it on the victim’s loser boyfriend (Jonathan Jackson), who admits to beating the girl. Dormer jumps at the chance to find the killer’s identity. Surprise! It’s Robin Williams, in a stunning departure from his usual comedic roles. Williams is cool and chillingly calculative as Walter Finch, a local writer.
Finch and Dormer meet and discus their plans. Dormer wants to trick Finch into giving himself up with nothing on Dormer, but Finch is too smart for that. He plays Dormer’s game just as well as the detective does. Eventually, Dormer gets so caught up in playing this game that he misses details on the case. He also has to deal with Ellie, who heads up an investigation into Hap’s shooting. Dormer’s conscience tugs at him until he cannot tell what is real anymore.
Nolan captures the haunting glow of Alaska. From The Shining-esque opening shots to violent montages of the killing, Nolan portrays the emotions felt beautifully. His flashy sequences effectively show the increasing mental instability of Dormer, and he weaves the narrative to an exciting finish.
Pacino, after a string of several mixed performances, finally adds another strong role to his thick resumé. He expresses the self-doubt and increasing fatigue of Dormer extremely well. Swank performs ably as a detective who is initially star-struck, but eventually learns from Dormer and even uses his own advice against him. The supporting cast is strong, with Donovan, Jackson, Maura Tierney, and Nicky Katt making good use of their time. The real acting treat, however, comes with Williams. This is a role he hasn’t touched before, and he’s surprisingly creepy. If audiences can handle Peter Pan or Mrs. Doubtfire as a murderer, they can truly appreciate a thrilling detective story.

College classics: Man Bites Dog (It Happened in Your Neighborhood)

If I ever get to teach a class in film, and I hope I do, I will fight to the death to show this controversial film. There is so much we can learn from it.


I bought this early 90's French film at the behest of my friend Paul when he was out here, and I totally forgot I did that until last week when I was cleaning up. SUCH A DISCOVERY! This is a fantastic dark comedy way ahead of its time. It's a mockumentary about a serial killer who invites a poor, rag-tag film team to accompany him on his killings. The lead actor (Benoit Poelvoorde) is a wondrous psychotic, intelligent and charming if not a little prejudiced. The film takes on a new level when the pretend film crew (who are played by the actual director and co-writers) not only tape the killings without turning the man in, but help him in the act. The vain killer even offers to help them finance the film with the money he steals from his victims. Thus, this becomes an absurdly genius take on media and violence. It's harsh at times, and was supposedly banned in some countries, but it's fictional and darkly comedic, so it's not to be taken completely seriously. Still, this has to be one of the most creative mockumentaries (and that's saying something) ever, and a great satire on modern media. I can't recommend it enough.

Directed by:

Rémy Belvaux
André Bonzel
Benoît Poelvoorde
(in trio)

The Orphanage

The Orphanage (La Orfanata) -

Dear American filmmakers who like to do horror,

your contributions to the genre recently have been lacking. It seems like many of you like to employ old tricks like sensory activation, i.e. you have everything quiet and then something jumps out with a bang. Some of you are busy ripping off Asian scare films that you don't quite understand, and thus leave with odd adaptations. A lot of you are busy doing torture porn, where you sit around and ask, "What's the last thing you'd ever want to do?" instead of thinking about plot or character. This is not good.

I'd like you to direct your attention to Spain, where The Orphanage was well-received a few years ago. Unlike your repetitive and annoying work, this film has feeling. It has a deep emotional story, of children who tease and children who are sick. It has a strong female lead who isn't just a simple good girl, but a complex and driven woman. It has some of the old tricks, but also a lot of the classic ones that rely on suspense and mood. You may want to pay attention to this and its producer, Guillermo Del Toro. It's better than anything anyone here has done in a long time.

Sincerely,

Leo

Kubrick and Marx: an academic reading

Stanley Kubrick met controversy many times as a filmmaker. From joking about nuclear war to producing several ultra violent films, Kubrick never backed down from tackling tough projects. His interest in Arthur Clarke’s science fiction novel, 2001: A Space Odyssey, created a unique and cerebral film that puzzles many people. Understanding Marxist ideas helps viewers in interpreting some of Kubrick’s scenes.
Kubrick makes a connection with Marx’s ideas about labor in this film. Through labor, man loses his value. This film depicts how man has lost value and importance as his mechanical sense has grown. It also shows, in a climatic sequence, the next phase in man’s evolution.
The film begins in prehistoric times as early humanoids first discover tools. When one finds that a bone can be used to attack, it leads to war, on a small scale. This creature has advanced beyond others by creating a tool. Kubrick then makes a daring jump-cut from the bone to a spaceship, eclipsing thousands of years of civilization.
The bone and the spaceship are both tools, just of different ages. From the time of the first tool to the time of the spaceship, man has made astounding technological advances. These advances, however, are starting to limit man. Marx believes that the working man and his product have an inverse relationship. As the product improves, the condition of man gets worse. Marx says that “the worker becomes a slave of his object.” Kubrick uses this idea throughout the film. In the latter part of the film, the focus is on alienated labor.
Marx described alienated labor as part of this paradoxical relationship. Man can produce objects, but man is not an object. Man is estranged from the product, from himself, and from others. In the second part of the film, the people are supposed to be working together to fix a problem that has occurred on a lunar base. Dr. Floyd arrives to help. Floyd, though, offers little explanation as to the root of the problem. Even thought the people act civilized, their words are meaningless. They have polite but empty conversations. They are estranged from each other, and the technology is keeping them apart.
Technology in this film is not celebratory. The more technology man has, the more lethal it can be. The more lethal that technology can be, the less the value of human life can be. The depressing music played during the Jupiter flight emphasizes the sorry fate of man. Indeed, man has created marvelous machines. He has a computer that can think for itself. He has bases on the moon and other colonies planned. He is now just a pawn, however, for these creations.
In the first part of the film, man has not separated himself from nature. Man resides in the animal stage, but the invention of the tool begins a distancing of man from other animals. Man creates an object, and this eventually leads to him creating an objective world. From the first tool, man learned to make houses, and eventually, cities. He created this alien world of unnatural objects, imposed it upon nature, and now sets to do the same in space. As he tarnished Earth, so will he tarnish other planets. Man’s object world separates him from animals also because it shows man’s use of logic. We have a consciousness. This simple creation shows that we are aware of our ability to create.
This ability, though, does not always allow us freedom. Our existence in the object world separates us from nature. Our activity is important. Marx claims that activity defines us. When labor is our activity, it separates us from nature and from ourselves. The people in the spaceships in the film are there to serve the computers and instruments. The object, the product of man’s labor, has become more important than the person. HAL, the computer system, has more personality than the human astronauts do. He is in control of the mission, and determines himself to have more worth to the mission when he finds out that they are going to turn him off. He kills all of them but Dave, who finally shows some human aggressiveness.
The monolith is a much more complicated object. It is decidedly not manmade. It appears to be alien in a literal sense. It is really a visual interpretation of alienated labor. The spark that the monolith produced led the first man to build a tool- to kill. This spark could be consciousness, or awareness, or logic. In any case, it leads to labor, which leads to alienation. The object created alienates man from himself. The monolith is thus the literal form of how the product has power over man.
When Dave turns off HAL, it makes for a breakthrough in the film and its symbolism. HAL, who has shown forms of personality, begs Dave for his “life.” He seemingly takes revenge on the humans and control of the mission by killing the frozen astronauts and Frank. He admits to being scared. He claims that he is losing his mind, but he is a computer. Perhaps HAL has a consciousness as well. Every report Dave and Frank read states that this has never happened before. Computers should not make mistakes, they see. HAL appears to be more human than these dull humans.
This is the next step in the evolutionary process. Man creates objects, but man is not an object. Man has a consciousness, and this separates him from animals and objects. Now, man has made an object with consciousness. The product of man’s labor has overtaken him. This completely inorganic device has reached the level of man. This means that man must adjust or be dominated by his own creation.
Dave’s actions represent a positive step for humanity. Throughout most of the non-prehistoric part of the film, the humans have been very passive. Dave stands up to the powerful computer and shuts it down. This represents man’s rejecting technology as a dominating force. Marx wanted people to stand up to the powers that controlled labor. In a way, Dave does that. He does not allow the product to control him. He asserts that he is a human and has power. He is not a slave to technology anymore.
Ironically, what should be a triumphant scene plays out more like a slow murder. The audience may feel compassion for HAL as Dave slowly disconnects his circuits. HAL’s rendering of an old song shows more of his human side. If HAL does have a consciousness, perhaps the audience must feel sorry for him as he is shut down. Though triumphant, the scene is a stark reminder of how far man has gone with technology. In creating thinking, man has played God in a sense.
Dave finally heads off into the infinite in the last part of the film. This is the most confusing part, but Kubrick may also have Marxist ideas in mind here. Dave, after traveling for however many hours or light-years, discovers a strange hotel. This hotel is a representation of how man has created an inorganic world. This world seems like an alien’s depiction of human quarters. Dave then sees himself as an older man, and finally, as a fetus.
Since man, at this point in the film, has created an object with consciousness, he must move on to the next stage of evolution: pure consciousness. “Nature is man’s inorganic body” Marx says. “Man lives from nature. Estranged labor estranges man from nature.” Man becomes an individual. If man has shunned nature and created a completely unnatural object with consciousness, then the next step is for man to become totally estranged with nature. Man leaves his organic body and becomes pure thought.
This is just my interpretation of the film, based on Marx’s text about man. I believe that Kubrick, in the end, intended to show man evolving again into new a new form. I know that Marx does not talk about it in the text, but I think this is the next step. I also think that Kubrick wanted to use this triumph of man over machine to send a warning to people. In the age of the cold war, the concern was that we would blow ourselves up with our brand new atomic bombs. Kubrick made a great farce out of this idea with Dr. Strangelove.
Kubrick uses many Marxist ideas in his film 2001: A Space Odyssey. The alienation of labor, as Marx described it, becomes a major part of the film. Marx’s theories on man as a species and as a conscious thinker also influenced Kubrick in the development of the film. Kubrick’s classic remains a mystery to many viewers, but with a Marxist reading, its purpose becomes clearer. Man cannot fall to his own creation. Labor must not make men slaves.

Rendition

This 2007 film came on cable. I was a little skeptical about this take on post 9-11 torture antics. Would it be too preachy? Would I get tired of Reese? Would it dwell on Washington "fat cats" rather than look at the big picture? As it turns out, it takes a fairly even look at things, even if Maryl Streep starts to come off as an icy dealmaker with no soul, and I'm not sure if Jake Gyllenhaal represents a real CIA agent. This has good drama and a fairly low dose of Reese (I don't hate her, I just don't like her notion to be overly serious). I don't know if the Middle Eastern subplot about the daughter really matters that much in the end, but I like how everything comes together.

Some will probably say that this is a Hollywood attack on policy, and it's more than a little biased. Still, it works very well as a story, and as an interesting film, and it makes a solid point on how torture doesn't always work. I feel like I need Danno's take on this before commenting further. I'm not sure if I can totally buy what they're selling, but I like the package.