College classics: Adaptation.

I thought I'd take a look back on Adaptation, since it was almost 10 years ago. College students should take a look at everything Charlie Kaufman has written, and I think many of them will. This one is especially needed, because it deals with the struggles of filmmaking and screenwriting. Also, it might be nice to remind kids (with Season of the Witch and some other awful thing just around the corner) that Nicolas Cage can be good.... if he applies himself....

The creative minds that brought us Being John Malkovich have created another unique cinematic experience. Director Spike Jonze and writer Charlie Kaufman team up again to show how Kaufman’s alleged troubles in adapting a book to the screen cause all sorts of adventures.
Nicholas Cage stars as Kaufman and his twin brother, Donald. The brothers are both struggling to get into the screenwriting business. Charlie, the shy one, timidly tries to adapt Susan Orlean’s book, The Orchid Thief. Donald, the partying, outgoing one, comes up with action filled but extremely typical plots. Charlie watches with horror as Donald gets all the recognition, and all the women.
The movie then shifts to Orlean’s perspective as she tries to write her book. Meryl Streep does well as the polite but internally dreamy Orlean. She travels to Florida to find John Laroche (Chris Cooper), a man obsessed with orchids. Laroche has been arrested several times for going into Florida swamps and poaching orchids. Orlean is fascinated with his love for the flower.
Meanwhile, Charlie struggles with his writer’s block to adapt Orelan’s novel. He thinks he needs more to make a full-length script out of it, so he and Donald plan to investigate Orlean for more information. Charlie keeps struggling while Donald gets more and more recognition. Charlie, the anti-Hollywood iconoclast, eventually gives up and attends a seminar hosted by famed screenwriter Robert McKee (Brian Cox in a hilarious cameo). He takes the advice.
Much of the film is really an assault on typical Hollywood formulas. Kaufman shows the divide between art and popularity beautifully with his twin brother. Charlie’s refusal to do typical things like car chases and drug scenes only emphasizes his distaste for popular cinema. The ending of the film itself is a play on these ideas. From start to end, this film has a lot to say about the current state of film in general.
Kaufman could not have found many better actors for his strange story. Cage does an amazing job as two separate characters. He pulls off the shyness and impudence of Charlie as well as he does the easygoing manner of Donald. A good chunk of the film, really, is him talking with himself as two different people. Streep shows Orlean’s obsession with a man who really knows what an obsession. Cooper steals the scene with his hilarious performance as Laroche, especially when the good-natured yokel has to get serious. There are quite a few recognizable cameo appearances, like Cox and Ron Livingston, that add to the weird humor of the film.
Jonze shows once again why he is one of the hottest young directors in Hollywood. He takes Kaufman’s multi-dimensional story and goes boldly into each dimension with ease. From serious conversation scenes to Charlie struggling to car crashes and action-packed sequences, Jonze handles it all while keeping in mind the errant humor of the script.
This is easily one of the best films of 2002, but it may not reach all audiences because, really, of what its main point is- it is not your typical Hollywood formula piece. It is a wild ride through unconventional waters, and it pokes fun at what isn’t. It is a funny, strange, and unpredictable way to experience the world. Kaufman and Jonze know how to make us laugh and scratch our heads all at the same time. Adaptation is a film that needs to be understood in relation to the norm of films today to get its wonderful lessons.

Charlie says hi

Charlie Kaufman, in public

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.

Classics in short: The Sound of Music

The Sound of Music -

After all the references made to the musical classic in pop culture, from a wide variety of sources (from Family Guy to every 5th grade music class), I wasn't sure if I needed to watch this the whole way through, which I never had. I knew most of it, right? Well, I bought it for my wife for the holiday, and I was surprised to see how enjoyable a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical from 40 years ago remains today. I get why it's so famous - it's probably the best musical ever, at least classically. Plus, it's fun to see Christopher Plummer in his hunk days, not grizzly and old and telling people to send a car, you imbecile.

films in brief

The OH! in Ohio -

I remember people really looking forward to this indie debut and then it disappearing quickly. I hadn't heard much good about it, which was disappointing, because the duo of Parker Posey and OMCK (official man-crush king) Paul Rudd tantalized me. But honestly? It's not so bad. It goes in weird directions, but this is a solid quirky indie story about love and sex. And Rudd is hilarious in his grouch-slacker mode. You could watch it just for him. Posey lets loose as a sexually frustrated woman seeking answers. It's funny with some nice acting by these two faves. I don't see why it died down. It's worth a shot for all us Rudd admirers.

Fifty Pills -

We caught this late on cable primarily for the involvement of Kristen Bell. She's cute, but she can't save this half-arsed college tale about a kid who needs to sell 50 ecstasy tablets in one day to pay his tuition. The people who wrote this probably THOUGHT they were hilarious and had another Rules of Attraction / Go / Igby Goes Down on their hands, but, well, they failed. It's annoying at best.

[We also caught another late-night cable movie, Deepwater, for the same reason. Wasn't any better, and she only had two brief scenes. Alas.]

Don't Look Now -

We saw a primer for this 70's thriller on Halloween Random Scary Movie List week and it looked cool. I have to say, scary movies from this time are usually good. This one is interesting, but it gets weird. I love the zippy 70's style, and Donald Sutherland in his fro, but it almost dragged. The action doesn't really come in until late, but it is captivating and well shot. It was directed by Nicholas Roeg, who had a weird career but was a cinematographer for some great directors. It's a weird but interesting take for fans of horror and films of this era.

Films of the decade: an introduction

As we get closer to the end of the decade, I've been thinking about movie best-of lists. Many various outlets have been putting together lists of the best and the worst movies of the decade. My friend Paul is working on his list and I know we will have a lot of similar ones. I want to do this, to get myself writing about film more, and because it's really one of the few things I can claim to know anything about anymore.

As I've said before, I never really know what exactly a top film list means. Is it made up of the ones I enjoyed the most or is it the ones that I think are the best artistically? Are those two the same thing? I don't think they are; I can admit to loving horrible films and being bored by ones that I know are great. Bill Simmons, ESPN's Sports Guy, is having people vote for the most memorable films of the decade, which is a nice way to narrow down things.... but I can remember lots of movies and that can take things in another direction. (I.E. I'll never forget The Wicker Man remake, just for the sheer anger I felt at Nicolas Cage.)

I guess I'd like to do something that has my favorites that I truly believe are great and fit this decade. These are the films I will remember - for being good - and films that influenced me into going to LA and trying to work on/with movies and such.

As I do this, I've been thinking about the state of film and how it has maybe gown downhill a little. Has television surpassed it? I think so. Patton Oswalt recently said that the most memorable movies of today are TV shows, and that television has reversed from movies. He said that some channels are acting like movie studios in the 70's, where they let the rules go and tried to be different, while the big studios (owned by big companies) only want to bank on sure things, so they take on Transformers-like crap or name stars, while the indie movies try to fit some kind of pattern (quirky for no reason, road trip, misfits that get girls, etc.). I've heard this from other people, and from my experiences at work, it seems to be the case. No studio wants to take chances, but there are so many networks, some of them have to experiment to get ahead.

It is interesting, looking over my rough list, that most of my favorites are in the early part of the decade. Were movies really better then? Does it take longer for them to seem important to me? Am I remembering things wrong? It seems skewed. But while I have very few entries in 2005, 2006, and 2008, I have a ton from 2007. I don't know what that means.

I'm hoping to post one everyday for the rest of the year. I probably can't match that exactly, but I will have 50, maybe 100 if I can't cut enough. I invite everyone to get involved, debate, ridicule. This is a major project that I will be working hard on for the next few weeks / months and I hope to inspire... something.

Here's a few notable ones that did not make my list:

Lord of the Rings (any of them) - I know, I know, they were all well made. I just don't care about Tolkien.

Star Wars (either of them) - ....or Lucas.

Paul Haggis' Academy Award Winner Crash - everyone realizes this was a horrible mistake, right?

Freddy Got Fingered - I love it, it's one of my favorite comedies of the decade, it has brought joy to a lot of people, but is it truly a good movie? I still say no. It's lovable in its deranged state, but I can't argue its value to everyone.

Pootie Tang - same as above. It would be even weirder and better if the studio let Louis C.K. alone.

Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story - one of the funniest of the Apatow collection, but not a lot of story.

Super High Me - Doug Benson's doc is funny with some decent stand up parts, and surprisingly insightful on the weird process of legalized marijuana in this state.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - too silly, and too abrupt of an ending, but a nice way to get people interested in Douglas Adams. Sam Rockwell, Zooey Deschanel, and Martin Freeman were still relatively unknown, and this helped out.

Southland Tales - you laugh, but this is one of the movies I'll always remember for this decade. It's weird, the jokes don't land, and the acting is mostly bad, even disastrous in some points, but it captures some of the zeitgeist for the post-9/11 Patriot Act era. If Richard Kelly had made this right after Darko, it wouldn't seem so ridiculous. I mean, it would still be so, but not as much. Maybe if he hadn't set it in the very immediate feature and used some real names and events mixed in with false ones, it would come off better. But he did, and when it finally came out in 2007, it was already dated. This is spastic, but it fits the times. You'll never find a better assortment of pop culture icons for this decade. This is a movie for the oughts if there ever was one.



WOW! So much to think about. I'm hoping I can come up with a list soon.

Python'd!

I like Chinese.

College classics: Donnie Darko

Another film I think most current college students know, and should know, is Donnie Darko. This mind-bending thriller has been a cult classic for a few years. I once had an entire Philosophy club session devoted to it. We'll ignore the bizarre world of Southland Tales for now and go back to this great dark movie, which should be a hit with students for years to come.

From the shadows of obscurity comes one of the most fascinating films of our time. Donnie Darko appears at first to be a demented horror film, but as it progresses, it touches on all sorts of subjects, from social commentary to metaphysics. This unheralded film tells an amazing story about love, fate, and more.

The film revolves around the life of Donnie Darko (Jake Gyllenhaal), a troubled high schooler in Northern Virginia. Donnie has had problems, and his current delusions include seeing a giant rabbit called Frank (James Duval). His mother (Mary McDonnell) wants to help him, but his troubles are deep and hard to solve. Donnie’s psychiatrist (Katharine Ross) tries all sorts of methods to help him.

Strange things happen after Donnie’s first encounter with the rabbit. His vision prompts him to sleepwalk out of the house, and while he is gone, a plane engine crashes into his room. No one is hurt, but if he would not have been led outside, he would have died. Authorities have no answer for how the plane crash happened.

Donnie’s troubled state worsens. Frank begins to visit him more and more often. At school, Donnie must deal with an annoying teacher (Beth Grant), who uses her class time to promote infomercials for local motivational speaker Jim Cunningham (Patrick Swayze). Donnie finds a love interest in Gretchen Ross (Jena Malone), a girl who has moved to escape her psychotic father.

Frank instructs Donnie to perform several acts of vandalism, all of which lead to bad things happening. Donnie has two positive teachers in school, aptly portrayed by Drew Barrymore (one of the film’s executive producers) and Noah Wyle. Donnie continues to get in trouble for talking back, and his actions lead to Barrymore’s dismissal. His life crumbles, along with his mental state.

Frank’s original message to Donnie is that the world will end in about a month. As the date gets closer, Donnie tries to figure out what this means. He begins to experience other delusions besides seeing Frank, which he discovers relate to Stephen Hawking’s theories of time travel. This is where the film broaches such subjects as time, fate, and predestination.

Without giving away too much, the ending is amazing and a shocking conclusion to the film. Audiences may not understand it at first, and this film may require several viewings, but it says a lot about the deep subject the film touches on.

Jake Gyllenhaal shines as the title character. He pulls off the demented side of Donnie well, along with his more average, teenage moments. Malone and McDonnell perform well as the women who care about him. The real acting treat of this movie, however, comes with all the minor characters, mostly hilarious chariciatures. Holmes Osborne plays Donnie’s aloof dad, Grant is extra annoying as his teacher, and Swayze makes his first appearance in a worthwhile film in a long time.

Writer and director Richard Kelly makes a stunning debut in a major film. Just a few years removed from film school, Kelly fits sci-fi special effects into a relatively low-budget film. He manages to capture the dread that Donnie feels, the ignorance of the community and the school leadership, and the unique relationship Donnie has with both his mother and his girlfriend. It is astounding that a young filmmaker could create a film that breaks so many different genre molds, but Kelly makes it look easy. His film is not only one of the best of 2001, but one for the ages.

The Player: an academic reading

Robert Altman’s film The Player shows the inside dealings of Hollywood- what goes on behind the camera. Altman’s film is very ironic in that it really makes fun of the Hollywood system, while being a product of it. Altman teases the idea of having big stars in movies, only to get many famous stars to cameo as themselves in this 1992 film. It is a movie about movies, in short. Altman has a strong directorial voice in this; his shot selection definitely affects how the story is told.
The most obvious example of directorial voice comes early on in the movie. Altman shows the parking lot of the studio office where Griffin Mill works. With a very long take, he moves around different areas to show what’s going on. He shows Griffin, the young producer, listening to stories from writers. He then moves over to show tours going on inside the movie lot. He then shows some person stopping Martin Scorsese to tell him how much he liked Cape Fear. In all, this take lasts minutes before it is over and shows about 4 or 5 different events going on.
This long take shows that there’s always something happening in Hollywood. Everyday, people are denied (except for a few per year), tourists come, and a multi-million dollar business goes on. So many things happen at once, and this scene captures that feeling with its rambling style from one situation to the next. This appears to be a signature shot for Altman, and there are some scenes later that are similar.
One example of a recurring idea in mise-en-scene and framing is Altman’s shot from outside. Altman chooses several times in the movie to shoot people in a building from outside, leaving the audience with an obstructed view. He does this in the long take with Griffin talking to writers. The audience can hear them talking perfectly but the view remains from outside the window. This also happens when Griffin is talking to Kahane’s foreign girlfriend on the phone outside her house. The audience has the same view that he does: restricted and through the windows.
This is a strong directorial voice because Altman could have easily shot the characters from inside in both cases. He chooses not too because it keeps the characters somewhat mysterious. In the first scene, the audience cannot see Griffin’s face very well, even thought hey know what is going on. They know what his job is like before they can really see him. In the second scene, the audience sees as much as he can, leaving their attention to what the girl looks like. Griffin is intrigued by her, and by not showing her completely, Altman creates intrigue in the audience. This also reflects a change in Griffin: he has been faithful (or so it’s assumed) to Bonnie so far, but he begins to fall for the foreign girl.
Altman also likes to use the various close-up shots to show emotion. He often shows Tim Robbins’ face in detail to convey Griffin’s feelings and anxiety. Griffin becomes more irritable after killing Kahane, and Altman tries to show this with Griffin’s actions and different shots of him. One moving scene comes in the police station where (I forget their characters’ names) Whoopi Goldberg and Lyle Lovett interrogate him to the point of making him explode. Altman starts with a close-up of Griffin’s head and zooms in as he gets more and more irritated. This makes a dramatic, emotional scene.
Altman’s shots at the end show a happy couple with a beautiful house and seem so romantic. Yet the audience knows that Griffin has killed his wife’s former lover, and that if he hadn’t, this happy scene would not have happened. The shot, though very beautiful and typical of a classic happy-ending movie, seems tainted. Altman keeps that in the audience’s mind as he drifts away to the close.
The ending of the movie is very ironic and reflexive. After all their talk about making a real and truthfully dark movie, the writers in the mock-movie Habeas Corpus fall to temptation, hiring big stars Julia Roberts and Bruce Willis, and giving in to the classical Hollywood happy ending. This is a great movie-within-a-movie ploy because The Player is definitely not a true happy ending: Griffin has cheated on his wife, killed a guy, gotten away with it, and now is married to the dead guy’s old girl. Of course, for Griffin, it is a happy ending, so does that it make it good? Is it acceptable?
The last sign of reflexivity comes when a writer tells Griffin about a movie called The Player that basically is about what happened in this movie (hence the name). Altman does this to leave a hint of doubt in the audience: is this movie for real? He tries to make it look that way. Few would believe so, but the scene gives a sense of uncertainty to the movie (it also shows that Kahane may not be the threat Griffin thought he was). This is a dark scene, and what is worse is that Griffin knows very well what’s going on-and he doesn’t care. This is somewhat reflexive because he has admitted to himself the truth and will use his own murder story to make money- in the movie we are currently watching. Altman’s dark comedy can admit to the audience that it is indeed funny and disturbing. His satirical picture of Hollywood dealings is not Classic Hollywood Styled, and yet it makes for a good movie. He proved his own characters wrong.

Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story

Judd Apatow was on fire. I just caught this on cable, and think I might have laughed more at this one than the other two (much more successful) Apatow films of that year, Superbad and Knocked Up. It's silly and more of a straight up, winking at the camera parody than a perfect mirror image like Hot Fuzz, but it has some great moments. And some really ridic cameos.... maybe the most random cameos of various people portraying famous musicians ever. After being heavily disappointed with Ray and Walk the Line (in structure and over-melodrama, not performances), this was a great send-up. Every biopic cliche, every Behind the Music episode structure was made into comedy. It was about time John C. Reilly, one of the best supporting character actors ever, got to be the lead guy. He's great, as always.

Pirates of the Caribbean 2

I caught this on cable. The subtitle should be At World's Very, Very Long End.

I think we should force Diznee to use that title in all packaging of this movie now. They ended their big franchise with so many drawn-out fights and tough posturing, that I was just bored during the last two. How can you make an action film geared mostly for children and teenagers that last three hours and puts you to sleep? I could sit through Barry Lyndon easier than this.

Look, I was pleasantly surprised like the rest of you with the first one, despite my hatred of uber-producer Jerry Bruckheimer and my total apathy towards the whole pirate fad. They got me. Then they wasted their good graces by going way over the top with the next two and making it a world-wide battle and having too many fight scenes and effects and melodrama and JUST END THE F-----G MOVIE ALREADY! You see why I hate him? And why I can never trust the mouse again?

Of course, there will be a third.

Futurama: Bender's Big Score (direct to DVD)

To break from all this serious-ness, I turned to a very unheralded comeback. Futurama was granted a new life through a straight-to-DVD release, which isn't perfect, but enough to satisfy all us nerds who grew to love it too late. This 90 minute journey is like three episodes stitched together, but it helped me feel better. They did go the Family Guy route of bringing back things from the series as nostalgia (Fry's dog, Al Gore, owls, the Harlem Globetrotter science team) but they also made some nice jokes. It's something. Not enough Branigan, though. Also, watch on the DVD for the extras, as you can see how just how huge nerds they are, and us for loving them.

Retro: All the Real Girls

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.