The Drive-Thru Academic

W.I.L.I. - THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING

2009-09-19T12:17:00.000-07:00

The first few entries on the W.I.L.I. list will be THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy. I don't know if I am notorious for this thought, but this trilogy - taken as on cinematic narrative - is my favorite of all time. In the future, this series of movies will be viewed in a similar context as the original STAR WARS trilogy.

While FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (FOTR) was in theaters, it probably received about $80 dollars of my own money. I even made a special trip to a midnight showing further in its run only to see a preview of second installment: THE TWO TOWERS. I've been maybe about 8 or 9 times in theaters and the over-under on how many times I've seen it since?. At least triple that amount. To make a bet that I like these movies, is a safe one.

A running theme throughout this post is the trilogy's ability to convey the immense sense of history within this world (created by author J.R.R. Tolkien). THE LORD OF THE RINGS is by no means the beginning of this story. There are many histories - elf, dwarf, hobbit, and others - that stretch back many years. For the purposes the movies, a history of the ring itself is necessary. Thus, director Peter Jackson and fellow screenwriters Fran Walsh and Philipa Boyens use a prologue to orient those not familiar with the novels.

And it begins creepily with a blank screen and an ominous voice-over delivered by Cate Blanchett (or is it Galadriel? a fair question I think!). Both elvish and english languages are used immersing even the uninitiated. Even though this is just a prologue and we know that a bigger more urgent story follows, this 8-minute opening builds tremendous tension and anxiety. This is quite possibly my favorite sequence in the entire trilogy.

Related to the prologue, is how the filmmakers convey a sense of the history of this world. Production designer Grant Major and costumers Ngila Dickson and Richard Taylor assist in channeling the history. Take the hobbits homeland, The Shire. The production team began building about a year before shooting so as to allow the environment to exert its influence and make the environment look more natural. Compare this with the synthetic, yet geometrically pleasing city ruins of the dwarves. Not only do we understand something about the history of each race, but about their personalities as well.

Some of the details are hardly noticeable, but when you do recognize them it only helps the trilogies believability. Notice the White Tree of Gondor on Boromir's (Sean Bean) gauntlets. Notice the intricate threading patterns on Arwen's (and many of the elves) cloak. While these design choices on their own may not mean anything, the attention to even minute details lets audiences know that these filmmakers mean business. In the extended version of FOTR, there are explicit mentions of history through dialogue, but its interesting to find these trinkets of the past in the architecture and costumes.

While music plays a big role in the entire series, the music - composed by Howard Shore - is at its best in this first film. Three themes are established in this film: The Ring Theme, The Fellowship Theme, and The Isengard Theme. In college my friends and I developed this tradition that whenever you hear the Isengard theme, you must pound your fist in the air in sync with the melody. A little geeky, but it speaks to the power of the theme. I remember thinking that the music on the whole was especially energetic. There is so much choral in this scoring and as the film progresses, it seems to only get bigger (adrenaline inertia?).

However, in the final battle against Saruman's Uruk-Hai the music settles nicely, but not without loss. For me, Boromir's death is one of the most emotional moments in the entire trilogy and the music only helps this moment. Perhaps its because what directly preceded this battle: a confrontation with Frodo about a selfish strategy regarding The Ring. As far as the trilogy has played out so far, Boromir's represents the first casualty that has succumbed to the power of The Ring, trying violently to wrestle The Ring from Frodo. Boromir's role for the rest of the fellowship is to show just how dangerous this little thing can be. He showed his vulnerability and not too long after, he shows his courage in protecting the halflings. The arrows that pierce his body appear to have a diameter of quarter. We feel for him because we know that perhaps we would fall to the power of The Ring too.

More importantly in the music department is the use of new age artist Enya as the feature musical act. Not only is her presence invaluable, but Enya - perhaps best known for "Orinoco Flow - knows and appreciates the Tolkien creation herself. On her album SHEPHERD MOONS, there is a track titled "Lothlorien," a forested haven for the elves and Galadriel. In watching the touching moment between Arwen and Aragorn, there is a sense that Enya's voice so belongs in Middle Earth which might make you wonder if Enya comes this world organically.

So, just some thoughts on why I like FOTR. There'll be an update on THE TWO TOWERS coming.

Why I Like It or W.I.L.I.

2009-09-19T12:09:00.000-07:00

Pronounced "Wee-Lee," this is a new section coming to your favorite drive-thru station. Not so long ago in my undergraduate career, one from up north told that there are no guilty pleasures. Be proud of what you like and don't apologize. You've heard this before. Additionally, I have heard from mentors that as a critic, one needs to know their likes and dislikes. If you've read this blog recently, you know that PULP FICTION is on the severe dislike side.

However, there is a list of movies that sit on the other side of the line. In short, it's the W.I.L.I. list. Look for future entries under this umbrella.

(500) DAYS OF SUMMER: A Second Look

2009-09-06T21:43:00.001-07:00

My friends in LA (specifically those that are not my movie friends) don't understand why I go see movies more than once.

"Isn't your money better spent elsewhere?" - Why would my money be better spent elsewhere?
"Because you've already seen it." - True. But you buy movies don't you?
"Sure." -But you've already seen it, right.

Now, my friends (and family) have slacked off on this complaint and/or criticism since attending and returning from NYU. Is it that my five repeat visits to THE DARK KNIGHT, two visits to ADVENTURELAND, and my now two visits to (500) DAYS OF SUMMER are now legit given my extensive study of visual media? I guess.

"This is what he does. Okay, now there must be a valid reason to see something twice. He knows what he is doing. He has a Master's degree."

After seeing (500) DOS once, I knew that I needed to see it again in order to give it a fuller analysis. It is especially this kind of movie that paralyzes my analytical brain and therefore jumpstarting my analytical heart. I loved (500) DOS! Just loved it! It's about relatively young people succeeding and struggling with relationships (I probably should not use the word love when talking about this movie). It's about the relationship honeymoon when one might have an extra spring in their step. I am predisposed, betrothed to this movie. My liking of this movie is completely out of my hands - it's in my genes.

I realized about halfway through my second viewing of (500) DOS that I can use this movie to counterbalance my argument about PULP FICTION's lack - consistent coherent narrative. Many counterarguments come my way about my severe dislike for PULP FICTION which is generally regarded as Quentin Tarantino's pinnacle. Yes, I do enjoy the vignettes and specific portions of dialogue. The flaw is in the narrative hijinx. There appears to be no reason why Tarantino is playing with the narrative structure, other than to just play with it. It's as if he shot the whole thing in order and then told his editing crew to just chop it up and that'll be that.

My friend V (no, not you Veronica Mars, unfortunately) and I had a long discussion about PULP FICTION. V helped me come to the conclusion that I strongly prefer my movies to have their style motivated by the narrative and NOT the other way 'round. PULP FICTION allows the style to motivate the movie and its narrative. Some people may see this as a good thing, but I do not. The filmmakers need to make promises to me, about where they are taking me.

Don't misunderstand this. I am not saying that the filmmakers need to telegraph things. I just need to prepared for the events unfolding in front of me. Both PULP FICTION and (500) DOS are narratives that feature disjointed narratives. The difference is in narrative promise. PULP FICTION does not provide me with an expectation - only scenes loosely tied together. But with (500) DOS, I know where I am going and to some extent I know where I am coming from.

(500) DOS begins in the middle with the break-up. I know what the story is - it's the telling of the rise and fall of the relationship. I know that the relationship has to end. And yet, the narrative jumps around. (500) DOS's narrative disjunction has motivation. I understand why director Marc Webb pushes me forward and why he pulls me back to particular instances. It is either to explain what has come before, or to facilitate a smooth transition to the next scene.

But I needed a second screening to make the connection from (500) DOS to PULP FICTION. Is it a difficult pairing to make? No, and that only speaks to why multiple viewing are critical for me, and perhaps others. I am reminded of a line from the terrific Gus Van Sant film, FINDING FORRESTER: "You write your first draft with your heart. You rewrite with your head."

It's the same thing with analyzing a movie. The first watch is an emotional experience (the aforementioned analytical heart). Did I enjoy the film? On a very rudimentary level. Subsequent viewings are an inquisitive experience (the aforementioned analytical brain). As always with me, the question remains: to which organ do I listen?

MAD MEN Titles: If some is good, more is better!

2009-08-06T15:46:00.000-07:00

In a recent post, I discussed the female significance in MAD MEN using the pilot episode ("Smoke Gets In Your Eyes"). I'd like to take another look at the opening title sequence, examining it for additional grist for my MAD MEN mill. It is entrancing, perhaps too much so in that I find myself staring at the falling 2D man instead what he falls from, around, and into.

In the beginning, he has arrived at his office, set down his briefcase, and then his office crumbles around him, until he finally begins his descent. Descent into what? Into advertising of course (wait, isn't that what his office is anyway? talk about spinning your wheels.). But what are these advertisements?

They look like advertisements, but mostly they look like smiling women and butterscotch pudding legs. Certainly, there is the occasional image of a lowball glass containing the contents of (hopefully) an Old Fashioned (a cocktail which this blog vehemently endorses). The unknown man falls around and ultimately straight into advertisements until the final image of the man sitting comfortably in a chair or on a couch.

Let's begin in the office a place that for the moment appears stable - and why not? The office is man's escape from his wife where he fantasizes about his secretary and drinks with the boys. But as history showed us, this is not to last for women are hiding in the weeds, or at least lurking around their secretary desks. Let's not take for granted the timing of the credit sequence. Jon Hamm's name appears when everything is stable. Elizabeth Moss is next and if you pay close attention, you might notice that the office begins to crumble with the display of her name. This is not so surprising given her character's progression through the series at this point.

Then the man begins to fall into a seemingly bottomless pit of female advertisements with a few speckles of male-centric delights. I can only see this section as a comment on advertising in general and who and where it is best aimed (perhaps only in the MAD MEN period, but perhaps not). As MAD MEN tells it, men run the advertising world. As the MAD MEN title tells it, men run the advertising world, selling things to women. Graphically speaking, the man falls all the way down one woman's leg, into the lowball glass, and it appears that the a woman crossing her legs might kick the falling man.

A quick moment just before the shot of the man on the couch reveals what he has fallen into: female advertising. Seemingly, these are the people who read the advertising and for whom advertising is targeted and most successful. Does advertising play on women's emotional tendencies or is it something else? Do these mad men think that women only exist within these advertisement photos and thus subject to their linguistic and artistic manipulation?

Let's look at a simple narrative example. "Babylon" (from the first season) chronicles an account dealing with lipstick marketing. The men on the account have trouble and they enlist the female sector of the office to help. And this is their (the men) first mistake. Don't allow women a sliver of hope into thinking they can intrude on men's arena and this is exactly what they did. Sooner or later a woman was going to come along and figure out that she CAN do this job. What a thought, a woman knows how to better market a product to women? These are the consequences. The women were already lurking at their secretarial desks and now they have been let in to their world. Or is it even their world...anymore.

But at the end of this title sequence narrative - and it is indeed a narrative - where does this man end up? I think we have to assume it is the same man. We see him sitting comfortably with cigarette. So, in the end, if he has landed comfortably, what are the consequences, if any?

Defining Great Movie of the Decade?

2009-08-02T16:30:00.001-07:00

None of this post is original. This all comes from a podcast from ESPN's The Sports Guy (Bill Simmons). He generally writes about sports, but incorporates select pop culture into his articles.

During a podcast with Chris Connelly (yea, the MTV guy!), Simmons brought up that this year - 2009 - is the last year of the decade. Think about it! Where is the 2000s retrospective! Is this the lost decade?

Anyway, Simmons asked Connelly what he thought might be the best movie of the decade with 3 helpers - excellence, watchability, and originality. I think there might be a fourth signifier: pop influence. At first, Simmons went with ALMOST FAMOUS, then began to think about THE DARK KNIGHT as a possibility. Basically, they couldn't come to an answer.

But Connelly brought up an interesting point. What if the conversations' defining media is actually television? An interesting point. THE SOPRANOS (I don't like it), THE WEST WING (I love it!), THE WIRE (never seen it), and maybe MAD MEN (I love it, but are we too close?).

Anybody have any thoughts of either? Movies or television, or if you care to weigh in on the TV versus MOVIE debate.

Review: (500) Days of Summer

2009-08-02T14:02:00.000-07:00

MAD MEN: What You Already Know

2009-07-29T11:23:00.000-07:00

What I'm about to tell you, you already know...if you watch MAD MEN. Women are the crux of this show. How do I know this? I just re-watched the very first episode.

In the first ten minutes here's what we know: Don Draper (Jon Hamm) is an ad man and must come up with a pitch for Lucky Strike. After his night at the bar, he knocks on the door of his friend Midge (Rosemarie DeWitt, RACHEL GETTING MARRIED). They chat about his day and her day and he spends the night. Relationship? Check!

Introduced next is rookie secretary Peggy Olson (Fred Armisen's wife, Elisabeth Moss). Joan Holloway (Christina Hendricks) shows her how to play the office game, with considerable attention paid to Peggy's attire and how she can better herself so as to be more attractive for the office's men.

This pilot episode chronicles two accounts for the ad firm Sterling Cooper. One, the aforementioned Lucky Strike, and another for a department store headed by Rachel Menken (Maggie Siff). The Lucky Strike account is settled, not without some drama, but ultimately settled. The Menken department store account is most certainly not, with confusion over how to market the brand in an already-saturated department store market. The two have obvious chemistry and its not out of the question to see a relationship brew over a cocktail meeting. While the Lucky Strike account settled relatively easily (with men only), the Menken account is anything but.

Peggy is the object of attention in the new office, purely by being "the new girl." Pete Campbell (Vincent Kartheiser) apparently likes what he sees and is evidently interested in Peggy sexually, as per his 1950s acceptable language toward her in the office. Oh by the way, Pete has his own wedding to attend this weekend. He knocks on her door (ALL THE WAY IN BROOKLYN!) and invites himself in. And she lets him. (Is this normal for a woman in the 50s?)

Finally, at the end of the episode we see Don arriving at him home in the suburbs. He kisses his wife Betty (January Jones) and says goodnight to his kids. Up until this point there has been no mention of him having a family, especially with his already-established relationship with Midge, and his on-deck relationship with Rachel. The final shot shows Betty standing at the doorway to the kids room watching her husband say goodnight. And in typical MAD MEN fashion, the episode ends with temporally appropriate music.

This final shot could have ended without Betty appearing at the door, but it does. And let's not take this for granted. Men at work is taken for granted. But as the series progresses, it becomes (sometimes painfully) clear that women rule the roost. The men just happen to be living in it.

If PLEASANTVILLE turns out to be nice, why leave?

2009-07-27T09:56:00.000-07:00

I had a pleasant evening. Watched the compendium of Pixar Short Films - awesome! Then watched PLEASANTVILLE.

Why doesn't this film get more love? The shots are beautiful. Dialogue is good. Story is good. The acting, especially Joan Allen and Jeff Daniels, is good.

My grammar aside, I wonder if the story is too heavy-handed.

Change is good. Embrace difference. Race relations (in a movie populated by 99.9% whites). And color. Does this movie just hit you over the head with it's message? Are the stylistic choices too predictable? Cinematography too formulaic? Perhaps, but what ever is the problem with a well-crafted movie?

At any rate, I do have one question for any PLEASANTVILLE people out there. Why does Bud/David (Tobey Maguire) leave Pleasantville after he has helped change it, for the better? Why wouldn't he want to stay there? Mary Sue/Jennifer (Reese Witherspoon) decides to stay. She likes this new Pleasantville better. Obviously, something calls Bud back to the current world, but what and why? He finally has a girlfriend Margaret (MarleyShelton), something he obviously wants as per the first color scene of the movie; he pretends to be asking out a girl at school. And he wants to leave Margaret and go back to reality?

When Bud does go back to reality as David, he comforts his divorced mother who has relationship problems of her own. This is the last scene before a short montage sequence of Pleasantville. This has to be the reason right? He returns for his mother. Bud was perhaps closest with his mother (Joan Allen) in Pleasantville or maybe they formed a bond throughout his time there and he wanted to share that with his real mother? I don't know.

Anybody have any thoughts on PLEASANTVILLE in general?

Harry Potter and the Raging Hormones

2009-07-25T09:51:00.000-07:00

I liked this recent film very much. My Potter-obsessed friends were quick to point out what the movie omitted and how it only cheapened the experience. I get excited about adaptations recisely for this reason. It's interesting to see how filmmakers trim the original narrative into something that works at the cineplex.

I'll start with the two biggest departures. The first is the climactic battle at Hogwarts. I remember a bigger battle from the books. Students equipping wands against the more powerful Death Eaters (Voldemort's minions) with Harry (Radcliffe) concentrated on Snape (Rickman). Dispensing with the skirmish, director David Yates only gives us Harry vs. Snape. I'm okay with this. The movie's already long enough (although, I can always have more) and for the sake of trimming, it's perhaps a good move.

The other omission is a little tricky as it concerns the film's subtitle, "the half-blood prince." In the book, Rowling hardly goes a chapter without mentioning it. The film hardly addresses the topic. Yes, it is introduced and the prince is revealed, but with very little in between. In the book, the young trio scavenge and research the prince to death. For a film whose title purports such a large narrative tipping point, very little is made of it.

But this is mostly a quibble and it could be because I know where the story goes. The point of this whole book is to setup the final one. In the previous books and films, Snape plays a supporting role - a teacher that Harry hates, and the feeling is mutual. We need this build up to establish the potential for Snape. Perhaps leaving many questions unanswered was a conscious decision. In the seventh novel, Snape becomes the fulcrum for the entire series. Indeed, a case could be made that he is the crucial character of the series, even more than the eponymous hero.

One final contentious point concerns the ending. It might seem abrupt. The climax occurs within an instant, not very drawn out and the film ends probably within ten minutes. Again, I am okay with this. This is the penultimate novel. Leave the audience with the greatest suspense and that means holding back as much as you can and what is commonly referred to as "getting out early." Leave the narrative as quickly as you can. Now, don't pull a TRANFORMERS 2 type ending which ends in about 5 minutes with a very tacked-on soliliquoy. HALF-BLOOD PRINCE ends where it should, leaving us just a little bit hanging.

I loved the opening shot of the movie, so perfect for how the movie ends. It begins right where ORDER OF THE PHOENIX ended. Dumbledore (Gambon) with his arm around Harry. Such a sign of things to come and where they have been. First shots that suck you in are invaluable. DARK KNIGHT's opening push in on a skyscraper was great.

Finally, the hormones! This is probably why I liked the movie so much - half of it was all teen romance! Ron and Hermione sexual tension. Harry and Ginny sexual tension. Actually, this is a kid's story, so maybe it should be "sensual" tension. This is a very dark movie, especially when you understand how far we've come. Columbus' first two films were rightfully cheery. Columbus did exactly what was needed, no complaint here. PHOENIX started the darkness and it only gets darker in 6. The hormones are a welcome distraction from the chaos.

Wrap up: everyone wants to rank the films. Well, here is my list in descending order.
#4 GOBLET OF FIRE
#1 SORCERER'S STONE
#2 CHAMBER OF SECRETS
#5 ORDER OF THE PHOENIX
#3 PRISONER OF AZKABAN
#6 HALF-BLOOD PRINCE

4 is clunky. 1 and 2 are just what they needed to be, and I really think 2 is very well-done. I really like 2, just to give you an idea of how much I love this series cinematically. 5 was very controlled. 3 and 6 are touch and go. But 6 wins because of the hormones, and I just saw it. Like my good friend at FilmSchoolRejects, CULTURE WARRIOR, a marathon might be in my future.

Appreciation vs Enjoyment

2009-07-19T22:49:00.000-07:00

At dinner tonight, my mother and I had a (it wasn't an argument) a debate about movies and music. We were talking again about a recent movie we watched together as a family: West Side Story (1961). She talked about it as a cultural artifact as much about race as about the dancing or the music. I told her that I could not relate to it as much as she could because she grew up in that time and I didn't and I had seen other things, more current things that meant more to me.

I steered the conversation from there. I told her about SOME of my friends in New York and San Antonio who were unwilling to create an all-time Top 10 List, citing excuses such as "films are created in different time periods," "films are created for different cultures and people," or "how do I reconcile differences in genre" etc. In short, I say, "make a decision!" Decide what you like and CHOOSE! Don't hide behind chronology and what or who came first. PICK!

Just because something came first doesn't necessarily make it better. If it is indeed better, then okay, but not just because of temporal precedence. Part of this comes from my tendency toward an aesthetic film history and generally being able to take a film at face value. Film history books mention a deficiency with this approach's inability to take into account a grander, wider-reaching film history.

To this accusation, I say, take a look at my previous two posts regarding my own personal state of the union. My concern is with contemporary American cinema. But let me say this. Does this mean, I do not like old things. No. I like Hitchcock movies because I think they are the best at what they do. But as I have said, I want to know what is moving the current culture. I'd rather read The Da Vinci Code because its popular now, than engage with THE GODFATHER because it was popular way back when.

Perhaps I need to change the title of this blog yet again - The Barstool Academic. That's what I like, the barstool conversation and maybe this is where my true passion lies. A what-kind-of-movies-do-you-like-conversation. But not without some discussion. Tell me why (just like a Backstreet Boys song!)! Just don't try and tell me why I should like something. Don't try and convince me of the genius of The Beatles. Yes, I know I SHOULD like them because they influenced a lot of things. I say screw that! With the exception of Yellow Submarine (hardly the bastion of Beatles grandeur, I gather), I enjoy every cover of their songs more than the original. Good writers? Maybe. Good performers. Not in my book. Everybody else just sounds better.

Does it still boil down to entertainment value for me? Yea, I think that's it. Entertain me dammit! If you can't keep me watching, then historical, technical or any other value be damned, I can't count you among my favorites.

Come on, come up with a list. There HAVE to be 10 films/artists that you like more than any other. No such thing as a guilty pleasure. In the end, I just want you to make YOUR picks. And I do want you to make them. Make a decision!

How many people have actually seen Citizen Kane?

2009-07-11T10:17:00.000-07:00

It's comforting to know that when I write something there are some people who actually read it! Even better that they want to talk about it. It's the most rewarding thing. I don't really care if it's criticism or general agreement with my thoughts - the interaction is the important thing.

And so that is where this specific post begins. After I posted my State of Union, a friend of mine - who I shall call the V Machine - challenged one of my assertions. The gist of my assertion was that I felt marginalized at NYU because of my love for the big movies, the ones the public see, the ones they want to see. V Machine felt the opposite. What little movies we did watch were the canonical texts with no attempt made to broaden the filmic scope.

I am not sure we actually came to common ground because neither of us really wanted to budge from our intellectual bunkers. For a minute, we got stuck on what might almost qualify as a cliche in the halls of academia - "gaps of knowledge." When did we finally get to see the Excorcist? How long before we could actually sit through the Godfather without getting bored? Perhaps it might be helpful is to talk of "gaps of WANTED knowledge." I am perfectly comfortable in my American movie bunker. Yes, it might be most talked about, but certainly not exhausted. V Machine (I think) wanted more international cinema in her schooling. I guess she is the better person because its not like she has no interest in American, just another interest. Me, I have no interest in the international movie scene.

For the most part, I stand by my assertion but I will make one addendum - a qualifier for my knowledge. I am interested in what people in my general social circle (United States) are watching NOW. My one qualifier is the CONTEMPORARY component. Some may see my position as a limiting one and perhaps even an ignorant one, but my two reasons are simple.

The first and most important, I want to talk with people about movies. And I don't mean the cinephile. I want a simple but engaging conversation about a movie. The easiest way to do that is with my family and friends and the movies they see. I want to see the film playing on 6 screens at the local multiplex. It's easier to talk about TRANSFORMERS 2 than say, BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN.

Secondly, to borrow from Bordwell and Thompson title, film is art - ALL OF IT. I care about narrative heterogeneity, cinematography, editing, color, and voice-over. When I say, ALL OF IT, I mean the films. Even the worst films have redeeming moments or something you can learn. I believe this is why I am a forgiving critic - that and I am generally a positive person.

Perhaps if I say it this way: All of the movies I wrote about for final papers were big Hollywood releases within the last 15 years (BRAVEHEART, SYRIANA/BABEL, TOY STORY, SIN CITY, MINORITY REPORT, 300, and THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING). For some reason I feel this to be against the norm. Does this help with my sentiments?

I want to know what is driving the culture. If The Da Vinci Code becomes a worldwide phenomenon, I want to read it because of that reason. Yes, I've read Twilight and plan to read the second one. It's water cooler conversation but I love it! This is not an indictment of my fellow MAs at NYU. We had and still have water cooler conversation. However, it seemed that when it came time to write a paper, the expectation was to jump into the deep end of the cinema pool, because that is where the robust material resides.

Perhaps it boils down to my never-ending quest against the disparaging of something simply because it's popular. "I used to like them, but ever since they started playing them on the radio, I don't like them anymore" makes no sense to me. Either you like or you don't.

The last thing I want to say is very important. My post sounds like I didn't enjoy my time at NYU. Far from the truth, I enjoyed it. It is a place where no idea is too stupid. Nothing is unquestionable. Debate is encouraged. Some cynics may disagree with me, but that's okay. I am a positive person.

A Media Slathered State of the Union Plus Some Michael Mann Musing

2009-07-09T09:46:00.001-07:00

It's time for an update on how my media intake changed since moving back to my hometown, Los Angeles.

For about three years, I watched movies. That was my intake. I watched them for class and for fun - and if both happened at the same time, I was happy. I graduated with a degree in communication from a wonderful little institution in San Antonio, Texas: Trinity University. Very late in my college career, I found that path of study and been giddy ever since. Wow, I can watch television and movies and get a rather large diploma! This is great!

Against all odds, I got into a grad school, getting a master's degree in Cinema Studies from NYU - the only school that would accept me. And I kept watching movies. I was introduced to avante-garde and films floating in obscure film history purgatory. Most people seem to enjoy these films and want to talk about them and in effect, shine a brighter light on obscure pieces. I run the other way. I want to bring the mainstream movies to the academic circle. Let's float a barstool argument here: in final papers, who wrote about films that grossed the most money? I might be in the running for highest grossing papers (Braveheart, Syriana/Babel, Toy Story, Sin City, Minority Report, 300, and The Fellowship of the Ring).

I don't think I am cut out for the PhD, but maybe. I don't think it would be in film exclusively. It would be in a fuller media discussion, including television, video games, and social networking. I like films and I like them a lot, but I am interested in so many other things. I LOVE teen television. I love watching the progression of video games moving closer to an interactive social networking experience. Oh and by the way, I like sports. And its easy to let it in my life - it happens all the time.

Basically, I need structure. Let me list what I like again. (Movies, Television, Sports, Video Games, and Fiction Lit.) By my count, that's five things, right? How do I take care of all my interests? I think I need a spreadsheet - which sounds a lot like my dad (genes right?).

I feel disconnected right now. I have not watched a TV show that wasn't on DVD for at least a month now. Been to a few movies. TRANSFORMERS 2 was actually pretty funny and then it turns into a large special effect (which last time I checked still wins an Academy Award). No one is better than Michael Bay when delivering a special effect. Incomprehensible, maybe. But I wonder if that's not the point. PUBLIC ENEMIES was great! I loved it. Michael Mann's violence is heavy, intense yet restrained. Women are a problem because as heterosexual men, we love them, but they get us into trouble.

But color is so very important to Mann and completely based on the film's setting. Think of HEAT, everything is blue and grey because that's LA - the streets, the sky, the uniform. COLLATERAL is mostly dark, but filled with many colors because that's what an LA freeway looks like - a cornucopia of visual onslaught. Everything is blue in MIAMI VICE because the water is blue. PUBLIC ENEMIES uses a warmer color pallette, mostly brown. The shootout happens in the woods, the cars are brown and the roads are still dirty, not completely paved.

I have too many interests. As Colin Cowherd, host of The HERD on ESPN radio: simplify your life. "If I haven't worn a shirt in the past three months, I get rid of it." I need to pare down my media life to the important things. But I can't live in a hole either. Geez, Charley, want some cheese with that w(h)ine? I think I might take up running.

Where Have All The Theme Songs Gone? Just one anyway.

2009-04-09T12:02:00.000-07:00

At a recent Sound Symposium at NYU, Steven Wurtzler presented a topic on sound design, particularly that of retail locations. Now, I am currently employed at one such retail location and I can tell you that Wurtzler is right. Music is an integral part of the experience. In fact, customers come into to the store and routinely sing along with classic tunes such as "Suspicious Minds" by Elvis Presley or my personal favorite "Don't Stop Believin'" by Journey. Besides merely providing some background entertainment and pleasure, it can help in the selling process.

For instance, a lot of the music is danceable and try as I might to resist, I can't help myself from getting my groove on. The music also creates the right environment. Sometimes a simple volume adjustment can make all the difference. Retailers wants positive energy and shoppers want to shop in a fun place. Louder music can help that.

Theme parks understand this as well. There is constant music playing evoking the ouvre of the particular land. Wurtzler adapted the idea of sound design to everyday life. An experience will be more memorable if there is ample sound design.

The same is true for television shows and their theme songs and nowhere is this more noticeable than on the DVD sets for "Dawson's Creek." Part of the enjoyment is Paula Cole's "I Don't' Want To Wait." She really belts it out. However, beginning on the third DVD set and continuing through to the end of the series, something changed. A different song replaced the great one, changing the entire complexion of the fictional town, Capeside. So irked by this change, I began to mute the television and play the song through my computer. It's not the same experience, but as close as I can get.

At times, some consumers grow tired of a theme song when campaigning through episode after episode. This specific example advises those consumers to appreciate a well-done and well-placed theme song. Appreciate the song!

The Most Fun on Television Right Now!

2008-12-04T21:17:00.000-08:00

No, I won't make you beg...for long. "Mad Men" is my favorite show that still breathes, but the second season ended weeks ago. Does it qualify as "right now?" No.

"Heroes" is too serious, and quite frankly hasn't been up to par since the season one finale. The second season really faltered with the exception of the Kristen bell addition. The third season began poorly, but is making a comeback. However, the series is too inconsistent to be worthy of my spontaneous exuberance. "Pushing Daisies" is adorable, cute, and sweeter than a green apple Jolly Rancher. Sadly, not even Lee Pace's eyebrows could keep it afloat. "Gossip Girl" is naughty, and sometimes the characters are mean. "90210" is pure bubblegum, and I can't blow bubbles. I am purist. I chew.

Wait with baited breath no longer. My answer: "Privileged." You say, "I have no idea what you're talking about!"

Here's a primer. Megan Smith (JoAnna Garcia, more on her later) graduated from Yale and attempted work in the publishing world. Things didn't work out and Megan moved back home to Florida to tutor two extremely upper class high school twins.

"Privileged" is witty and still fun. We're not talking Aaron Sorkin witty though, just kind of cheesy and cute witty. As always, the characters appear genuine and their actions are credible and fall in line with their personalities. Sage (Ashley Newbrough) and Rose (Lucy Hale) are the twins. Sage is overprotective of the younger Rose and feels Megan driving a wedge between the two. Generally, the show has a laid-back atmosphere - the problems aren't hugely critical, but ramifications could be serious. For example, Rose cheats on a test. As a tutor kept under close surveillance, Megan cannot afford this kind of mishap.

A regular, seemingly trivial dilemma such as cheating on a high school exam only works if we care about those involved. Why do I want Megan to succeed? Well, in short, she's likable. Obviously! Let's flank the question a tad by taking a back route.

In a recent commercial, The CW ran a blurb from TV Guide saying that, "Megan Smith is the new Rory Gilmore." Rory is, of course, the endlessly likable daughter component of the "Gilmore Girls." What does it mean to be the new Rory? A blend of smarts and high integrity. More cute than bombshell. Very adept with a Qwerty keypad cellphone. These are all qualities that would describe Rory Gilmore, the person. But is there something more?

Does Rory symbolize something bigger than herself? "Gilmore Girls" might be the network's best and highest-rated show. Both shows feature prominent culinary aficionados. Does TV Guide surmise something about the future of "Privileged?" Is this show CW's new the little show that could? While "Gossip Girl" and the newly rejuvenated "90210" grab headlines and magazine covers, "Privileged" is CW's best show. It's wholesome with a touch of sweet and snappy, like Honey Bunches of Oats. Scrumptious!

Getting Intimate - Rachel Getting Married

2008-11-16T11:54:00.000-08:00

Rachel Getting Married would like to amend the age-old saying: "Fish and family stink after 3 days." This film posits that it doesn't take that long - only a few minutes.

Jonathan Demme's latest release Rachel Getting Married, is an unexpected visual onslaught. Featuring a hand held camera, Demme's film is rarely stationary. Even if a conversation uses a shot-reverse-shot pattern, Demme uses different angles.

All of this makes viewing Rachel an uneasy experience. A seemingly banal and innocent conversation might erupt into a violent verbal exchange. No remark too insulting. No topic too taboo. At times, the camera may linger instead of an obvious cut to the speaker, allowing a real-time display of a character's reactions. In short, Demme and his DP, Declan Quinn a visually arresting character drama. Normally in a character study, the camera lets the characters tell the story, but not here.

Most striking is the proximity of the camera. A good portion of the film frames the face or the head. Initially, unsettling, the cinematography supports the intimacy of the film. The audience feels close to the characters - so close that we can see a twitching eye, and even the slightest frown. Rachel Getting Married does not allow its characters the freedom to hide within the frame. We know how a character feels, even with their best attempts at hiding it beneath a smile.

Adjusting to a differing family dynamic is difficult. Think of a family as an automobile and whenever a new family member enters the mix, the car rocks a little bit. In this family, the new family member is Kym (an overrated, but still effective Anne Hathaway), a recovering drug and alcohol addict. She's lost her chance at a first impression. She has to earn the respect (and love) from her family. Kym believes that her family should be more supportive, but we understand their trepidation given her history. This family has to learn how to function with its additional member. Likewise, Kym must adjust to her new social dynamic.

Everyone wants to feel like a part of the family. Rachel Getting Married forces us into this role and it's hard when you have no influence. All we can do is feel the highs and lows of a dynamic and diverse family.

The West Wing Restrospective - Exceptional Writing!

2008-11-02T09:27:00.000-08:00

Remember when NBC had "Law and Order", "Friends", AND "The West Wing?" Feels like a long time ago doesn't it? "Law and Order" is still around, but "Friends" and "The West Wing" have ended their run.

I watched three episodes of "The West Wing" yesterday and I was reminded of one of the greatest television pleasures - exceptional writing. Two of writer Aaron Sorkin's television series were cancelled quickly ("Sports Night", and "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip"), but "The West Wing" had success for a long time. "The West Wing" won four - FOUR! - Emmys for best drama! (All this coming in the years of the HBO juggernaut "The Sopranos.") Not only did they win those four Emmys, but they won them in CONSECUTIVE years! Only "Hill Street Blues" can claim that kind of success.

"The West Wing" was nominated for Best Drama every year it was on - even in the days when Aaron Sorkin left to create "Studio 60." Sorkin is master of the "walk and talk." He is more notorious for it than praised. Does it create unnecessary and complicated camera work, or does it raise the tension? I think the latter and its probably an accurate demonstration of what happens in the most famous office in the world. Most of the walking and talking occurs while characters deliver paperwork. I would imagine that's probably a lot of what happens around the oval office - paperwork.

The series is also surprisingly funny - but not in a laugh out loud way. It's more like a chuckle. When was the last time you laughed during one of the most respected dramas in history? Sorkin treats the president's offices just like any other office, one where e-mail slows to a hault, and desk chairs have squeaky wheels. But the writers always remember the weight of a show about the president of the United States. A series with this premise can be as topical as it wants. It's not like watching "Mad Men", where you feel overwhelmed by the tension. Obviously, "Mad Men" makes it work (because I like it!), but "The West Wing" is so refreshing because it manages to do both.

The other thing a well-crafted series needs is a balance between good writing and actors who deliver them. With a Sorkin show, the pace is so extreme and the lines need precise and quick delivery. The Emmys recognized the actors as well. Allison Janney won multiple Emmys for her turn as Press Secretary C.J. Craig. So too for Bradley Whitford (Josh Lyman), Richard Schiff (Toby Ziegler), and the late John Spencer (Leo McGary). Martin Sheen (President Bartlett) went without an award. But for a show that emphasizes an ensemble cast, I guess it's okay that the president doesn't win an award and his cabinet gets the credit.

Aaron Sorkin might be the stealth bomber of Hollywood. He wrote A Few Good Men (Rob Reiner) - based on his own play - but most people remember the Tom Cruise/Jack Nicholson showdown in the courtroom. More recently, he wrote Charlie Wilson's War (Mike Nichols) and his penchant for blending humor with serious consequences is evident. I love you Entertainment Weekly, but sticking "The West Wing" at #23 of the greatest TV shows of the last 25 years behind shows like "The Real World", "South Park", "Lost", and "Roseanne"...is grounds for impeachment!

Netflix the DVDs and re-discover this classic!

Synecdoche, NY - Unkept Promises

2008-10-25T12:19:00.000-07:00

In all fiction projects, an author makes promises to the audience, reader, etc. The protagonist is this kind of a person with a specific personality and unique friends. These are just a few things shape a character. The film, novel, or short story tells us where we are going.

Authors may not give a specific road map. At least we know what kind of a journey is in store. The character has flaws that need confronting or demons that need exorcising. The audience expects that something will engage this character in a specific regard. The author makes promises to the reader and the reader expects them to be fulfilled.

Don't misunderstand. I don't hate twist or surprise endings - they are fun and exciting. But the author must produce them organically. Character and plot progression must feel natural.

For the first two-thirds of Synecdoche, NY writer/director Charlie Kaufman (Being John Malkovich, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) presents characters that I care about. Now, I think I understand the Kaufman aesthetic enough to say that it is a unique experience and that I will need to think through some issues in order to comprehend the narrative. But Synecdoche, NY doesn't fulfill on its promises. In fact, it doesn't even make any.

I understood the plight of the characters and issues that need solving. Kaufman only takes me so far down those roads. The last third of the film is overly complicated and leaves me searching for the cinematic equivalent of "verbose." Synecdoche, NY is verbose. The film is complicated just for the sake of being complicated. Kaufman complicates the narrative to such a degree that the last third of the film could have shown ANYTHING and I would not be surprised. It seemed that anything that happened could be justified through Caden Cotard's (Philip Seymour Hoffman) psychosis. And because his psychosis became convoluted, anything was possible.

Allowing oneself to take a plot in seemingly any direction is lazy filmmaking. The audience feels no satisfaction because Kaufman did not allow the audience to want anything. Synecdoche, NY presents a fork in the road with about a million options - and none of them are the wrong choice. When I say that Kaufman didn't make any promises, I mean that he didn't provide a road map for the film. There is a responsibility of a filmmaker to guide the audience. He did that for the first two thirds of the film but then sabotaged his narrative with Caden's neuroses that allow for any possibility I had no idea what would come next. Synecdoche, NY is lazy filmmaking because if there are no"right" answers, then there are no "wrong" ones either.

Think of the difference between two Tarantino films: Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. Both feature non-linear narratives, but one narrative grounds itself in a specific moment - meeting up after a jewelry store robbery. Tarantino controls the narrative and answers the questions that we need answered. Who are these people? How did they meet? What happened during the robbery? What events led to the current predicament? Tarantino goes back in time to answer these questions in a restrained way. Pulp Fiction jumps around in narrative purely for the sake of it. This non linear structure does not enlighten the narrative. Reservoir Dogs is a complicated and robust story, but I understand it immediately. Pulp Fiction is only complicated and thus REQUIRES multiple viewings to understand the film. I hold films accountable for this mistake.

An author cannot expect an audience to make the journey twice - just to understand it. WANTING to see a film again and NEEDING to see a film again are two different things. And don't accuse me of "not getting it" either. A story needs to be clear. It's the difference between good ambiguity and bad ambiguity. Good ambiguity leaves a reader with thoughts about where a story can go OR where a story came from. Bad ambiguity leaves the reader wanting more OR questioning the validity of the narrative.

Don't force me to see a movie again! MAKE me want to see it again!

Sixteen Candles - John Hughes Update #1

2008-10-19T10:28:00.000-07:00

Part of me feels like a presidential candidate needing to hold a press conference explaining my actions. For reasons unknown, movies were not a part of my childhood. My family isn't cinephilic in the least. Mom likes going, but Dad just can't understand why anyone would want to spend two hours of a sunny weekend in a dark theater. What is the fallout of all this? Charley has seen only one John Hughes movie: Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

And I don't even like it! Cameron's (Alan Ruck) phone conversation with principal Rooney is the only funny part. I can't buy Broderick either. His demeanor is awkward and I don't think he can carry a movie. Election (Alexander Payne, 1999) works for me because Broderick's Jim McAllister IS Matthew Broderick!

What John Hughes films haven't I seen? Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club, and Pretty and Pink. When my friends discuss these films, I stay silent. Having not seen them, I don't have anything to contribute. So, when I admitted that I had not seen this Molly Ringwald trilogy, I am surprised there wasn't an earthquake from all the jaws hitting the floor. It's surprising for two reason. The first is that these films are quintessential coming-of-age tales for my generation (those born in the early to mid-eighties). The second is that these films are about high school, something that I love. I could watch She's All That (Robert Iscove, 1999) and Can't Hardly Wait (Harry Elfont & Deborah Kaplan, 1998) anytime. If they're on television, I can't turn away.

My friends were very willing to help. MH lended Sixteen Candles. I decided to watch this trilogy in chronological order, so let's begin with Candles. Ringwald's Samantha is immediately recognizable as an outcast teen. She has her own circle of friends, but is obviously not part of the jock and motorcycle crowd. To make matters worse, her family forgot her sixteenth birthday. The film follows her day at school. The object of her desire is typical jock-with-money Jake Ryan (Michael Schoeffling). The quest brings these two characters together.

Ultimately, the reason to watch this film is for The Geek (Anthony Michael Hall). A courageous outsider with stereotypical prowess with technology. At first only interested in obtaining the underwear of a girl, Candles of course finds his reputation soaring like an exponential curve. An unlikely partnership forms between Jake Ryan and The Geek. The Geek has information about Samantha that Jake Ryan wants. Jake Ryan has a girlfriend that he is all too happy to dump on The Geek, who is all too happy to take her.

If you've seen any teen comedy, then you know where all this is headed and I don't need to explain it to you. In the end, I think I was a little disappointed. I like Molly Ringwald as the lead, but Schoeffling mails it in. His best scene is with The Geek, but only because Anthony Michael Hall CAN carry the scene. Schoeffling only serves as the eye candy.

A post on The Breakfast Club is coming...

Do the Subtle Performances Win Awards?

2008-10-14T05:40:00.000-07:00

The recent past shows actors garnering praise for flamboyant performances. Think Johnny Depp in Gore Verbinski's Pirates of the Caribbean or Daniel Day-Lewis in P.T. Anderson's There Will Be Blood. Their eccentric or loudest moments are the most memorable.

"I've abandoned my boy!"

No doubt he gets pumped for these kinds of scenes and he delivers. Going back to his work in Scorsese's Gangs of New York, I remember his opening lines best. Delivering lines is only half the battle. In Film Art, Bordwell and Thompson evaluate performances by also looking at an actor's eyes, eyebrows, and mouth. But why stop there? Why not evaluate the entire body of performance?

Again, let's look at Bill the Butcher's first scene in Gangs. He leads his gang of natives to the battleground with Vallon's (Liam Neeson) "foreign hordes." He stops at his mark and assumes a particular stance. His feet spread apart, balanced, and ready for the upcoming skirmish. His hands grab the knives at his waist. And he doesn't just hold them - his arms are flexed and prepared for battle. The Butcher's overall body language is aggressive, and not by mistake.

This is Bill's opening scene and while his character deepens throughout the film, these initial minutes display the Butcher's intimidating presence.

His opening lines may be memorable, but the reason the performance is striking is the subtlety of the rest of the film. Later in the film, Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio) challenhes the Butcher to a final battle. Watch how Bill handles his pipe and the way he leans against the post. He thinks for a moment and then delivers the line: "Challenge accepted." Perhaps too reductively, the flamboyant scenes are memorable, but the subtle moments win awards.

Switching to P.T. Anderson's There Will Be Blood, two scenes stick out that illustrate my point. One is the aforementioned "I've Abandoned My Boy" sequence. It's the showcase sequence for Day-Lewis' performance. It's the part that everyone remembers most vividly. But it is not Day-Lewis' best scene. Anybody can act crazily on screen, but to tame, temper, and taper the performance shows an attuned ability.

90210 (2008) - Parents and Infidelity

2008-09-16T19:53:00.000-07:00

Some quick thoughts on the last two episodes of The CW's new revival series, "90210."

In the previous two episodes (including this evening) Naomi needed to deal with no doubt a difficult situation for a daughter - parental infidelity.

Now, I have no experience with a parent committing adultery. I would imagine that most kids idolize their parents. Most kids seem to glean their political stance from their parents and they are perhaps our greatest supporters.

Naomi's distress with her father's infidelity is certainly understandable. At least within the cohort of the "90210" universe, parents provide for their children in some way. And, regardless of how the offspring turn out, parents provide them with something, whether it be a car, guidance, or a trust fund. What the child does with these gifts is their business and their responsibility. Although they may not show it, they have never experienced any other world and have no idea "how the other side lives." The bottom line here is that most kids idolize their parents. Remember how we said in elementary school, "My dad can beat up your dad." We said those things for a reason. Our parents were (maybe are) infallible. They could do no wrong and when we see them fighting or betraying the other, their child's reactions may be volatile.

Lost in this discussion is the core relationship between the husband and wife. The real world and very public example of this is former New York governor Eliot Spitzer. Almost every pundit sympathized with the children and the possible ramifications of how such a relationship affects them - and I think for good reason. Most pundits also assume that Spitzer's wife must necessarily be upset and only left with the choice of leaving her husband.

I can only credit The Tony Kornheiser Show with this opinion. The show airs approximately from January to June. That opinion was that we, as the general public, have no idea the arrangement between husband and wife. It may sound ridiculous, but perhaps the wife allows the husband to "stray" from time to time. As much as the court of public opinion condemns such people who cheat on their spouses, their relationship is THEIR business and not ours.

Our culture sees this as despicable and that's fine. However, it seems quite presumptuous to assume that the spouse cheated on MUST sever all ties with the adulterer. We have no idea how they manage their relationship. And apparently this sentiment is shared by enough people to warrant a website such as AshleyMadison.com.

Bringing it back to the "90210" television series, Naomi confronts her mother about the issue and her mom tells her that she has known about the affair for some time. Naomi doesn't get it - fine. But the mom knows and is accepting of the situation. Clearly she deems it an acceptable casualty of their marriage. Obviously, there is some arrangement and is it our business what that arrangement is? I wonder...

Manhattan (Woody Allen, 1979)

2008-09-07T07:25:00.000-07:00

Brace yourself! Manhattan might MIGHT be more about the city than Woody Allen. Pinch me!

I enjoy visual onslaughts – and Manhattan is no exception. Two years earlier, Annie Hall (Allen) covered similar narrative territory, but Manhattan structures itself differently. Notably the film offers a linear narrative, but most striking is the choice to use black and white exclusively. No, Manhattan cannot compare to The Matrix or Lord of the Rings for all their visual escapades, but Manhattan offers as much spectacle through subtle nuance as either of those recent blockbusters.

Woody Allen plays television writer Isaac Davies, almost a carbon copy of Annie Hall’s Alvy Singer. It’s hard to feel bad for Isaac though. Isaac, divorced from a young and very attractive Meryl Streep (Jill) and now rides a relationship merry-go-round featuring both a precocious albeit mature 17 year-old Tracy (Mariel Hemingway) and an older more culturally sophisticated Annie Hal…sorry, Mary Wilkie (Diane Keaton). In short, if you like Woody Allen being Woody Allen, then Manhattan is for you. If you don’t, then skip it.

Endless comparisons have probably been made between this film and Annie Hall. One of the few negatives of Annie Hall might be in its structure. The non-linear narrative may confuse and distract filmgoers. However, its structure allows a more generalized feeling to surface. Manhattan is Annie Hall, streamlined.

With the writing and narrative components so closely related to Annie Hall, what sets Manhattan apart from its cinematic spouse is the visual element. The black and white choice is significant requiring a vastly different approach from all aspects of the filmmaking process. The costumer designer (Albert Wolsky), cinematographer (Gordon Willis), and production designer (Mel Bourne) and others must work in concert to create the look for the film. In a black and white film, the foremost concern is contrast. A blue and green sweater might look good, but offers little in terms of color contrast. Noticing a simple layering effect requires vastly different and perhaps an unconventional color palette to the naked eye. Some of the best scenes of the film involve Woody Allen dressed in a tuxedo begging the question: Does any other costume design look better in black and white?

A few scenes remind me of Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941). Sometimes these scenes manifest themselves in single shots. One scene early in the film displays one floor of Isaac’s first apartment. Two light sources balance the shot: one illuminating the spiral staircase and the other as a fill or back light for Tracy sitting on a couch. The stationary camera allows the viewer to absorb the entirety of the shot. Recall the scene from Kane when Charles Kane (Orson Welles) finishes Jedediah’s (Joseph Cotton) newspaper article. Think of the depth of the scene: Kane typing in the foreground with Jedediah pleading to his longtime friend, and all in focus. It does not seem unreasonable to see other filmmakers taking a different approach in using tighter angles and shots. Sometimes the simple choice (possibly an easier one?) is the best one.

The camera positions the active portion of the scene deep into the frame. The other option would be to follow Isaac with a handheld camera through the apartment and settle in a stationary position framing Tracy and Isaac together. This illustrates the central point in Manhattan – the influence of locale. With Annie Hall, the reasoning for the title is obvious because the film focuses on Alvy’s relationship with the character. Manhattan’s title leaves room for speculation. Again, scenes featuring Isaac and Mary place them deep in the shot and once again allowing eyes to stray to nearby delis and skyscrapers. But I’m not sure I learned how Isaac and therefore Allen feel about the city. Obviously, they like it. Tell me why? Still, the film opens with a voice-over from Isaac campaigning for New York as the greatest city in the world suggesting that the film is more about the city than Woody Allen. Pinch me again!

"The Dark Knight" (Christopher Nolan, 2008) on IMAX

2008-08-21T17:17:00.000-07:00

Just a quick thought on my experience with The Dark Knight on the IMAX screen.

My previous experiences with the IMAX screens were 100% complete experiences - meaning the entire film was shown in IMAX format. However, Nolan's film is not a "complete" IMAX experience. I was very anxious about how the film would handle the transitions between formats.

Having now seen the film, I can say that the transitions are not jarring at all and further: the switching serves the IMAX format better. The transitions occur seamlessly within a traditional cut in a scene and because of the sheer size of the IMAX screen even the relatively smaller aspect ratio, it is still bigger than any traditional theater. It's still a "larger-than-life" experience of The Dark Knight and for me: bigger Batman equals better Batman.

However, the most noticeable aspect of this viewing experience is how The Dark Knight showcases the appeal of IMAX specifically because Nolan carefully chose the IMAX format with restraint. Truthfully, one only needs an IMAX for a certain type of film - the big Hollywood blockbuster. Small films like The Visitor (Thomas McCarthy, 2007) - a nugget of cinematic gold from earlier in the year - have no need for the IMAX format. It's not a film that is better-served by intensifying screen and sound.

The Dark Knight IS a film suited for the IMAX screen. If you've seen the film already, then you can probably guess which scenes will appear in the larger format. What you don't know is just how intimidating some of the images can be. Recall the opening scene of the film with and aerial push-in on a glass skyscraper. The building dominates the screen and one almost expects to see themselves in the reflection anyway.

But Nolan only uses the IMAX format for certain shot or scenes. Sometimes the shot may only be a few seconds but on the IMAX, no detail is lost. Here is the point - every time The Dark Knight switched to the larger screen a certain hush warmed over the audience. Yes, my jaw dropped slightly and my grin stretched a little wider. Every time.

Films such as Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) are 100% IMAX films and after a few moments the eyes adjust to the large format and the novelty wears thin. The constant switching keeps the eyes working. In keeping with one of the themes of this blog, The Dark Knight IMAX experience is a must-see precisely because it ISN'T fully IMAX - a worthy visual onslaught.

Trust me.

"The Bank Job" (Roger Donaldson, 2008)

2008-08-17T18:28:00.000-07:00

Heist films of the past several years (namely the Ocean's series) revel in the caper itself. What kind of a crew do we need? The film goes on to explore the eccentricities of its several protagonists. What equipment do we need? Surely, some simple explosives and repelling devices are obvious. Then there is always some surprise device that heavily tilts the scales one way or the other. "The Bank Job" is a heist movie, but don't make the mistake of thinking it's just another clone. The film explores relatively unexplored territory for the "heist" movie: the fallout of the caper.

Within the first ten minutes, it seems that every character has been introduced. We may not know their place in the upcoming plot, but they all figure heavily. Very simply, a film that dares to keep all its cards face-up does not enjoy the luxury of twists. But "The Bank Job" isn't boring - it knows where it wants to go and efficiently propels us.

Efficient is the word that most comes to mind when describing this film. For instance (and this doesn't give anything away), the entire setup and bank robbery concludes at about the 1-hour mark. The film must have at least 20 minutes left right? What does "The Bank Job" choose to do with this extra time?

Remember the structure of "Ocean's 11" (Steven Soderbergh, 2001)? Soderbergh's caper spans the entirety of the film's running time. It takes a sequel to rummage through the opening film's fallout. "The Bank Job" manages to do both within one film.

Part of this is a smart move. The film's setting is in London of the 70s. Thus, the film makes no attempt to shock and awe us with the heist itself. So, back to the word efficient. The only ingredients in each scene are the pieces of information that we need. This quality can sometimes lend itself to short, curt scenes, but "The Bank Job" pulls off this tactic throughout the film and consequently establishes it as a sort of "style."

Let us return to the original question - what does "The Bank Job" do with the extra time? Again, it seems that most caper films choose to focus on the just that: the caper. And for good reason! It's fun and exciting to see how the perpetrators manage to pull off such a complicated plan. "Bank Job" wants to know what happens to those that lose their belongings. How do they react - with calculated resolve or with unfocused activity?

Although the two film's aren't comparable (in esteem or subject matter), I think they are in subtle tonality - "The Queen" (Stephen Frears, 2006) and "The Bank Job." Nothing flashy. No surprises. Efficient filmmaking. Previously, I have thought of "The Queen" as close to a "perfect" film as possible. A perfect film is one in which you would not change any thing about it - scene, dialogue, production design, etc. In my opinion this leads to an efficient film.

In retrospect, "The Bank Job" isn't as good as I thought it would be. Now, this comes after hearing the buzz surrounding a better-than-average film released at a lesser-than-average box office time. It's good. Maybe a 7 out of 10. No masterpiece, but if you want an example of contemporary efficient filmmaking, check out "The Bank Job." And a good efficient film is better than an inconsistent and longer piece.

"Mad Men" (Matthew Weiner, 2007)

2008-08-10T21:51:00.000-07:00

Mad Men is one of those shows that makes you feel cool simply by sitting in front of the television. But it's a different kind of cool - a more nostalgic and retro kind of cool. In short, Mad Men really makes you wish you were alive in such a time.

What time is this exactly? It's a time when downing three martinis at lunch wouldn't turn a single head, all this coming after a two-drink meeting with a client before the siesta. Oh, and don't tell your doctor but you've already consumed a pack of cigarettes and are working on your second of the day and it may not be your last. Okay, enough with the vices.

Mad Men hits at why we watch visual fiction in the first place - displacement of the emotional self. In other words: escape. Cigarettes are still a part of our current culture, although certain restrictions have made it less available. Alcohol in much the same way, but it has been censored from our life between the hours of 9 to 5. After that, the floodgates open. Mad Men reminds us where we come from - our (Gen. X) origins. This is the lifestyle of our parents.

Where do we see this in the Emmy-nominated drama? No, not in the lives of the (mad) men. It is perhaps the women who are the most compelling of the gender groups (keep in mind, this is a male-written blog). If you're not paying attention, their suits look at least similar to current fashion trends. Female attire does look quite different. Skirts flare out and hair is tapered and delicately structured. It is in the female world that the cultural politics of the time seep through the screen. Sure, the men of work allude to certain historical moments, but it is within the women (and consequently the home) that one discovers America's identity.

I believe it is not just the presence of the female, but specifically the absence of the male that allows such possibilities. The cultural environment of Mad Men, is quite segregated between men and women. Men have their time in the workplace and women (seemingly) bide their time at home. The men are constantly involved with office politics and which secretary or phone operator satisfies their visual appetite. In fact, and not surprisingly, it is only when the two gendered worlds collide is when the tension heightens. Sure, the ad men have their squabbles but for the most part they dissipate in short order. No, the lingering conflict with Mad Men is between the male and the female. Don Draper (Jon Hamm) constantly flip flops between being faithful to his wife Betty (January Jones), but does maintain regularly scheduled appointments with another woman. It's hard to figure out where his romantic loyalties lie.

Women appear to have no real power. Men have the freedom to explore their romantic desires and escape out of the treacherous confines of the home. The women are trapped with their one-and-only male partners, whoever they may be and to whomever they may already be attached. Women do not have the recourse of leaving their loveless marriage unless the man frees her, but this is not a desirable position as it leaves the woman without financial support. No, the women occupy their time discussing the pregnancy situations of their neighbors and the social lives of presidential candidates.

Men exert their prowess between the hours of 9 to 5, but they can only do so within the office. It is within this same time-frame that women exert their own kind of prowess within the home world. They raise the kids and maintain the home - the same home that the working man must eventually return - but they also socialize among themselves.

The one anomaly in this whole equation is Peggy Olson (Elizabeth Moss, formerly of The West Wing). She exists within the working world. Okay, no problem, so do many other secretaries. However, Peggy managed to advance within the company and consequently into the world of men in the working world!

And so, this is the question that lingers for Mad Men. Which genre of woman will be the catalyst for the upstart females: the challenging Peggy in the working world, or the subtly subversive Betty Draper of the home world. I think if history is to be any counsel, then both sets of women may serve as a dual wedge supplanting the epochal dominance of the XY chromosome.

Why do I enjoy this show? I enjoy the 3-martini lunch concept as well as the massively-flared skirt. 6 rounds of oysters at lunch anyone? This drama exudes an air of nonchalance about most anything. As unfaithful as the men are, it never occurs to them that their domestic life may be crumbling. It can only come from overconfidence in...something. They can cheat and get away with it. I enjoy the stark balance between work and home. Home seems so inviting, but it is ultimately the most hostile of environments. Check the stock of the liquor cabinets!

The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan, 2008)

2008-07-28T20:23:00.001-07:00

...Because if I didn't, St. Peter might not let me in....

Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight could be the most recommendable movie...ever. No, it doesn't cater to the lowest common denominator and no, it doesn't play safe by not pushing envelopes. The film is incredibly dark in tone, color, and theme. The explosions, while not big enough for say, Jerry Bruckheimer, feel bigger. But it is Knight's tension that serves the film best. The Dark Knight is so recommendable because it's just that good.

It's everything one could ever want in a film. The story is rock-solid and the twists are believable. The love triangle between Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale), Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal), and D.A. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) provide drama beyond the bombastic. Perhaps most importantly, Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker is, barring something miraculous in film acting, the best performance of year and in a long time. More on this later.

It has been a year since the events of Batman Begins (Nolan's prequel). Batman, Lt. Gordon (Gary Oldman) and Dent team up to fight crime in Gotham City. Mostly, it's the seemingly omnipresent nature of Batman that sends criminals scurrying to their respective safe houses. In battle for Gotham City, it's the bottom of the ninth and the criminals need a big bat to tie the score. The big bat comes in the form of The Joker - more like a Bunyan-sized club! What he brings to the table that his colleagues do not is the utter disregard for the consequences. The Joker rallies the criminals and weaves a "plan" so intricate that it forces the good guys against each other and eventually scars Batman's unblemished legacy.

First, some thoughts on Nolan's style. In terms of visual spectacle, The Dark Knight dwarfs anything seen in Batman Begins. But this makes logical sense - the criminals didn't need to resort to drastic tactics because nobody pushed them far enough. Batman did, and now the criminals push back. If the film industry had a performance-enhancing drugs problem, I suggest The Dark Knight's production facilities and accountants start shredding papers. The action pieces are bigger. The stunts more daring and the action more suspenseful. After all, "this city deserves a better class of criminal."

Batman Begins featured a more murky color palette: varying shades of brown. For the most part, the criminals were the dirty scum of drug trafficers and petty thieves. A good chunk of the plot took us to The Narrows, the slums of Gotham City.Once again, the change in color palette makes sense. The criminals are not only destructive, but elusive. Batman has become savvier and better equipped. It's as if things have upgraded. Nathan Crowley (production design) and Wally Pfister (cinematography) create a sleeker look for Knight. With the sharp decline in crime, the metropolis has been able to rebuild itself. This can be seen in the opening shot of the film - a long movement toward a shiny skyscraper. The colors are cleaner as well, transitioning from the dirty browns of Begins to blue, grey, and black with Knight. And everything appears darker. Even the daytime scenes appear to be overcast and dreary - not good for the psychology of Gotham's citizens. Even Batman himself is streamlined. His outfit is less spacesuit-clunky and more aerodynamic and agile - after all he does fight crime!

I can say all I want about Nolan's directing, or the script (penned by Nolan and his brother Jonathan), or the plot. This film belongs to The Joker and consequently, Heath Ledger. To continue with a baseball analogy, Nolan, Bale, Michael Caine, and others all reached base, but you cannot win a game without scoring and Ledger's performance provides the runs. Tim Burton, the director of the first two modern incarnations of the caped crusader, seems to be criticized for concentrating too much on the villain and not enough on the title character. After seeing Knight, one understands why.

Nolan already explored the origin story with the prequel. Batman's story has been told and now the real fun begins. There is no need to mention why Bruce Wayne dons this particular costume and why he combats the criminals. Time to focus on The Joker.

Here's the kicker - we hardly learn anything about him! He gives his victims different anecdotes about his past, but nothing more. He calls himself an agent of chaos. While we may not learn anything about him or why he chooses to do what he does, there are things we know. He is ruthless (does killing someone by jamming their head into a pencil, not the other way 'round count?). His craft is merely anarchy. Even when he comes into a pile of money, he burns it. Juts goes to show you, if you really really want something, you're going to get it, barter system or no barter system.

Ledger's performance is breathtaking! I'll admit that I was beyond skeptical when it was announced that Ledger was to play the smiling villain. He'd never shown me any bravado. Let's face it, The Joker's a strange character. Before Knight, his best performance was for Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain (2005). But it was a calmer delivery, more internal. However, Ledger has completely lost himself in this role. I have seen it twice and my attempts to see "through" the makeup and the voice were folly. He walks with a slight hunch - clearly no regard for posture. His speech is direct and to-the-point, always more clever than funny. His voice ranges from a high-pitched squeal to an overbearing dictatorial quality.

Recently, I have become more impressed with subtle performances rather than the flamboyant. This performance successfully straddles the line. He falls down a lot and laughs loudly, but also uses voice inflection and facial expression in a nuanced manner. I know that some evaluations of this performance may dock him for hiding behind makeup and a satanic tailor, but try to find Heath in there. I challenge even the FBI to find traces of Ledger.

One final note on Ledger's Joker. I felt a tad uncomfortable watching him on screen. I speak now of Ledger himself. The rumors are that this role contributed in some way to his death - and believe me, its not hard to see why. To see the cause of death on-screen is unsettling. But mostly, it's depression I feel. To see this performance and know that there will be no more - it's a drastic loss for the film community and cinematic history. Our saving grace is that he lives forever on celluloid!

Lost in the Joker shuffle, is how stellar the entire cast performs. Most notable is Gary Oldman as Lt. (and then Commish) Gordon. We've seen him hijack the president's airplane and dispatch Dementors with the best of them. Again, subtlety wins the day. There is so much restraint and control exhibited here. Sometimes people are wooden and carry no emotion and this is how Oldman realizes Gordon.

Finally, to the violence itself. I won't try to excavate this film's place in the post9/11 world. No, I want to look at how Nolan handles the terrorism in his Batman franchise. Both film's rely on Gotham to destroy itself. Certainly, Neeson's character and The Joker offer their support but their hands are not pushing a big red button, or striking the match, or pulling the trigger. Batman Begins features the poisonous toxin to help Gotham "tear itself apart through fear." And The Joker plays sociological mind games with Gotham's citizens. Save yourself, but destroy your own karma...or...keep your karma, but perish? Bullets no longer win the day. Use a weapon (such as fear) to control. Annihilating the enemy is tough - it's not exactly desirable. Get them to do the work for you - resourceful! All you need is a charismatic leader. If you're looking for it, ask yourself how many times you took your eyes off The Joker during this movie.

Even though the Joker ultimately fails in his bid to wipe out Gotham City, he leaves his mark. No, not a single card from the deck but a blemish on Batman. The Joker forces Batman to a brand of justice that necessarily has consequences, ones that call Batman's integrity in jeopardy. Yes, he keeps us safe, but at what cost? What is an acceptable body count? Are five lives worth those of millions? Batman, is truly left in the dark. Nolan explains that this knight is not dark for his costume and his time card results, but for his questionable nature.

Michael Clayton

2007-10-13T11:19:00.001-07:00

AMC theaters does this thing on the weekends where if you attend an AM showing the price severely reduced. I took advantage of this to see "Michael Clayton."
Writer-Director Tony Gilroy (most notable for his work on the recent Bourne series) calls the shots in this film. While the film has a cat-and-mouse, cloak and dagger feeling (again reminiscent of Bourne) the setting here is corporate law.
Michael Clayton (Clooney) calls himself the janitor: when something goes awry, he is the man to clean it up. And there is major cleaning to be done.
UNorth is a company that deals in agriculture. Of course, in a movie like this there is always a bad seed and UNorth is it. As is typical with these cloak and dagger films of late, big corporate has done something inhumane and is involved in a lawsuit trying to cover it up. Arthur, (Wilkinson) one of Clayton's colleagues at the firm is assigned defense. However, Arthur has a problem - chemical imbalance and he hasn't been taking his medication. Even though Arthur is working for UNorth, his conscience has gotten the better of him. He has found evidence - damning evidence - against UNorth. AND he is somewhat involved with the plaintiff, Ana. In a videotaped deposition Arthur is seen taking his clothes off. This doesn't look good - not clean anyway. Enter Clayton.
Clooney just seems to make excellent choices these days. I guess it makes sense. He has cut his teeth on films that he knew he had to make to get where he is. Instead of a dry Batman, Clooney feels right at home with his recent work. He seems like he knows what he wants and is extremely confident. Basically masterminding the entire Ocean's franchise and putting together a flawless film in Good Night and Good Luck.
Michael Clayton is a film that owes something to Bourne. The tension in the film builds. I enjoyed the opening of the film - a voice over provided by Arthur to Michael. It's eerie. At this point, we have no idea who this person is and what his role is to play. While we zoom through a big corporate office we think we are going to arrive at the source of the voice-over and we never do. How significant is the voice-over to the overall plot - I do not know. I do know that the use of it is a brilliant way to vault circumstances into a higher pitch.
In a Scorsese-esque move, Gilroy begins the movie at the end. Think Goodfellas and Casino. The first shots of those films begins not at the beginning but somewhere in the middle. I think this emphasizes the story over the destination (I am borrowing some from Roger Ebert here). Because we know what will eventually happen, the destination is not important. We aren't sitting in the theater trying to guess what will happen next. Instead. Gilroy forces us to consider the actions in front of us. Get absorbed in the story, and let the chips fall where you already know they will.
A little bit on style here. I like color. I am fascinated as to how it can be used. While I may not know what it's intention is all the time, I gravitate toward it. In the beginning we are practically colorless - mostly cold hues of black, blue, grey and white. There are certain moments where the only color available in a shot come from one place - a picture, a window, a painting. However, as the film progressed, more color seemed to fill the screen. We enter people's apartments, and while dank, warmer colors fight to enter. Indeed, in the final scene of the film, two characters stand in a sun drenched lobby of a ballroom - indicating perhaps that all the pieces are out on the table. Now it's our turn to clean up the mess and restore order to the puzzle.

American Gangster

2007-10-11T22:06:00.000-07:00

Generally, as a rule of thumb, typically, if I ever see a movie trailer and Denzel Washington is involved, I get excited - really excited. Similarly, when I receive word about a new Ridley Scott movie, I get excited. I have liked just about anything the man has done recently. Whether it is "Gladiator" which in hindsight is much better film than originally thought. Don't believe me, check out Roger Ebert, he agrees. Don't argue with a man that has a Pulitzer Prize. "Black Hawk Down" was inspired and fearless film making. It's a film that requires a disciplined viewing lest it overwhelm the viewer. And, I thought "Kingdom of Heaven" to be good work, yet it was panned not only in print but at the box office as well. These two men are enough to make anyone spend the money at the ticket booth.
Enter Russel Crowe - a man with his share of mixed opinions. But take a look at this body of work: "L.A. Confidential," "A Beautiful Mind," "Gladiator," "The Insider," "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World." Granted, there are some things on his resume that one needn't write home about, but every working person in this world has things on their resume they wish they could improve, so that's a wash.
I come to you with a confession. I have been denying Russell Crowe a place in my "good actor" pile. I have liked 99% of the films I have seen him in and for some reason had difficulty placing him in that pantheon. Russell, I have placed the welcome mat just for you. Now, whenever a movie comes out and you are in a starring role, I will take note.
Note to News Corp, Disney, AOL/Time Warner, General Electric (especially you!), SONY/BMG, Liberty Media, Vivendi/Universal, Viacom, and AT&T (the big ten media corporations): if you put Russell Crowe in a film, you can 100% count on at least $10 at the box office.