Confessions Of A Completely Harmless Mind

Michael Bay releases a steaming heap of junk metal on celluloid

2009-06-29T16:31:00.000-07:00

Oh, this movie is bad. It is one of the most aggressively unpleasant and disastrously awful movies I have seen in a very, very long time. It’s taken me a while to get a proper review down simply because my mind has been boggling over this movie. It is an unmitigated catastrophe; I don’t think I can even call it a movie, to be honest. It is a product that thrashes, writhes, and spasms on screen with great sound and fury. They should show this to film students as an example of how not to make a movie. It is, as Jim Emerson so eloquently stated, anti-movie. Now I know what you’re thinking, “Hey, it was filmed and it had actors and stuff happened on screen, it’s a movie!” unfortunately “Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen” does not do anything that a movie – especially a summer blockbuster- is supposed to do. Simply put: it does not entertain, it does not engage the audiences’ imagination, it does not thrill, it has no legitimate or substantive narrative, etc. etc. It is not a movie. It is a product that the audience can simply watch, unengaged, as the pretty special effects and big ol’ Michael Baysplosions litter the screen. The characters? Idiots. There is not a single competent, likable, or respectable character in this movie. Not one. They are paper-thin crayon drawings whose sole purpose in the film is to watch as computer animated robots duke it out with no particular sense of consequence, importance, or dread.

For example, the films main baddie is known as the Fallen (Tony Todd), he’s an ancient Cybertronian conqueror who falls from the grace of his brothers, the Primes, when he decides that he wants to eradicate the human race for no particular reason. Apparently John Milton was actually talking about big ass alien robots and not angels and demons. At least that’s what I assume, since the Transformers apparently have their own vaguely implied theological system. I’ll get to that later; as I was saying, the Fallen decides to make his presence known to every country on the planet. He announces that he’s come to Earth and the planet will be in for it unless the human race surrenders Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf). Now, this reminded me of a similar scene from last year’s “The Dark Knight”. In the scene the Joker addresses Gotham city, saying that unless they kill some nebbish Waynecorp accountant, he’ll start blowing up hospitals. Understandably everyone in Gotham freaks the fuck out and tries to hunt down this businessman. What does the population of the world do when confronted by the presence of an unspeakable alien menace? They basically go about their business and don’t even bother to hunt for Sam. In the next scene there are actually people standing around in a deli with Sam in full view, and none of them are even the slightest bit concerned about the days events. Such is the narrative structure of this film. Significant events are not fleshed out completely, they are established and then right as the film begins to run with them it moves on to something completely different! Eventually this is enough to fry ones brain, and I gave up trying to rationalize anything that was happening on screen.

Michael Bay displays his massive ego and utter incompetence in many other ways as well. Since this film is essentially a two and a half hour Michael Bay ego trip, I guess he figured that he didn’t have to bother making a proper movie. Want an example of why Michael Bay is an incompetent visual director? Look no further than the scene in the beginning of the film where Sam says goodbye to his improbably hot girlfriend Mikaela before going of to college. As they speak the camera circles around the back of one actors head, then the other, then back again, and repeats this cycle until it swirls all the way around both actors. Why did Michael Bay do this? What purpose does it serve other than to show off and make the audience dizzy? The only explanation I can think of is that Michael Bay and his DP decided that they would show off all the cool stuff they could do with the camera and make the entire audience incredibly conscious of the fact that there’s a cinematographer at work. The fact that they chose to do this during an ostensibly tender moment makes it even more bewildering. No doubt Bay’s rabid supporters will eat up this silly and disorienting technique and cite it as an example of Bay’s incredible visual prowess, but they’re the kind of people who are impressed with shiny things regardless of any actual quality or substance. Here’s another weird shot for you: during the big ol’ final battle in Egypt, Sam and Mikaela are hiding out in some dilapidated building (I assume an abandoned home). Sam looks through a hole in the wall to monitor the action going on outside, so we zoom through the hole to witness the action as well. Therefore, everything we see should be what Sam’s witnessing, since that was the purpose of the set up and the shot, right? As Lex Luthor would say, “WRONG!” We somehow end up on the other side of the building when we’re supposed to be done watching the action because the camera zooms back in through a keyhole that is directly behind Sam. Why do something like that? I guess because Michael Bay thought it would be super cool to have the camera zoom through a CG keyhole. Whee. Oh, did I forget to mention the cavemen? In the very beginning of the film, we learn that the transformer aliens first visited earth in prehistoric times. The Fallen and his brothers the Primes came to earth, and we see caveman stare in awe at their presence. Then we get some confusing – but unintentionally hilarious – slow motion shots of the cavemen, and we even get to see a closeup of one neanderthal’s pearly whites. That’s right, even in prehistoric times people had brilliantly white teeth. Do you have a headache yet? I did, and it was only about thirty seconds in at that point.

Let’s move on, shall we? Now I’ll address the most unpleasant and deplorable aspect of the film: it’s stabs at so called “humor”. Michael Bay proves that he has the sense of humor of a 12 year old boy when we first see Sam’s two dog’s humping each other. He proves that he has the sense of humor of 7 year old when he cuts back to the two dogs humping again for no reason whatsoever during a sequence that had absolutely nothing to do with them. He just thinks that two dogs humping is funny. Ha ha. Then there’s Skids and Mudflap (Tom Kenny and Reno Wilson, respectively). A lot has been said about these two already, so I’m not going in to very much detail about it. Although I will say this: it’s 2009 and Michael Bay still thinks minstrelsy is funny. A robo-minstrel show is fun for the whole family! Also, the robots use words like “pussy” and “dumbass” and “bitch”.

There’s lots of profanity and decidedly un-kid friendly material here. Michael Bay’s treatment of women in the film is no less deplorable. When Sam arrives at college, every single girl on campus looks like a Maxim super-slut. They all act like whores as well, especially during the icky scene where Rainn Wilson cameos as a sleazy college professor who hits on his female students with not-so-subtle innuendos. How do the Maxim super-sluts respond? By licking their lips seductively, of course! Because in Michael Bay-land, all women are sleazy sex objects who exist solely to be eye candy for the men while they go off and do manly things. Predictably, Megan Fox’s boobs and ass are front and center for most of the film. I think it’s also worth noting that Michael Bay’s notorious love for shoot ‘em up warmongering has not diminished. Quite the opposite in fact; large portions of the film are essentially a glorified Army recruitment commercial. Bay also shamelessly rips off Terminator 2, the Matrix, and there are subtle undertones of freaky Cronenbergian body horror when Megatron (Hugo Weaving) tortures Sam by letting a creepy crawly Decepticon go through his nose and enter the soft tissue of his brain. More fun for the whole family! Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that the creepy little Decepticon Wheelie humps Megan Fox’s leg, and she doesn’t mind at all! John Tuturro reprises his role from the first film, and when his character is paired with Sam’s roommate Leo (Ramon Rodriguez) the two make up the most annoying duo in the history of motion pictures. Not only do we get to see John Tuturro’s ass, good ol’ Leo gets tazed in the testicles. And he cries, and whines, and shouts, and generally makes you wish he would get squashed by one of the robots at any moment. Speaking of testicles Devestator has giant, 2,000 pound robo-balls. Don’t ask me why. Oh, and Jetfire is so old that he has a beard and a cane. Don’t ask me how that’s possible, or why when his parachute ejects it makes a fart noise.

Is there any saving grace to this movie at all? Almost. Optimus Prime provides fleeting moments of what might be described as joy. Too bad he’s dead for two thirds of the fucking movie. But he provides the one enjoyable moment in the movie (not scene, there is not a single good scene in the film) when he beats the fuck out of Starscream while fighting him along with Megatron and some unidentified Decepticon apparently called Grindor. The movie doesn’t bother clarifying on a lot of things like the names of places and transformers. Just because you can look it up on Wikipedia doesn’t mean it was explained in the film, by the by. But yes, the only moment that made me smile even a little was that single fleeting one where Optimus got to be Optimus, kicking Decepticon ass and taking names. Yes, this movie is atrocious; it is an absolute, unquestionable failure devoid of structure or value. Did I mention that the acting is terrible? The acting is terrible. Especially from Megan Fox, who apparently was never taught how to make facial expressions besides “vacant stare” or “seductive look”. This movie is making and will make a shit ton of money because it’s easy and cheap and vulgar and stupid. The movie going public has proven that they would rather spend their ticket money on an unbearably long and boring piece of product rather than a movie. Whether this bloated monstrosity will mark the end of processed summer trash or the beginning of a new era of disgusting filmmaking waits to be seen. Until then, those of us left with taste and dignity must hold out with solidarity and hope that Hollywood will make more TDK’s and less ROTF(L).

Enough rage and helplessness and your love turns to something else...

2009-05-24T21:45:00.000-07:00

I attempted to watch Atom Egoyan's "The Sweet Hereafter" with a group of people, but Netflix sent me a bad disc. It froze about halfway through. But has anyone else seen a film more arresting, more absorbing, or more emotionally truthful? Perhaps, but Egoyan's film seems to be the only one that depicts tragedy for what it is: senseless and impossible for people to comprehend. The townsfolk of a small Canadian hamlet attempt to deal with the loss of most of their children in a schoolbus accident, and the movie (in classic Egoyan style) is told out of chronological order to provide emotional context at the proper (or intended) moments. To tell the movie chronologically would be fallacy since the emotional information would be too obvious, too straightforward, and not nearly as impactful. Unfortunately, that's all for now since I'm far too tired to write anymore. Until next time, dear readers, I bid you adieu.

Thoughts on the emperor and whether or not he still has clothes...

2009-05-18T15:20:00.000-07:00

I never expected this. When I first heard news of Lars Von Trier's "Antichrist", I figured it would be a dark, cerebral thriller with some gore, but nothing of the Splat Pack variety. Then the reports flooded in from Cannes today: "Antichrist" is quite possibly the most polarizing and shocking film in the history of the Cannes film festival. Roger Ebert called it "the most despairing film I've ever seen", but it wasn't meant as a criticism, merely an observation. The crowd apparently booed thunderously, with some cheers mixed in. Manohla Dargis, cheeky gal that she is, confessed to singing "That's Entertainment" as she walked up the aisle after the film was over. The film contains scenes of explicit sex between the only two characters in the film; they are called He and She and are played by Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg respectively. After the brutal death of their infant child they retreat in to a cabin in the woods called Eden and torture, both psychological and physical, ensues. Their child, by the way, falls out of a window while the couple are busy having vigorous sex. From what I've gathered the film actually shows the infant hit the pavement. With that knowledge many of you will probably stop reading, and I certainly don't blame you. But for those who are interested, the film apparently descends in to a kind of audacious madness that climaxes with the wife drilling a hole in to her husband's leg, attaching a grindstone to it and then attempting to bury him alive after beating him with a shovel. There's also genital mutilation involved that is apparently so disturbing that the no one has yet dared to describe it, perhaps for fear of having to think about it again.

So what are we left with? Von Trier has stated that the film was "a kind of therapy" for him, and helped him through a two year bout of severe depression. He says it's the most important film he's ever made. Von Trier has been called many things over the course of his career: charlatan, hack, genius, provacateur, artist, fraud, etc. But the two labels that have stuck are bold and uncompromising. Even if you think that the emperor has no clothes, you have to admit that he has the balls to walk around naked while proclaiming to be clothed. That's uncompromising. Those who think he is a fraud seem to have forgotten "Breaking the Waves", his 1996 masterpiece that was powerful, beautiful, intensely spiritual, and deeply moving. They're fixated on his polarizing later work of the past decade: "Dancer In The Dark", "Dogville", and "Manderlay". All three films were either implicitly or explicitly critical of the United States, a country Mr. Von Trier has never even been to. In fact, Von Trier has an intense fear of flying, so his films are rarely shot outside of Denmark or Sweden. "Breaking the Waves" was one of the few exceptions as the exteriors were all filmed in Scotland where the movie takes place, but "Manderlay" and "Dogville" were filmed in Denmark in spite of the fact that they were set in America.

Von Trier also spearheaded the Dogme 95 movement. Dogme 95 was an avant-garde style in Danish cinema that required the director to follow strict rules to ensure "purity" of filmmaking. Dogme films had to be shot on location, bringing in props or sets was strictly forbidden. If a prop was required, the filmmaker had to actually go to the location where the prop was in order to film it. All music must be diegetic and the sound must not be recorded a part from the images. The director must only use a hand held camera during filming, and so on and so forth.

His film "The Idiots" from 1998 is one of those rare mainstream films which features unsimulated sex. But the explicit sexuality in his films is simply a part of his broad style. He makes grand gestures and says powerful things; the question is whether or not his films are artful. In my opinion, they are. Granted, "Dogville" and "Manderlay" were plodding and almost unbearably slow, and at times they were offensive to even the most liberal minded Americans such as myself, but he made the films he wanted to make with a complete disregard for how they would be recieved. The same seems to be true for "Antichrist". Perhaps "Antichrist" will be the kind of film that transcends judgment; it can be discussed feverishly in terms of its ideas, but discussing its quality would be pointless. Who knows? We'll all have to wait and see. In the mean time, I'd like to think that the emperor at least has boxers on.

"Antichrist" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwgKYXr3Upc

Not all girls want to play with dolls.

2009-05-17T21:29:00.000-07:00

Todd Solondz's 1996 film "Welcome to the Dollhouse" was a breakthrough indie smash that became one of the most critically acclaimed movies of the 90's. The reason? The film unflinchingly examined life for middle school children and said what no other film on the subject had said before: middle school fucking sucked. It sucked for every kid who went through it. Even the "popular" ones. I remember all too vividly just how painful and awkward school was back then; hell I remember just how awkward I was back then. I certainly remember how cruel the kids were, and I remember how they made going to school frightening and difficult. I projected the vibes of a victim and weakling who wouldn't say or do anything back to them. Dawn Wiener, the main character of the film, is almost the same way. Although she had quality that I never had back then: she's resilient in spite of her extreme awkwardness.

Dawn is played perfectly by a young Heather Matarazzo, she stands awkwardly still, she observes thinks with an intensly weird stare that probably makes everyone around her uncomfortable. She dresses in a painfully dorky manner like so many kids I remember from back then. Her glasses have an unfortunate effect on her face that make her cheeks and mouth seem puffy and "off". If she retained those qualities through high school and in to her college years she'd be quietly labeled a "creeper" and then she would be left alone. But in middle school those qualities make her an easy target for relentless torture and humiliation at the hands of her fellow students. In fact in one scene the entire student body derides her with the nickname "Wiener dog" while she attempts to give a speech. The torture, unfortunately, doesn't end at school for Dawn. Her mother is a vindictive bitch, her father barely notices her, her little sister is a perfect ballerina who gets all the attention, and her older brother is a nerd who gets all the good grades.

In an attempt to boost his extracurricular activities, her brother forms a band and convinces a hunky and popular senior named Steve Rodgers (Eric Mabius) to be their front man. Steve is polite enough, but he's also a cold womanizer who, according to Dawn's brother, "would do it with any girl as long as they go all the way". Dawn instantly falls in love, and she's so eager to impress Steve that she seriously considers giving herself to him even though she's woefully ignorant about sex. For example, when a girl in her grade informs Dawn that she and Eric finger fucked, Dawn - who barely knows the implications of the word "fuck" - mistakes which person does the fucking. In an awkwardly funny scene, she butters up Steve with fishticks and Hawaiian Punch and then asks him if he likes her fingers.

Outside of Steve there are two other "guys" in Dawn's life. One is a vicious bully named Brandon (Brendan Sexton III) whose anti-social behavior masks his sensitive, human heart. The other is Ralphy, a fifth grader who is commonly called a "faggot" by the other characters in the movie. When the kids use words like "faggot" or "lesbo" (which they certainly did when I was in middle school) it's not so much homophobic as it is a way to make the awkward kids feel even more alienated than they already are. Middle school kids tend to use lots of words that they don't fully understand. When Dawn wishes to fight back against Brandon, she calls him a retard. Then when Brandon tells Dawn that he's going to "rape" her, it doesn't quite have the effect he intended. Dawn is both desperate for some form of acceptance and rather ignorant of the ramifications and consequences of rape. After all, it's not rape if you're willing. When the time comes, Brandon simply explains to Dawn why he is deeply hurt when people call him a "retard": his brother is mentally handicapped.

A lot of this movie is very funny, but the laughs are deliciously mean spirited. For example, Dawn's perfect little sister Missy often prances around in her tutu while the Nutcracker Suite plays on the soundtrack. Then something happens to Missy that would be disturbing and dramatic in another film, but since Solondz blares the Nutcracker Suite during the scene it becomes funny in a very twisted way. In an early scene, Dawn tries to stick up for a nerd who is being beat up by bullies. When she asks if he's OK what's his reply? "Get away from me Weiner dog!"

This is hands down one of the most accurate depictions of early adolescence I've ever seen. Middle school was not a joyful time for most kids. It was mean, harsh, and confusing. Their bodies were changing in unexpected ways and for the first time they would be exposed to some of the darkest impulses in human nature. Most parents would probably think that this film is inappropriate for middle school children. On the contrary, this film will resonate with them far more deeply than the Hannah Montana movie. Whether parents like it or not, this is how middle school kids talk, think, and act. Trust me, I remember.

10/10

"See it with someone you fuck"

2009-05-15T14:07:00.000-07:00

First of all I'd like to give a big shout out to Cam Smith of Cam's Pop-Culture Episodes for pimping me and my blog on his podcast, which I might contribute to in the near future if I can find something interesting enough to talk about.

In the mean time, check out the trailer for Steven Soderbergh's "The Girlfriend Experience". The film has already gained some notoriety over the fact that it features adult film star Sasha Grey making her mainstream debut as the lead. A simple perusing of the IMDB message boards will show you the kind of vitriol she has inspired in some people. Many have complained that an untrained "whore" with no mainstream credentials managed to obtain the lead role in a Steven Soderbergh film while countless unknown actresses continue to struggle without resorting to pornography. That kind of reaction is to be expected, I guess. But some quick biographical research on Ms. Grey reveals her to be a little more complex than her primary profession implies. She's also a mainstream model - she has appeared in album artwork for Smashing Pumpkins and the Roots - and a musician. She also has a keen interest in existentialism and Jean-Luc Godard. In the film she plays a high end call girl who promises her clients "the girlfriend experience" - kissing, companionship, etc. - and maintains a romantic relationship with a personal trainer.

It already has its detractors on IMDB, who are decrying it for being "boring" and "pretentious". A few trustworthy critics (J. Hoberman in particular) praised the films economical, bare bones style. Soderbergh also cited my favorite film, Ingmar Bergman's "Cries and Whispers", as an influence so I'm especially intrigued. It sounds like the kind of film that most people won't go for, and that's fine. "Wendy and Lucy" was an excellent film, but you wouldn't know it if you cruised the IMDB messageboards. Meditative neo-realism isn't exactly their cup of tea. In any case, this film is already available On Demand, but I'm waiting to see it in theaters and I urge others to do the same, for no other reason than to support smaller art-house theaters. Believe me, they need it. As far as the next blog entry goes, it might be a write up on Atom Egoyan's "The Sweet Hereafter", but I make no promises.

Haphazardly going where no "Star Trek" has gone before.

2009-05-15T01:03:00.000-07:00

First of all, I admit that I'm fucking terrible at keeping promises. "Where's the in depth analysis of 'I'm Not There'? Where's the promised musings on how it relates to Dylan?", you ask. It got lost derailed somewhere between a period of intense apathy followed by finals. Maybe it will resurface someday, maybe not. Now, on to more pressing matters! It's been almost a week since I've seen it, and I've had considerable time to mull over it and absorb the musings of the general public ("This movie fucking rocks!"), the fringe iconoclasts ("J.J. Abrams is no talent hack!) and the people in between ("Set phasers to 'meh'!"). I fall somewhere in between the last two.

"Star Trek", the brain child of sci-fi legend Gene Roddenberry, was a visionary television series that broke racial and gender boundaries, and pondered questions both cosmic and mundane. The crew of the USS Enterprised consisted of distinct, fully formed characters each with their own backstories that would color the way they reacted to the fantastic things found on their voyages. For example, when the crew of the enterprise is greeted by the Greek god Apollo, he proclaims "I am Apollo", the Russian ensign Pavel Chekov retorts "And I am the czar of all Russias!".

So you can see why the news of a Star Trek prequel/reboot directed by J.J. Abrams and promising a young, sexy cast sent many devoted Trekkies in to a tizzy. The good news is that the young, sexy cast is the best part of the film. The bad news is that J.J. Abrams and his screenwriting team are the worst part. The film starts out with a strong foundation, but quickly begins to unravel once - most of - the crew boards the Enterprise for the first time.

The film opens with a nicely done prologue which introduces the main antagonist, a time traveling Romulan captain named Nero (Eric Bana). The prologue also depicts the death of one George Kirk. Wouldn't you know it, his pregnant wife begins to give birth to their son in the seconds counting down to her husbands noble demise. Flash forward to several years later in Iowa, and that infant has grown in to James Tiberius Kirk, and he's a precocious little scamp. He steals an old convertible from his guardians and speeds through the heartland whilst rocking out to the Beastie Boys. Reader, I would be lying if I said that scene didn't slap a big goofy smile on my face. Flash forward some more and Kirk, played by Christopher Pine, is a bar brawling rogue who gets an offer of a lifetime from Christopher Pike (Invaluable Canadian character actor Bruce Greenwood). He says, "You're father was a captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your own. I dare you to do better".

As it turns out, Pike knew which buttons to push and Kirk is soon enrolled in the Starfleet Academy where he meets and instantly befriends Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy (Karl Urban). Many great friendships have begun with the words "I may throw up on you". This is no different. After some nice interludes at the Academy (Kirk makes it with a green chick played by Rachel Nichols and cheats on the Kobayashi Maru) the Starfleet cadets of Bones, Kirk, and Uhura (Zoe Saldana) along with Lieutenant Commander Spock (Zachary Quinto) board the enterprise to investigate a distress call from the planet Vulcan. At this point you can almost feel the movie derailing itself when it launches in to lots of hollow, whiz bang action and special effects.

The action sequences that don't involve space ships suffer from that headache inducing shaky cam technique. A prime example would be the fight between Kirk, Sulu (John Cho),and two Romulans on a giant drill protruding from the Romulan ship. I defy someone to clearly make out what exactly happens in the fight between Kirk and his opponent, and Sulu's simultaneous sword fight - say that three times fast! - is equally murky. When are film makers going to learn that shaky cam only detracts from the excitment of fight scenes by robbing us of the visual energy provided by clearly visible fight choreography? This is not the only flaw with the films visual style, which includes a curiously high use of lense flares and distractingingly showy camerawork during scenes of simple dialogue. Of course, these visual flaws did not bother me as much as they bothered othe r critics, but its certainly worth noting.

And now we get to the script. The script obviously suffers from the fact that the film must reintroduce the already familiar Enterprise crew, and then attempt to create a coherent plot about the Romulan villains plans. To elaborate, Nero travels to an alternate past through a black hole and plans to destroy all of the planets in the Federation. He believes that the Federations negligence was the cause of his home planets destruction. He holds a particular hatred for future Ambassador Spock (Leonard Nimoy) because Spock was the one sent to protect Romulus in the first place. This creates a parallel, alternate past where Kirk has to be told that he and Spock are "destined" to become great friends rather than become friends on their own. All of this sounds fine in writing, but it ends up rather formless and seems like tacked on filler between the big, loud action sequences.

But the movie isn't all bad. I'll be damned if this fresh young cast didn't win me over, and there are some really nice scenes in the beginning and peppered throughout the middle with real character and charm. Pine brings a rebellious, energetic brashness to Kirk that is more cynical than the Shatner portrayal. Quinto does a fine job of balancing Spock's mannered, logical Vulcan quirks with brief moments of humanity. John Cho wisely chooses not to impersonate George Takei and as such inhabits the character of Sulu on his own terms. Anton Yelchin is serviceable as Chekov and Simon Pegg gets shafted since Scotty isn't introduced until a good two thirds in to the movie. There's some inexplicable stunt casting involving Winona Ryder as Spock's human mother Amanda Grayson and Tyler Perry as the head of Starfleet Academy.

The movie doesn't have the quiet thoughtfulness of the television series, nor does it have that sense of exploration and adventure. But some of the action sequences are fun and I'll be damned if the cast didn't win me over in spite of the films many, many flaws. Perhaps the next film will retain the charming cast, but ditch the showy director and hire real screenwriters to give it a better, more thoughtful script. Big box office and an overall seal of critical approval basically ensures a sequel, so perhaps when "Star Trek 2" sets its phaser to "kill" the damn thing won't backfire quite as badly.

5/10

With Apologies To No One In Particular...

2009-04-30T07:25:00.000-07:00

It seems I'm terrible at keeping this updated. I'm not even sure of how many readers I actually have at this point. But in a day or two I'll do a nice big analysis on Todd Haynes' 2007 film "I'm Not There". Until then I expect you, my potentially non existent readers to wait on bated breath. And beginning bating your breath...now!

A brutal journey to the North...

2009-04-26T21:42:00.000-07:00

"Sin Nombre" is the kind of debut that most directors pray for. Cary Joji Fukunaga created a film so confident, so beautiful, so brutal that I'll be looking forward to every film he does from now on. Fukunaga is a Japanese-American, which to some may seem like an odd choice to direct a film about Mexican gang violence and immigration, but producers Diego Luna ("Milk", "Mr. Lonely", "Frida", and "Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights") and Gael Garcia Bernal ("Y Tu Mama Tambien", "The Motorcycle Diaries", and "Blindness") obviously knew what they were doing when working with this first time director. "Sin Nombre" is the kind of film that gives you a slightly deeper understanding of the world around you, but also works as a fabulous entertainment.
The film chronicles the journey of a young Mexican man nicknamed "El Casper" (Edgar Flores) who is a member of the vicious real life Central American gang Mara Salvatrucha. Casper helps recruit a prepubescent boy nicknamed Smiley, who gains his nickname by enduring his initiation beating with a smile. Smiley looks up to the frighteningly tattooed gang leader Lil' Mago (Tenoch Huerta) whose face is inked to resemble an ancient war mask. Lil' Mago is ruthless, but Smiley sees him as a father figure, and possibly a demigod. Even when Lil' Mago extends Smiley's initiation sadistically by counting down twelve seconds repeatedly, Smiley adores him. Its no wonder that Smiley develops in to the most disturbing character in the film. Eventually, Lil' Mago attempts to rape Casper's girlfriend, and ends up killing her. When Casper asks what happened, Lil' Mago chillingly replies "The Devil took her".
One thing leads to another and Casper is on the run from his own mara (gang) along with Sayra (Paulina Gaitan), a South American attempting to cross the border and eventually reach her family in New Jersey. The journey is harrowing, beautiful, and sometimes intense due to the intervention of the Salvatrucha. The cinematography is gorgeous; Mexico breaths with a life all its own as the immigrants ride on the top of a freight train towards the unknown destiny of El Norte. Sometimes passerbys throw fruit at them as a sign of affection, sometimes they throw rocks as a sign of hostility. Nothing is ever certain for these poor souls. However, this film is not trying to beat the viewer over the head with some heavy handed message about immigration. It's simply telling a story, and we get the feeling that there are hundreds, maybe even thousands of other stories just like this one. I particularly liked the way in which Casper was not a Hollywood cliche of a troubled young man looking for redemption; he was simply a confused, sad young man looking to run. But a degree of redemption does manage to find him.
"Sin Nombre" is the kind of riveting foreign film designed for people unaccustomed to foreign film. Some of the dialogue and character interaction seems slightly Anglicized, but that is a minor criticism. It is the kind of film that creates a distinct sense of time and place, and gives the viewer a slightly greater understanding of the way in which various people live. If there's one foreign film that you have to see in 2009, make it "Sin Nombre".

The Death of an Interior Decorator...

2009-04-23T13:03:00.001-07:00

"Interiors" was Woody Allen's first serious drama, released on year after the biggest success of his career, "Annie Hall". Prior to his artistic turning point with "Annie Hall", Allen dealt in screwball comedies. Understandably, critics and movie goers were skeptical in 1978 when they learned that Woody would be releasing a serious film. Many doubted that he could pull it off. Imagine everyone's surprise when "Interiors" was revealed to be superb, and now it certainly ranks among Woody's most finely crafted films. It's up there with "Annie Hall", "Hannah And Her Sisters", "The Purple Rose of Cairo", "Sweet and Lowdown", and "Manhattan".

"Interiors" tells the story of a WASPy Long Island family headed by the matriarch, an interior decorator named Eve played by Geraldine Page. The family is sent reeling by the sudden announcment from Eve's husband that he wants a divorce. Eve is described as a "fragile creature" whose job as an interior decorator is used as a means to channel her compulsion for perfection and absolute control of her surroundings. Or as her husband puts it ,"She built ice castles for us". Her three daughters are Flyn, Joey, and Renata. Flyn (Kristin Griffith) is a Hollywood actress with a cocaine habit, Joey (Mary Beth Hurt) is a frustrated woman with artistic dreams but no talent with which to channel her creative urges, and Renata (Diane Keaton) is a famous poet who is married to a flash in the pan novelist and Hemingway wannabe played by Richard Jordan. Joey's husband is a filmmaker played by Sam Waterston, who has little patience for his mother-in-law's delicate mental state and perfectionism.

At the time, much was made of the films homages to Ingmar Bergman. Some considered it an homage to "Persona", but the static shots in flashbacks and the themes of familial and sisterly discord have more in common with "Cries and Whispers". The greatest influence on the film comes not from Bergman, however, but from Eugene O'Neill's play "A Long Day's Journey Into Night", which Allen admittedly based his screenplay off of. And yet even with this eclectic set of influences and homages and given Allen's previous track record of working strictly with comedy, "Interiors" is a film that is incredibly confident in its own ideas. The dialogue is wonderful, and the exchanges among the sisters and other family members illustrate the layers that exist in human speech, and how sometimes its better to say what we mean by saying what we don't mean. In such a repressed, intellectual family, honesty and forthrightness of speech is considered especially scandalous. I was especially in awe of the costuming and the cinematography; just look at the clothing that the family wear. All combinations of icy grey and muted beige, as if they are simply extentensions of the churning sea and cold sand of the Long Island beach. When the father of the household brings in his new girlfriend named Pearl (Maureen Stapleton), her bright red gowns practically pop of the screen. The intellectual family takes an instant dislike to her frank, down to earth nature, and because she's the only one among them with any vitality she is labeled "a vulgarian" by Joey.

Every scene in "Interiors" is masterfully crafted. The actors all hit the perfect notes with their dialogue, and from start to finish we're riveted by an ominous feeling that we are watching a family quietly implode. Woody would go on to make several dramas over the course of his career, but "Interiors" was his first and his best.

Happy Earth Day!

2009-04-22T16:36:00.000-07:00

I promise I'll put up a blog post with new content, soon, but for now here's an Earth Day playlist!

1. "Never Turn Your Back On Mother Earth" - Neko Case
2. "Cuyahoga" - R.E.M.
3. "Down to Earth" - Peter Gabriel
4. "Monkey Gone to Heaven" - Pixies
5. "Big Yellow Taxi" - Joni Mitchell/Counting Crows
6. "Arbos" - Arvo Pärt
7. "Children Play With Earth" - Arrested Development
8. "Chem Trails" - Beck
9. "Idioteque" - Radiohead
10. "Fall On Me" - R.E.M.
11. "Long Line of Cars" - Cake
12. "Dirty Water" - The Standells
13. "Don't Ask Me" - Public Image Ltd.
14. "Mercy Mercy Me (the Ecology)" - Marvin Gaye
15. "People Have the Power" - Patti Smith
16. "If A Tree Falls" - Bruce Cockburn
17. "Blackened" - Metallica
18. "Rape of the World" - Tracy Chapman
19. "(Nothing But) Flowers" - Talking Heads
20. "This Land Is Your Land" - Woody Guthrie

An immigrant and a good ol' boy develop a relationship in a changing landscape...

2009-04-15T17:48:00.001-07:00

Ramin Bahrani's "Goodbye Solo" achieves what only the best kind of movies can achieve: it leaves the viewer feeling invigorated by its fresh approach to filmmaking. When it's over you feel as though you understand life, people, and what it means to be American a little bit better than you did before the film began.

This is Bahrani's third film after 2005's "Man Push Cart," and 2007's "Chop Shop." Both movies are about immigrants living in America, how they survive, and how they deal with the realities of the American Dream.

In a Q & A after the screening, Bahrani elaborated on his treatment of immigrants in America: "Even though 'Chop Shop' contains a primarily Latino cast, you're not going to see any Latin dancing. And even though the main character of 'Goodbye Solo' was a Senegalese immigrant I obviously didn't include any African drumming."

Bahrani himself is an Iranian-American from North Carolina where he said that the population essentially consisted of, "White people, some black people, and then there was my family." Because of the fact that he felt slightly out of place growing up, he makes films about immigrants to illustrate the fact that immigrants are not "visitors." Rather, he believes that they are the representatives of a new American population.

Indeed there is no African drumming in "Goodbye Solo," because, as an audience member pointed out, Bahrani wisely does not "knock [the viewer] over the head with cultural diversity." These characters are just as American as everyone else, and they are not defined by their cultural heritage. Bahrani has been hailed as "the new great American director" by Roger Ebert, and A.O. Scott proclaimed that Bahrani-along with Kelly Reichardt who directed 2008's sublimely naturalistic "Wendy and Lucy," and Ryan Fleck who directed 2006's powerful "Half Nelson"-represents a fledgling movement in American filmmaking which Scott terms "neo-neo realism."

As Scott says: "A handful of young American directors are making clear-eyed movies for hard times."

In this climate of economic recession and uncertainty, the most powerful and accurate portraits of American life must be taken with quiet, unflinching realism.

The film itself has a simple story: a potentially suicidal southern man named William (Red West) hires a Senegalese immigrant cabby named Solo (Souléymane Sy Savané) to drive him to Blowing Rock National park in 10 days time. When Solo asks him if he wants to be driven back, William simply stares. Disturbed, Solo asks him what he plans to do at the top of Blowing Rock. William simply says, "mind your own fucking business." No, this film is not "Driving Miss Daisy" for the new millennium, far from it. Solo is kind hearted, but he is far from simple minded. He quickly figures out the nature of William's trip to Blowing Rock, and from the moment William enters his cab, Solo senses such intense sadness that he is moved to help in any way he can.

Solo makes sure that whenever William requests a cab, the dispatcher will assign the fare to him. Before long, the two men become a part of each others lives, even though William doesn't want any part in Solo's life and doesn't want Solo to have any part in his. William meets Solo's family, which includes his pregnant wife Quiera (Carmen Leyva), and Quiera's young daughter Alex (Diana Franco Galindo). Alex is an exceptionally bright and perceptive young girl, and her intelligence manages to amaze even William. William even becomes somewhat proud of the gifted young girl, stating "Alex is so smart. I wonder who she will become."

Part of Bahrani's technique involves allowing the faces of the actors to provide emotional context, and like most great filmmakers Bahrani knows that the human face provides information more artfully than action or expository dialogue. Bahrani, much like Kelly Reichardt recognizes that the most powerful experiences in human relationships come from the things that are left unsaid. And with the character of William the things that are left unsaid all seem to point to a man whose life is full of regrets, a man who is left with nothing but bitterness and melancholy in the twilight of his American Dream. Most of the credit here belongs to the wonderful acting from Red West and Souléymane Sy Savané, whose faces and speech patterns seem to embody the souls of their characters. West was a childhood friend of Elvis Presley, and grew up to become one of the King's most trusted bodyguards. After Presley's death West moved on to acting where he had character roles in the films of legendary directors such as Oliver Stone and Robert Altman along with some stunt work and bit roles. His craggy, weathered features are perfect for playing a geriatric, good ol' boy whose general disposition is to look mean.

Savané is a fashion model from the Ivory Coast, and he perfectly portrays a man who is clever, easy going, and capable of unconditional kindness. As Bahrani said in his Q & A, "Goodbye Solo" is a film about the extent of human kindness, and how far someone will go to help a person that they care for or even love. It's also about how two people who have no reason to like each other, with completely different cultural backgrounds and nothing in common, could develop such a relationship

"Goodbye Solo" will be coming back to Philadelphia in May. It's the kind of movie that makes you realize that 90 percent of the films that are being released in this country today are simply products being marketed by big studios, there is no personal vision

If you're content to simply go to a movie so that you can watch some flashing pictures with some background noise, and then promptly forget about everything you've just seen as soon as the credits begin to roll, so be it. But to those who don't fit in to that category, go see "Goodbye Solo." I promise you that you will feel more alive when the film has ended.

Originally printed in SJU's The Hawk: April 8th, 2009

"The time has come", the Walrus said "To talk of many things..."

2009-04-15T17:22:00.000-07:00

Points to anyone that can complete the quote above. Is the above quote pretentious? Absolutely. Evocative? Somewhat. Pointless? Not entirely. But I do feel like a complete fucking tool writing a blog introduction. As should anyone intent on writing one, because when I list what this blog is going to cover it makes me sound like one of those writer-y douche bags who lists esoterica in order to intimidate potential readers. So in order to keep the douche level to a minimum, I'm going to keep it short and sweet. This blog is going to shamelessly ape Jim Emerson's "Scanners" blog insofar as the theme is going to be basically the same: the blog is going to be primarily about critical thought, but the occasional personal rantings may make their way in to it, hence the "Confessions" title. The primary form of criticism I'm interested in is film criticism, although music, literature, television, general pop culture, and whatever else I find worth mulling over. So, dear readers - God, I despise Jane Eyre! - I hope you'll enjoy and ocassionally comment, because there's nothing I enjoy more than lively discussion!