What took you so long?

After a long wait, the next installment of the Bond franchise is finally here, and it was well worth the wait. After the last Bond film, I went in to the latest addition to the reboot of the 50 year old franchise with some hesitation. However, the third film in the triumvirate of Daniel Craig films picks up the slack left by The Quantum of Solace and then some, a masterful transition between the earlier films, dominated by a stripped down and gritty version of the Bond universe as the franchise moves into known and loved territory. Skyfall gives plenty of nods to fans of the franchise of elements missing (and perhaps missed) in the earlier films. Some subtle, some not so much, many of the classic elements are reintroduced in this film and will have fans of the gadgets, cars, and bond girls cheering as they pave the way for the next films to delve back into this territory. As a person who has not necessarily been a fan of the Bond films before Daniel Craig's reign, due to a certain level of cheese, and perhaps even camp in some of the films, I found myself cheering at the reappearance of characters such as Q, and the allusion to the way Bond takes his drink.

The cinematography is beautiful, and the use of surfaces and reflections stunning to create layers and depth to the screen. Of particular beauty, watch for the scene in Shanghai where the lights and moving image that surround you in big cities make for an incredibly visually powerful scene. Also, it is refreshing to see a modern action film that is not afraid of long takes to allow the scene to unfold, and in this film, perhaps one of the best scenes is the introduction of the villain, Silva (Javier Bardem) as he walks onscreen, slowly filling the frame in one long shot and dominating every scene he is in after. The performance of Bardem steals the show, creating a character who will go down as one of the best villains in Bond history. He is simply magnificent. As the creators of the best villains know, the best villains have something imminently likeable about them (think of the levels of charm, grace and attractiveness of many of Hitchcock's villains, for example). Silva is evil, and insane...perhaps with some reason as the story unfolds, but it is impossible not to like him, and Bardem dominates the screen every second he is on it.

Finally, one of the best elements of this film is the fact that Mendes is unafraid to slow down the beginning and take time to reflect. While the movie begins with a high speed chase, Mendes slows down a notch and takes a moment to pause. The first half of the film is about the failings of the Bond institution. The mistakes (or not) that M has made. Bond himself, as the film concentrates on his aging body. In this trilogy where Bond's body is his ultimate tool, since he lacks much of the gadgetry of earlier films, the slow deterioration of his physical abilities calls his position as an agent into question. He is perhaps himself becoming too old for the job. His aim falters, his hand shakes. We see more of his origin story, and find out more about Bond's youth. It is a perfect way to round of the first trilogy of the reboot. Even if Craig is coming back, this feels like the perfect way to wrap up this gritty era of Bond and bring it full circle back to the feel of the original films (although, hopefully they won't lose all of the grit and darkness that have become the style of the new films), and it is exciting for fans and newer viewers of the series alike. While I could go on about how much I liked this film, and how all the elements fit together perfectly, I will concluded here. All of these elements add up for an incredible film, one highly worth seeing, and seeing in the theater. Rating=A

My Kingdom for a Blunderbuss!

As always, a warning about spoilers! Looper, perhaps one of the more anticipated films of the fall, judging by the lines at the theater, does not disappoint. The story is tight and involving, the film has strong performances, and the world built is a believable extension of our own (i.e., they have some flying cars, but most are old beat up hybrids that have solar panels strapped to them. Little details like making not everyone wealthy enough to own expensive gadgetry is a nice touch in an effort towards a sense of believability in this as America’s future).

So, let the spoilers begin! While this is a science fiction story, the strongest element of it is the journey of the main character, and I don’t just mean through time. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Joe, a young “looper”, who exterminates people sent back to him by a crime lord in the future (the “Rainmaker”). He knows, as do all loopers, that one day, they will be killing themselves, and thus closing the loop. I won’t go too much into detail, because it’s fun to watch and discover on your own. Needless to say, if you’ve seen the trailer, when Bruce Willis comes back as his future self, Joe can’t kill him, thus setting up the main conflict of the film. What I want to discuss though, is the fact that this film reminds me in certain ways, of some of Hitchcock’s work. Not obviously, so let me explain. As one Hitchcock scholar likes to point out, Hitchcock’s films are all about the journey from personality to person. The characters start out as outlines for people, stereotypes, or personalities. As the film progresses, and their relationships with other people along with it, they become rounded, complete characters. While the plots aren’t meaningless, they are often not the main point. Yes, the narrative is wonderful, but the characters are what make Hitchcock’s films great. I would argue the same about Looper. The story is about a man—junkie, killer, amoral, and incredibly selfish. What he does, and lets happen for money is terrible and he knows it, but can’t let it go. He thinks he can buy his way out of his problems. Even future Joe is the same way. He is still ultimately driven by more selfish motives. But the movie goes on, and in the true personality to person style, Joe develops more and more as his relationships with a young woman (Emily Blunt) and her son grows after he ends up on their doorstep looking for help.

The science fiction and time travel aspects are solid, even though it might be best not to look too closely at this part, as there would be major gaps and pitfalls, as there are in most time travel movies. It avoids a lot of the traps that these other films, while stronger sci-fi, can fall into trying to wrap up all their loose ends because in the end, Johnson reaches in, and virtually makes the time travel moot (he closes a loop in a very nicely executed, not quite deus ex machina move). While it's a great and essential part of the story, it’s not the science fiction that matters the most, but Joe’s journey and personhood, and his relationship to the other characters. Time travel is simply the way he finds himself (although, perhaps ironically, it is not the time traveling self that achieves it). That’s the main loop of the story, and it is brought to a close beautifully as Joe learns to act in someone's interest other than his own. Definitely a movie to see!

Warning: the movie is quite graphic, and is rated R for a reason. I still recommend it highly.

For love of the theatre

I have been sorely lacking in reviews recently, and the only excuse I can make is that I’ve spent all that time sitting in a theater watching The Dark Knight Rises over and over. So, I will try to play catch-up with the movies that I have seen this summer that I feel are worthy of comment. However, I want to devote this post to a description of my favorite theater in Los Angeles, and potentially the world (although I don’t know yet, since I’m still trying to get to all of them) for those who have not been fortunate enough to go to it. One of my favorite things about the movies is the experience of them in public, in a venue that’s sole purpose is the escapist adventure that is movie going. Even if you see a documentary, you escape from your own world to enter someone else’s, and from the moment you buy your ticket and walk through the doors, to when you exit, crawling out of the darkness and into the real world, the experience of movie-going is one of the more valuable entertainments since its inception in the late 19th, early 20th century.

One theater that gets the movie experience incredibly right is the Vista Theatre in Los Feliz, at the apex of the gigantic intersection of Hillhurst, Sunset Blvd., Hollywood Blvd., and Sunset Dr. It is one of the scarier and more confusing intersections that I have experience, but it is well managed, and there is nothing like the confusion of not being quite sure if you are, in fact, turning down the road you meant to. You may, of course, walk to the theater, but it takes approximately 7 minutes to cross the street, since there are only 3 crosswalks that you can use to get there, and with 6 or 7 directions of oncoming traffic, it takes time for the little man to light up, meaning you can finally safely cross to your destination. Of course, you can see the Vista and know its purpose long before you actually stand under the large signboard advertising the film currently playing. Neon green and pink lights advertise the theater, and a thrill runs through you as you recognize this experience as different from the normal multiplex, and somehow linked with past movie-goers and times in a vintage experience. The design and style are obviously older, and you feel you are part of history as you walk up to the entrance. The walk up to the ticket window is lined with handprints from sponsors of the theater, walking up the slight incline to the ticket booth outside the theater reminds you of old black and white movies you have seen. You may or may not have to stand back on the side of the road then, it depends on how popular the movie you are going to see is, and whether or not it’s opening night. The Vista is quite popular.

After the appropriate amount of anticipation has built up, and you feel connected to the other movie-goers somehow even though you all stand in your individual parties. The manager has been talking to patrons dressed as a character from the movie you are about to see (he has been The Phantom, Captain America, Jack Sparrow, Batman, and many more), and finally, he opens the doors about 15 minutes before the movie begins. You hand him your ticket and walk inside, already excited by the intrusion of the fantastical into the everyday through the manager’s costume, and are immediately transported into an even more fantastical experience. The lobby is decorated with faux hieroglyphics painted onto the walls, and palm branches above them. The concession stand is right in front of you, small and prominent, and the lobby is still lined with cardboard cutouts for the latest films. However you have already been blown away from the uniqueness and personality that assail you, so different from the bright lights and blaring screens that adorn so many larger cinemas. Once you have your popcorn, candy, or soda, you head into the theater, and stop short. The walls are lined with Egyptian statues, staring down at the audience through blank eyes. A plush red curtain covers the screen, and to either side, speakers are masked by intricate golden screens with snakes. Large, conic lighting fixtures create a soft lighting scheme, and give the room texture, and there is so much space in the room, aided in appearance by the fact that the walls are not painted black, that you just breath in the room for a minute, taking in the décor, and the music playing from somewhere overhead. As you walk down the aisle to choose a seat, you wonder about the history of the theater, because it looks like it belongs to the group of old theaters that were exotically themed (Egypt, China, and Persia were all popular) to draw in audiences. However, your friend tells you that in fact, The Mummy had their premier here in the 90s, and since the theater had fallen into disrepair, they revamped everything for that. When they asked the owner if he wanted them to take it down after, he said no, and you think it was perhaps the best decision ever.

Choosing seats, the first thing you notice is how much leg-space there is. You can stick your legs straight in front of you, and not come close to hitting the chair in the row ahead. During the movie, patrons will be able to get up and leave without the jostle and whispered apologies that usually accompany theaters trying to cram as many people in as possible, and you have decided already that this is your favorite theater in town for that reason alone. Finally, as the lights dim, and old-fashioned cartoon plays with a catchy song telling the audience, “Let’s all go to the lobby, to get ourselves a treat”. The vintage ad only increases the antique feeling of the experience, and you almost forget what you are seeing as trailers play, and then an announcement to turn off cellphones. These are faded and worn, and the switch to the new movie is something of a shock, but you settle down in the comfy chairs to enjoy it. After the credits roll, and the lights come up, you remember where you are and look around in wonder at the décor of the room as patrons get up to leave. You shuffle up and out into the light, and leave the small lobby behind as you walk, either to your car, parked on one of the streets in the surrounding residential neighborhood (but not the first one, because that one only has 2 hour parking unless you have a permit), or you head off into the evening, the sign lit up and glowing behind you as the theater gets ready to let in its next crowd to be charmed, enchanted and entertained.

New name!

How exciting, this blog has a new name! Let me know what you think! And until my next post, just bask in the fact that Cougar Town got picked up, despite being under a new show runner, by TBS. Yay!!

Snow White and the Huntsman

Please be aware, this review contains spoilers.

The trend for retelling fairy tales in recent years, while popular, has seemed to me to have produced mostly mediocre works that attempt to pull major twists on genre, plot or characterization, and often fall quite short (Beastly, Red Riding Hood, Mirror Mirror, etc. to name a few). Fairy tales focus on the psyche, and use the fantastical to project our own fears, wishes and personalities onto a safe screen to deal with them. Unfortunately, most of the recent re-tellings do not succeed in this. While there have been exceptions to this rule, (for example, Tangled, which I discuss later), for the most part, these films have been focused on glitz and glamor versus a more substantial engagement with the purpose and use of fairy tales. Snow White and the Huntsman is no different in this regard, except for perhaps the number of people that will go see it due to its star power and production budget. As an avid lover of fairy tales, I am unashamed to admit that Snow White was one of the films that I most looked forward to for this summer. Potential for strong female leads, a wonderful looking trailer due to an elaborate and intricate production design, and a strong cast (say what you will about Twilight, anyone who can make Bella Swan remotely human is a good actress), Snow White held a lot of promise. However, it is clear that in the case of this film, once again, all the focus went in to making the film very glossy, and very little went into the actual story. The scripts is one of the worst that I have experienced, with little for Stewart, Theron, and Hemsworth to do, as none of them are given tasks up to their abilities. There are layers hinted at for the characters, particularly Ravenna (the evil queen), and the Huntsman, however they are only hints at dark and torturous, and are left unexplored and un-characterized in favor of detailing the world and its minutia. I am a huge fan of complex story worlds, and perhaps Universal is setting up for a continuing story universe, especially given the way the film draws to a close. However, I found myself completely lacking any interest in the characters, merely because they are not the focus of the story. Snow White, whose main attributes are her innocence and purity (although, lip service is given to her “defiant spirit” in the beginning, is one note and boring, and apparently it is her beauty and goodness alone that inspire all these men to follow her. This leads to one of my main frustrations, because they movie seems very confused about what direction to take with her. She’s innocent and pure, but they also want to dress her in a suit of armor and have her fight in the final battle (and don’t get me started on how heavy that would actually be…especially for a girl who has supposedly been locked in a tower for 10 years). Ok...but pick one! Anyone who has seen or read anything good about female knights (Tamora Pierce's Tortall Universe features some great ones, as does Game of Thrones) knows how much work and effort goes into what is extremely physical, and what would have been considered an extremely unfeminine profession. It's okay if she can magically know how to fight and manage to hold herself upright under plate armor because hey, this means that reductive stereotyping in terms of personality is okay because look, she's been masculinized! See, she's holding a sword! And she's leading these people because...why again? Oh yes, because she's so pure and innocent! She likes wildlife! And she said the Our Father earlier (somewhat confusingly-so, we are in the real world?), so you know she's an angel! But I guess to appease any of those feminist people, she can fight too. See! She isn't only defined by innocence and purity! Except she is, and we are constantly reminded of it, which makes it harder and harder to take her seriously, as she is given virtually no motivation except for her goodness, and the vague mention of her as "the one". I guess she's kind of "plucky" as she has been called, but Stewart is called on to do so little except stand around with tears in her eyes, it's hard to get a sense of the character. Which brings me to the question of the romance. While I love making female characters strong and individualistic, I do admit to sometimes wanting the schloppy romance. This film steers pretty well clear of that, which has pros and cons I think (more later). The writer's start off by giving Stewart and Hemsworth a bit of sexual tension (and I mean, it’s not subtle or anything. He rips her skirt off for heaven’s sake), and completely abandon it once he finds out who she is (perhaps word of her innocence and purity had spread throughout the land? I don’t know). Heaven forbid she be tainted by a little actual sexuality. (Seriously, her first kiss has disastrous consequences). I do admire the aspect of her independence at the end of the film (you’ll see), but that was pretty much the only redeeming thing for her to me. The inconsistencies in her characterization show a lack of a true idea of who these characters are, which adds to a lack of feeling of any sense of connection between any of them. Am I supposed to care about her because she's the embodiment of all that is good? It might have helped if there was a little interaction between the adult Stewart and Theron's characters before the end of the film. I’m guessing there was a love triangle, but it was so poorly developed that I didn’t care at all about it. And the strongest relationship should have been between Snow White and Ravenna. Which brings me to Tangled. The best thing about Tangled was how it got so much right about mother daughter relationships. The original point of the evil stepmother was to allow children who felt angry or did not like aspects about their own mothers to safely displace these emotions onto another figure, who acted as the opposite of the figure of a caring, nurturing mother. (for a great discussion, see Maria Tatar’s The Hard Facts of the Grimms’ Fairy Tales). Bruno Bettelheim posited the theory that this allows for a splitting of the mother into a good (and absent) biological mother and an evil stepmother, preventing one from feeling guilty about being angry with one’s own mother. In Tangled, Mother Gothel has cared and nurtured for Rapunzel since she was a baby (does anyone else feel a little sympathy for the fact that she obviously was the one doing all the 3 a.m. feedings?), but in the true spirit of fairy tales, turns out to be an evil monster. I would have liked to see this kind of complexity from Snow White and the Huntsman, instead of a vilification from pretty much the beginning, with very little to humanize Ravenna. Even flashbacks to her past can’t make you empathize with her because she is such a monster.

Also, in brief, as alluded to before, are my issues with the romance of the story (there really almost isn't any). Yes, I like the fact that it stays away from many of the traditioanl pitfalls or teen movies here, but again, it can't decide what to be. Sure, they don't spend time building the romance...so why does Snow White still have to be kissed awake? And gosh darn it, if you try to set up a love triangle, I want there to be at least some heat between love interests. There isn’t any here, mostly because we don’t get many scenes with them actually interacting. I mean, the movie is named Snow White and the Huntsman. They should have more than, I don't know, 5 lines spoken to each other. There is so little dialogue between any of the lovers, that when Hemsworth has a monologue about Snow White, I am left completely unconvinced--not to mention the fact that she is unconscious at this time (SPOILER: except, interestingly, one of his lines is that she reminds him of his wife, who just died, so in this case, she is an interesting rebound case…another element that could have been brought up to complicate the characters, but wasn’t, and still, doesn't point to their connection, but to his and his dead wife's. Still, unconsciousness aside, I guess Snow heard it because of all the tears that leak out once she awakens by his smooch). END SPOILER. Several of the action scenes could have been cut in favor of more development between these characters—I’m thinking specifically of the fight with the troll, who is stopped in its tracks by staring deeply into Snow White’s eyes. Please. Why not cut this, which doesn’t advance the plot or the characterization (yes, I get it, she’s pure and innocent, and will save everyone) and in its place, add some actual human interaction. But I guess when your relationship is built on tears, gorgeous hair and beautiful biceps, who needs conversation? Side note: after seeing the wonderful sequence in Game of Thrones in “Blackwater”, and Tyrion Lannister’s rousing speech of “Those are brave men knocking at that gate. Let’s go kill them!”, Stewart’s overblown and preposterous rallying speech in this film rivaled Elizabeth Swan’s in POTC: At World’s End in terms of laughableness. I almost couldn’t keep a straight face. And when I say almost, I mean couldn’t. That’s right, I laughed. I do want to take a moment however, to mention the production design, which is gorgeous. The costumes are amazing, particularly Ravenna’s. There is wonderful imagery built around her and her connections to ravens (see, she’s named Ravenna, and she’s linked with ravens, which are a bird portending doom in many cultures. Get it? Get it?). The dreary and murky tone of the movie really works well, with brief splashes of color popping out. The CGI is wonderful in places, making textures interesting and creepy, particularly again in the palace of the queen (it is somewhat overdone and cheesy in the spiritualized “sanctuary” where the dwarfs take Snow White and the Huntsman. And I mean, Once Upon a Time cheesy. It doesn’t work here, while it does work in the tv show). However, the dark forest is pretty great, specifically when Snow White accidentally takes a trip on some hallucinogenic mushrooms, and images reminiscent of Disney’s 1937 Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. In addition, much of the action is pretty good. Snow White’s escape from the castle in particular is one of the only really well paced sequences in the film (due in large part, I’m sure, to the lack of gratuitous slow motion in this one section). One of the main characters is also an archer (which I am always a sucker for ever since the Legolas days), and the choreography is very nice in many of the hand to hand combat sequences. The metallic phantom warriors were also quite impressive, and executed well. All in all, not the re-imagining that I was hoping for. Instead of infusing creativity and vitality into an old story, and re-telling it to fit society’s hopes and fears today, we are left with a paltry eye candy piece that wants to be too many mediocre things instead of trying to be one, unified, stunning piece. It had potential, and if you can find a cheap screening, I would see it I guess. Try not to be too disappointed though. If you want a really solid movie version of Snow White (besides Disney's that is), try the 1997 film "Snow White: A Tale of Terror", with Sigourney Weaver, which features far more humanizing characterizations and relationships. Also interestingly for those of you who might like this, (I'm looking at the somewhat more feminist among you), Snow White is not awakened with True Love's first kiss, but by her love interest (well some things don't change), shaking her violently until the piece of apple lodged in her throat gets coughed up. He's shouting "Breathe" at her all the while, and it's quite entertaining. Here's a trailer for it, and I definitely recommend this one. My rating: C+

Into the Abyss

I have been so busy during the Master's program at USC that I hardly find time to write on this blog anymore except about films that really move me in some way. Perhaps it is a sign of how good Werner Herzog's new documentary "Into the Abyss" is that I am inspired to post a review even though I have not done so in so long. But the feeling I left with after this film is one that I would like others to experience, so I am encouraging you to go and see it.

To say it is a film about the death penalty is, I think, to miss some of the point of the film. It is about so much more. It is about an inmate on death row, and the circumstances surrounding how he got there--a senseless crime, families affected, the general nature of the death penalty in the state of Texas. However, one of the things I admire so much about this film is Herzog's respect for his subjects within the film, and the lack of pontification the film shows. Herzog does have a point of view, and in the style that is uniquely his, it comes across strongly through the film. So many documentarians seem to hide behind "facts", or let the facts tell the story because they think it will make their film less biased, or more interesting or something. However, anyone who thinks that any film can be made without a point of view is simply wrong. There is no way to divorce film maker from film entirely, and trying to remove yourself as a documentarian to prove the validity of the film only seems to me to make it weaker a lot of the time. Herzog does not give easy answers to the questions he poses. The perpetrator on death row is obviously guilty. However, Herzog refuses cheap tricks of vilification. We do not need emphasis on their villainy to feel for the victims' families, or understand the senseless nature of the heinous crime. However, the refusal to see the perpetrators as other than human adds layers of meaning, depth and truth to the film. One of the wonderful things about "Into the Abyss" is Herzog's presence within the film. Not quite a narrator, he still gives us a center from which to view what he is showing us, and shows the care that he has for filmmaking and the interest he has in this subject.

In what for me was a very great treat, Herzog was present to answer questions after the screening of the film at USC, and one of the points that came up was the revelation of truth vs. the spewing of facts. Because facts are not truth--I suppose in cases they can help lead you to it. However, truth is deeper, less tangible and more engrossing than mere facts. It is here that the power of Herzog's latest documentary lies. He does not seek facts, but truth--raw, emotional reality beyond questions of blame and guilt, beyond the espousal of political ideologies or the support of issues. "Into the Abyss" feels balanced in this sense, and does not feel that it must beat its audience over the head with its message. It (and Herzog) trusts the audience to bring themselves to the film, and draw what they will from it. While this is not to say that Herzog does not have an agenda with this film, for the point of view he takes comes across through his construction of the film, I think the respect Herzog shows with his subjects he extends to his audience. If they are coming to see the film, he respects them (and his own film-making) enough to let the story unfold visually, and cinematically without the need to beat an ideological standpoint into the ground.

This is not to say that that type of film-making does not have its place as well--however I find the story of "Into the Abyss" far more compelling and truthful than these films. The film is raw and real, and seeks out truth instead of seeking blame or guilt. The authorial presence lends a humanism to the film, and even in surprising moments a touch of the humor that Herzog often infuses into his films. I went into the movie expecting it to be depressing--how could a movie about the death penalty not be? While the movie is desperately sad, and deals with many of the worst events imaginable, Herzog deals with the subject so skillfully that I did not leave the theater feeling the impossible weight of the world bearing down on me as I have from documentaries about much less serious topics. Herzog weaves in small stories of hope, stories of heroism, and stories of love that are beautiful to behold. See especially, the story of a young man in a bar fight, stabbed with a long screwdriver, who didn't pick up a knife tossed at him to retaliate because he wanted to be able to go home and see his children that night. Look at the man who worked strapping down inmates to receive lethal injections, and after 125 could not justify a belief that anyone should be able to take a life any longer. And in the end, it seems to me that while the story is about death, it is also about life, and the importance of life. And this is what is inspiring about it even in its darkest, most abysmal moments.

Fish in the Toilet of Love

Look out for spoilers! (Also, title is nothing but a reference to the brilliant British show Coupling, however I think it is apt for this post).

Well, after seeing Jane Eyre, spring break turned into a Fassbender fest for me, and I watched everything I could get my hands on with him in it that I hadn’t already seen. While watched last year’s Fish Tank, I was struck by its similarities to 2009’s An Education. Similarities abound--disaffected youth, instability of a family unit, affair with an older, married man. It was quite surprising how similar they are in ways. However, Fish Tank is a far superior film, and far less pretentious about being so.


Carey Mulligan was called the next Audrey Hepburn by someone after her role in An Education, and she is quite stunning in the movie. The film is well written, well acted and keeps you involved. It takes place in 1960s England, and takes great care to let you know how cool it is (she likes French New Wave cinema, and all the ‘cool’ trappings that go with that supposedly ‘anti-bourgeois’ art crowd. However, of course, An Education itself is not concerned with questions of class or race at all. Some mention of financial hardship is present (oh dear, how shall we ever afford Oxford?), however the characters lead a comfortable lives. Peter Sarsgaard is wealthier than her family, but the differences are not that pronounced, except that he can afford to take her on a trip to Paris. At the end, I couldn’t help rolling my eyes a bit as the main character says how she looks like everyone at Oxford, yet is so different on the inside. Okay, I get it, she was affected by this older man she slept with and her youthful dreams of a perfect marriage were forever shattered. However, she was able to pick herself up by her shoelaces and get back her scholarship to freaking Oxford. Boo hoo.


Fish Tank tells the story of Mia, a 15 year old girl who lives with her incredibly young mother and little sister--all of whom appear to hate each other, and are constantly yelling and cussing each other out. They are incredibly poor (“those track suits cost 20 quid”), and Mia is about to get sent to a referral school because her behavior is so out of control. Mia’s mother brings home a new boyfriend, Connor (Fassbender!), and from the start, a great amount of sexual tension dances between them. The film is wonderfully shot and has an incredible soundtrack that amps this all up, until the inevitable happens. The difference, and more believable/miserable reality of this film is that Mia has nowhere to go; it exposes the fallacy of class mobility (sure, it happens once in a blue moon I suppose, but not nearly so much as we would like to think). She tries to get ahead through the one thing she loves, dancing, however her opportunity here too turns out to be a cruel joke by the universe. Similarly, the class struggle of the film is heightened by the fact that Connor(spoiler) really belongs to the middle class, even though you don’t know this for most of the film and read him as part of the working class, like them. There are uncomfortable connotations of his “slumming” with Mia’s family, and her reactions to this knowledge are uncontrollable and frightening. While not a film about race and class, the racial aspect of class is not ignored such as it kind of is in An Education, and presents itself through Mia’s choice of music and dance styles, which have linked black and working class populations in Britain for decades (see Dick Hebdige’s work on subcultures for greater analysis of this). While the end of the film does resolve her struggles with her mother and sister, and she escapes the building she’s in, she doesn’t get to escape to one of the world’s finest educational institutions, but to Wales. Her’s isn’t a vertical track, it’s horizontal. You can’t help getting the feeling too, that her sister will end up trapped just like she is in the end.


Katie Jarvis is absolutely wonderful as the prickly, aggressive and defensive Mia, who is angry at the world that ignores and doesn’t care about her. Michael Fassbender is wonderful as Connor, who doesn’t seem so bad, is wildly charismatic, but turns out to be scum. While I enjoyed An Education, Fish Tank is unquestionably the better and more meaningful film, that feels like it’s about actual people, vs. that film that you know you’re supposed to like, but it can’t quite escape the feeling of staged-ness, or the feeling that it really should be a book (which it is).

My favorite movie for the Oscars!

Any movie that uses Beethoven's Symphony No. 7 in A major automatically goes into my category of excellent films. I thought that I would take a moment to discuss a movie that I just saw, and is likely to be up for best picture at the Oscars. It has already been nominated for a Golden Globe, and I must say, it is one of my favorites of the year as well.

"The King's Speech" stars Colin Firth as King George VI and Geoffrey Rush as his elocution and speech 'teacher' Lionel Logue. Like all movies I end up loving, it took some forcing myself to go see it. I was much more excited about the tense, anxiety inducing thriller "Black Swan"...which I also loved. However, Colin Firth in particular (but also Geoffrey Rush, who I don't think has ever given a bad performance) is so incredible, I found myself mesmerized by a person I have never had any interest in whatsoever. In the film (and perhaps in real life? I confess to not being familiar with much about this era of British history), King George ("Bertie") talks funny--and I don't mean the stammer (perhaps some of you are familiar with the distinct manners of elocution around that time...several Hollywood personalities talked in a similar manner). He has a temper, cowers at times in the face of his brother and father, and is like much royalty, reticent about his emotions, past, and much about himself.

It is a testament to Colin Firth's extraordinary performance then, as well as the direction of Tom Hooper and screenplay by David Seidler, that these elements do not come across to make us dislike the character. We are rather more endeared to him because of these traits, and the film manages to build Firth's and Rush's, characters with very little exposition (always the mark of a fine film). If anyone has ever had to speak in public, it is quite a nerve-wracking experience. For a person with a speech impediment, it must be ten times worse. The film brings this anxiety out-not with pity or derision, but simply as a hurdle this man must face to perform his job (being king...). Still, at the climactic moment (cue Beethoven!), the gravity of the situation and the importance of the struggles of the king are executed beautifully as he makes a solemn speech to his subjects on the entrance of England into WWII, linking his personal story with the overarching history to which royalty especially is invariably intertwined.

It is a movie that deals wonderfully with the subject of royalty as well, and the manner that Albert and Elizabeth (Helena Bonham-Carter) fulfill their duties while others are not perhaps up to the challenge. Also, the manner in which commoners interact and do(not) necessarily comprehend what it still means to be the king (or queen...). "Black Swan" was wonderful for its excess, the story (even though it's not the most original idea...), and of course, Natalie Portman was wonderful. And I'm a sucker for a movie about dancing. However, "The King's Speech, with its understatement, and masterful performances, is exquisite. It deserves to win, and while it may lose out to the larger box office of films such as "Black Swan" or "Social Network", "The King's Speech" is my personal pick. At least, for now.

Master of Suspense

Well, I'm finally settled here in Los Angeles, working on my Master's Degree! I realize that the consistency of my posts is shaky at best, but I thought I would just keep plugging away, and try to keep up. At least you know that the movies that I do talk about are the ones that truly inspire me to write about them. That being said, let's get down to it!

I am working for the University of Southern California at the moment, in the capacity of a 'reader' for a class taught by Dr. Drew Casper on the subject of Alfred Hitchcock. Basically, I sit in on the class, do the readings, and then I grade the papers of the undergraduates assigned to me. The class has met 3 times now, I believe. We have worked our way through Hitchcock's silet films and British sound films, and next week, we'll move on to his Hollywood career.

I wanted to take a moment though, and recognize two films that I was particularly impressed with, seeing that not many people give as much thought to his British films as his Hollywood ones. While his Hollywood classics such as Vertigo, Spellbound, The Birds, and of course Psycho remain his most popular and widely viewed work, it is the films that he made during his time in Britain that helped raise him to the level of master.

In particular, the two films that speak to me are "The 39 Steps"(1935) and "The Lady Vanishes" (1938). Hitchcock has darker films, and films that mix light and dark, and the element of slapstick that goes into these two films is perhaps what draws me, personally, to them more than his other films (which have, arguably, greater technical merit). Hitchcock was a master at blending genres, and these two films, while very different, are similar in that they are a combination of suspense, action, adventure, mystery, thriller, and romantic comedy.

We'll start chronologically, with "The 39 Steps". Starring Robert Donat and Madeleine Carroll, this film centers around a man who gets dragged into a game of espionage and intrigue involving national secrets that are about to be smuggled out of the country. After assisting an agent, who then gets murdered in his apartment, he is on the flee from the bad guys, the government-everyone basically, until he can clear his name. One of the points that is continually brought up in class is how Hitchcock's stories rely on character-it is how he successfully builds suspense, and why his stories are so gripping. He often takes flat, morally ambiguous characters at the beginning and takes them on a journey towards greater humanism and personality. This film is no different, which the character of Richard Hannay (Donat) taking on multiple character roles as masks as he makes his journey through the film. Madeleine Carroll takes the role of the 'cool blond', who starts out hindering Hannay as much as the rest, but also goes through a transformation of character and greater depth as the film goes on. The best scene, in my opinion, occurs after these two have been handcuffed together, and find themselves looking for a way out of their predicament while trapped in an inn in the Highlands of Scotland. This scene is also quite risque, and extraordinary for its blatant sexuality that was quite uncommon at that time (they even appear in a bed together!).


This film is particularly remarkable in my opinion because the acting is spot on. The secondary characters are particularly well rounded and interesting, despite having very little time on screen. Donat himself is probably one of the mroe charismatic British actors of that time period. Hitchcock perhaps would disagree with the importance placed on the actors, and perhaps it is just their ability to effortlessly carry off his (and screenwriter Charles Bennett's) masterpiece. The pacing of the story carries the audience along so quickly, you barely have time to catch your breath before the next sequence occurs. I would give this movie 5 stars, and heartily recommend it, especially if you are not familiar with Hitchcock's British, or black and white work.

The next film I want to overview is "The Lady Vanishes", which actually reminded me a lot of Agatha Christie's 'Murder on the Orient Express' when I first heard about it (even though they have very little to do with one another, except for taking place on a train). This film centers on a young woman who befriends an elderly woman aboard a train while she is heading back home to be married (for $!). When the lady vanishes suddenly, everyone else on the train claims not to have seen her, even though the protagonist swears she was there. Helped by a slightly roguish man (who records folk songs to write about), she searches the train and tries to unearth the conspiracy surrounding the old lady. My personal favorite scene is a rather farcical fight in the baggage compartment.

Once again, this film is chock full of wonderful secondary characters, most interesting among them is a homosexual couple whose only interest throughout the film is cricket, and getting back to England in time for a penultimate match. Claustrophobic (the whole set was something like 70 feet), this film defines how to tell a story in an extremely limited space-indeed, one of the main pleasures of the film is where the devil could they be hiding a little old lady on this train? Once again, the characters begin as morally ambiguous, but slowly grow in our estimation through their actions and worries. It is his first politically allegorical film (taking issues with Britain's lack of a stance against an increasingly fascist rising power in Europe at the time). Also chock full of engaging and charismatic performances by Margaret Lockwood and Michael Redgrave, this has perhaps bumped out The Birds as my favorite Hitchcock. (Also, the first of Hitchcock;s films with a recapitulation scene) Obviously, this film also gets 5 stars.



So, if you are looking for a more light-hearted side to Hitchcock, these two films are both wonderful. Perhaps they lack some of the mastery of later classics (Notorious just popped into my head...that's a wonderful movie). But these movies are full of incredible characters, amazing writing, and wonderfully paces plots with the right amount of suspense, humor and adventure mixed in to make one heck of a good time.

(At this moment, they are both available on at IMDB.com, as well as Netflix Instant Play).

Catching Up

There is a saying that classics are what everyone wants to have read, but no one actually wants to read. I feel like sometimes I get that way with films also. If I know that I should see a movie because it is a classic, but perhaps I am not feeling particularly interested at the time, or there is some commercial blockbuster coming out I'm looking forward to, I will put off the classic film for as long as possible. Until somehow I am forced to see it, I push it to the bottom of my Netflix account, or check it out and return it without watching it.

Such was the case with Ingmar Bergman's classic film "The Seventh Seal". It was briefly discussed in my film history class, and I decided that I had to see it. Two years later, I still hadn't gotten around to it. Finally, last November I couldn't put it off anymore, and I moved it to the front of my list. It is the first Bergman film that I have seen, but will not be the last. IMDB's summary: "A man seeks answers about life, death, and the existence of God as he plays chess against the Grim Reaper during the Black Plague". A pretty accurate description, however it cannot capture the nature of the film, and the reason that it should be required viewing for anyone who calls themselves a fan of film.

I have never seen a film that captures more of the dismay and hopelessness of the outbreak of the black plague. Recent films try to shock audiences with scenes of violent illnesses, or grotesque, wasting diseases. Fair enough, I'm sure they're not inaccurate. However, the Seventh Seal captures a sense of abandonment and foreboding despair that feels so real that it is easier to understand the horror of this particular event in history than some vague historical description of it. Characters in the film turn to religion (often times, disturbingly, to methods such as self-flagellation), turn away from religion, and try to cope with life and death in various ways. There are characters for different sets of belief, making the Seventh Seal a sort of allegorical film. Of course, this also appears through one of the more interesting characters of the film, Death. He and the knight, Antonius Block, play a game of chess in which the outcome is life and death. Death is also in my opinion, morbidly comical at points of the film, as he suddenly appears behind a man hiding in a tree trying to escape him and produces a large saw to cut the tree down.

Even in the darkness of the film however, there is a young family, Jof(Joseph), Mia (Mary) and their young son. As a representation of the holy family, the make it through the turbulent and dangerous times and provide hope in the midst of all the darkness and death surrounding them.

Anyway, trying to keep this post a bit shorter, I highly recommend this film. It is the most interesting rumination on death and the "mortal coil" that all humans face. A masterpiece of film, excellent cinematography and superb acting. It is the only film I have ever seen where I immediately wanted to watch it again with the commentary track on. If you want to see a film that will actually make you think, and you can tell a lot of though went into, this is the one for you.

A New Dawn for Vampires-With Lots Less Angst

It has been difficult for me to find time to post recently because I was working on graduate school applications, and more recently, I have just been working to make money for graduate school. There have been several films I have wanted to post about including "The Invention of Lying" and "The Seventh Seal", both of which I saw a while ago, but I just couldn't get past the basic mapping out of points that I wanted to discuss. Maybe I'll come back to them later.

This post however, I wish to devote to a movie that I just saw yesterday at the Art Theater in Champaign (previously Boardman's Art Theatre, but now under new ownership). I spent several hours there yesterday, as me and my friend went and saw the animated shorts that are up for Oscars, as well as the late night film "Daybreakers".

I want to spend a quick paragraph on the animated features up for the Oscars this year which include "French Roast" from France, "Wallace and Grommit: A Matter of Loaf and Death" from the UK, "La Dama Y La Muerte" from Spain, "Granny O'Grimm's Sleeping Beauty" from Ireland, and "Logorama" also from France. They were all wonderful, but I have to say, I'm rooting for "Logorama". While "La Dama Y La Muerte" was my favorite in terms of style and story, "Logorama" was one of the more thoughtful, critical and innovative animated shorts that I have ever seen. It contains over 2,000 images and logos from businesses and commercialized society in general, and while the story is nothing new, the fantastic way in which they have categorized and used the logos makes it this year's best animated short. Sadly, while I love Wallace and Grommit, and realize clay-mation is an incredibly intricate and time consuming art form, it is about third or fourth on my list of shorts that
deserve the Oscar.

But on to the main event!! At 10 PM, I sat down to the new release "Daybreakers", the most current film to come out in theaters about that most popular of subjects these days, vampires. Now, I'm not a huge fan of horror films in general, or of vampire movies specifically. I have been trying to rectify this with classics such as "Suspiria", so we'll see how that goes. However, I am not one of the best sources for information on vampire lore, besides what everyone knows. However, it seems to me that since Anne Rice has started writing, and really as cinematic history continues, vampirism has gotten poncy (see: Interview With a Vampire), and something that is supposed to be aspired to (see: Twilight series, any of the new vampire books, etc.). There are very few bastions left where the true horror of vampires--they feed off people people!--is left ( I have heard 30 Days of Night is a good film for this). Too often now, the fear of being an unstoppable, life-sucking force is taken out of the story ("No Edward, I want to be a vampire, because you're 'vegetarian', and we can make swoony eyes at each other forever!). Not that I'm saying teenage angst and romance doesn't have it's place, but the horror genre is not it.

Now "Daybreakers" is a film that treats vampires in an interesting, and relatively new way. The premise is that in a world where if you are bitten by a vampire you either a)die or b)turn into a vampire, the human population is dwindling. As a hi-tech company races to find a blood substitute, several of the remaining humans turn to Edward Dalton (played by the appropriately somber Ethan Hawke), a leading vampire blood scientist, a reluctant vampire (along the lines of Brad Pitt in Interview...). He doesn't drink human blood. However, in a world where the food supply is dwindling, there is the appropriate amount of terror within the vampire community as they start feeding off each other, and themselves (with horrific results).

Once Willem Dafoe shows up, it turns out that he has figured out a cure for vampirism. He used to be one himself. One aspect that I like about the direction the story takes is that it is not desirable to be a vampire, because it involves taking human life, and Edward Dalton would never bite the girl that he starts forming an attachment too (and she wouldn't ask!). There's nothing romantic about it in this film. What they can become as they slowly starve to death is grotesque.

The plot is another aspect of the film that I love, because it fuses the horror genre with science fiction. There have been many movies about the end of civilization as we know it--this film just takes a different point of view on it. The characters are suitably complex, but not so much that it requires extensive back story. There are no long expository sequences about the past, how they got this way, why they have to go back, etc. Things are the way they are, but there is a slim chance to change things for the better.

I like this film. The cinematography is very nicely done, beautiful blue filters make the night that the vampires live in as cold and lifeless as their undead hearts. The warm yellow filters of the daytime make you feel the relative safety the sun brings to humans (unlike a certain series of sparkly beings, these vampires burst spectacularly into flames in the sunlight). Some of the shots are incredibly structured also, and the inevitable presence of red in horror films always adds a wonderful color to a scene. It is gruesome and gory, however not too realistically so as go flying around, and the vampires explode in a shower of flame and sparks as they get staked through the heart.

Somehow, the actors don't take themselves too seriously, but manage to be perfectly believable in their roles. I have heard that in a movie, you can tell one big lie, and the audience will accept it. Here the one big lie is that vampires are real and they constitute the majority of society. Everything beyond that lies within the realms of believability for this one stretch of reality. At the Art Theater, the owner came out and introduced the film (which I really thought was a nice touch) and he said it was one of the more "realistic" horror films that he had seen in awhile, and I have to say, I agree with him. I give this film two thumbs up, an A, 4 stars, however you want to rate it, and I think that with its combination of horror and sci-fi, and the heavyweight actors in it (including Ethan Hawke, Sam Neill, and Willem Dafoe) this movie is a must see.



As a side note, anyone in the Champaign-Urbana I would encourage to go out and support the newly reopened Art Theater in downtown Champaign. The new owner seems very nice, and you can tell he really likes the movies that he's showing. The prices are reasonable, and I am so glad that we still have an independent, locally owned theater in the area. I highly recommend this theater, it's the best in town! Plus, you don't have to sit through half an hour of commercials before you get to the actual movie.

How to Love Love Stories

So I will be the first to admit that I am not as discerning as I should be when it comes to romantic movies. Call me a sap, but if there's a semblance of romance, you can usually get me to watch a movie. However, for some reason I am still extraordinarily reluctant to watch independent stories about relationships. Perhaps it's because so may independent movies seem to end up unhappily, or deal with unhappy people who meet unhappy ends, and never will be happy...ever. They try to deal with reality so much, that sometimes they miss it. Of course on the other hand, you have movies like Twilight. Enough said.

In the days where Hollywood caters to teen angst and middle-aged romantic depression by inventing grand epics of selfish people (or vampires) acting selfishly, it is hard to find romances that mean anything, or have any relation to actual experiences anymore. I am always wary of independent movies about relationships-often they make me never want to be in a relationship ever. Therefore, I was kind of hesitant to see the film "Broken English" by Zoe Cassavetes. Of course, with the talent in her family, I should have foreseen that her film would be amazing. However, this movie, starring Parker Posey, turned into a rainy day movie--one that I would watch when I didn't feel like anything else, or had extra time.

Well, as it turns out, tonight was the perfect time for a rainy day movie. Even during the credits, I was apprehensive. The music, along with visuals of Nora (Posey) getting ready for a big night had me certain that this was all a trick--that she was really getting ready to off herself because she couldn't find a boyfriend, or something silly. However, the movie progressed, and we get a pretty clear picture of her life. Boring, but not horrible. The days go by, with not much to mark the difference. I am sure that we have all been there in life. She goes through several unsuccessful dates, and finally, decides to go to a party that she doesn't really want to. This is where she meets Julian--a young Frenchman in town for a brief time. While she is nervous about forming an attachment, they are soon getting hot and heavy, and the movie progresses, slowly still, as real life would.

I don't want to give away too much about the movie, because I think that it is wonderful. Suffice it to say, it reminded me of real life very much. Even pitted against other movies that seem realistic, this movie feels like real life. The pacing of it is brilliant. The people that she meets, the men she dates, all seem like people who you have met before. There is a truth about the European characters even, that is often lacking in other films. They are not all knowing, wise-cracking people who laugh at silly tourists, or know everything about them. Having lived with a French guy for a year, I found the French people portrayed in the film, especially the main character, very life-like, instead of caricatures that usually make their way into films. You never know quite what Julian (played beautifully by Melvil Poupaud) is thinking. You're not sure how into Nora he is, what his intentions are--especially after the film gives you examples of men with problems earlier. The long silences as the camera holds on him as Nora and he are together, and she is talking, are almost unreadable. It felt very much like a date or two that I have been on. It is only infrequently that the audience gets glimpses into his own psyche and insecurities, and these moments are almost as much of a revelation to us as to Nora.

Parker Posey plays Nora beautifully as a woman who feels like she's aging, and perhaps her life is passing her by. She's not miserable, but neither is she happy. She just is existing (also a frame of mind I think some of us can relate to)--wanting something special to happen to her love life. There is a great point in the movie about wanting to be with someone so you won't be alone, and wanting to be with someone because you want something special, and I thought that this moment was also brilliantly done. It helps that there is also a contrast in her friend, who seems to be the other type of person, the one who doesn't want to be alone, and that is the only reason that she is married.

This movie is so good because it is so normal. It is slow paced, and has moments of disappointment for Nora, but what I like most about it is that there is a sense of hope about it that is essential in life if you are to have any sort of happiness. Hope for Nora, and hope for the audience. Because really, the reason why those independent downers fail in my eyes, is that there is no hope for a brighter future. And if you don't have hope, then what's the point? "Broken English" was a beautiful change, and a movie that is well worth watching, and I recommend that you see it right now.

Buffets of Visual Delights

I think that movies about food are probably the best movies in the world. They combine eating (one of the basic functions and necessities of life)--one of my favorite things--with movies, my other favorite thing. I thought that I would take a moment, therefore, and reflect on several movies about food that I love. In this post, I'll be looking at 3 films: Chocolat, Eat Drink Man Woman, and Julie and Julia. I would love to write about Babette's Feast, unfortunately I have not scene it recently enough to remember it. It is going on the top of my list however.

I will begin by saying that of these three movies, I think that Eat Drink, Man Woman is my favorite. Now, I realize what you're all thinking. Chocolate is my favorite food ever, and "Chocolat" has the magnificent Johnny Depp in it (not to mention Alfred Molina and Juliette Binoche). Oh, I do love that movie, and perhaps it is only because I saw Eat Drink, Man Woman more recently. But the way in which the story is told, the absolute beauty of the cooking, and the complicated interrelations of the characters somehow made "EDMW" more real for me, and a good film experience. There is less fantasy about it than in Chocolat--this isn't good, or bad, it just is, and it has contributed to my own personal opinion about the movie.

EDMW is about an aging chef and his three daughters, and the difficulties they have relating to him, and each other. He is losing his sense of taste, and here is the problem. It's the very core of who he is, and cooking has shaped his relationships with each of his daughters--who themselves are for the most part each involved in different ways with food. The youngest works at a fast food restaurant, and the middle daughter dreamed of being a chef when she was younger, however her father would not allow it, because he thought she should make something of herself by going to business school. There are twists and turns, and ups and downs in the stories of the characters, with one major reveal at the end of the story. One of the main things that I love is the concentration on the actual food. The preparation of a sumptuous feast is the subject of the main credits, and when people are cooking, the concentration is not only on the person doing the cooking, but on the actual food.

Herein lies the difference between this movie (and Chocolat--which also concentrates on the actual chocolate) and Julie and Julia. I enjoyed J&J, but mostly because I thought Meryl Streep was outstanding. Amy Adams was good as an actor, but I did not much care for her actual character, and while there was a lot of cooking going on in that movie, and we were supposed to get the feel of how it was changing her, it was in no way as effective as the former 2 movies that I have mentioned. J&J did not focus on the actual preparation of the food--you were lucky to see her in the preparation stage, and suddenly she had a finished product. They were trying so hard to show that the process of cooking was changing Julie (and Julia), that they forgot to show the actual act of cooking, which is what was supposed to change them. There were a couple of scenes where they got close--but I've been trying to figure out what I felt was missing from the movie, and this is it.

In comparison, EDMW and Chocolat show you the ingredients, they show you the cooking being done, they show you the people as they are doing it, they show the glorious results of all the hard work. They showed the actual influence of food in these people's lives--how it shaped and influenced who they were as people. Food wasn't just a pastime, or a vehicle to tell something about the characters, and get to the end of the movie. Food IS the movie in EDMW and Chocolat, and I think this is why they are such wonderful films. The food and the characters are not mutually exclusive in these two films, whereas in J&J, I did not get the connection with the food as greatly. I'm not sure if it was the choice of concentration in the cooking scenes, but the camera did not ever focus on the actual food and cooking, and therein lies the fallacy.

Anyway, I have been a fan of Ang Lee since Sense and Sensibility, and somehow I never saw Eat Drink Man Woman. All I can say is that if you haven't seen it, you are missing one of the great films of modern cinema, and perhaps Ang Lee's best (granted, I have not made my way through all of his films yet--but so far, this is my favorite). I can't even explain how he did it. It's an amazing piece of the work, simultaneously centered around the characters and their relationships with each other (as all of his films are if you dig beneath the surface plot--e.g. Hulk) and their relationships to food. It's one of my favorite films that I have seen in this year, and I highly recommend it.

P.S. I recommend Chocolat also, as I do with any and every movie that Johnny Depp has ever been in--it is also wonderful, and about my favorite kind of food. The point is that I love movies about food and how it changes people's lives--perhaps because they are so elemental (since everyone eats--and hopefully everyone has had food good enough to change their world--and how they see it--at some point).

The Hurt Locker

I went to see The Hurt Locker at the Art a week ago because I had heard via Roger Ebert that it was not a film to be missed. Normally, I am not a fan of war films--mostly they kind of bore me. However, The Hurt Locker was a drastically different experience for me. It did seem long, but it seems more like the actual tension of the film, and the depth of the characters was what created the length, rather than a plot that doesn't move, or a simply boring film.

The Hurt Locker was gritty and real, shot with hand-held cameras in the tracking sequences, and quite claustrophobic at points, especially when the main character, a bomb expert, dons his large, black, space-age suit. It is exhilarating and terrifying to watch him do his job--especially after seeing the guy he replaced go down in the first five minutes of the movie.

The performances are excellent, especially Jeremy Renner (who remembers him as awesome from S.W.A.T.!). His character seems so simple, yet is so copmlicated, that you spend the whole movie intricately involved in his character. He loves what he does--he cannot exist without it. The opening of the film tells us that war is a drug, and it is incredibly interesting to watch this film about someone who is quite literally addicted to the danger, the excitement, and the adrenaline rush from his work.

I highly recommend the film also, because, for me--who is not a fan of war films--it truly gives a sense of what it might be like to be over there. It unveiled a deep gratitude for our soldiers over their that I did not realize existed, and it made me feel more deeply connected to my own family members who have gone over there and faced all that chaos and danger. Thank you.

My favorite moments of the film:
1. An extreme close up of half the character's face as he comes in contact with a body bomb
2. The moment where the audience realizes that, like most people, he has a hard time distinguishing individuals of a different ethnic group than most Americans.
3. Anytime he is diffusing a bomb: you want tension, just put a guy trying to disarm a bomb with no cinematic clues as to what is going to happen next.
4. The moment when he is in a line trying to pick a cereal from all the meaningless brand names around him.
5. The moment when a woman's name flashes in the director's name spot. Generally, it is not a genre I associate with women, and I am glad to see a woman in a role of importance in such a good film.

Not all Indian Cinema is Bollywood.

There seems to be a common misconception among a lot of the people that I discuss Indian cinema with. It commonly all gets lumped into the category of 'Bollywood'. Some people find offense at this, some don't. I think I might have mentioned this in an earlier blog, but I thought I would reiterate it here since I will be discussing a film that does not fall into the lumped up category of Bollywood.

Bollywood is categorized by epic narratives, melodramatic story lines, romance, song and dance routines, and oftentimes happy endings (however, I've found that there are more sad endings than people actually think that there are).

A recent film that I saw has few of the characteristics that many people associate with Indian film, and it is by far one of the best pieces of cinema that I have seen in a while. Now, even I have to twist my arm to get myself to watch films that are critically high rated, but may not sound like the most interesting films. Alll I can say to this is that you will be happy with the results.

"Mr. and Mrs. Iyer" takes place en route from a southern Indian town to Kolkuta. Mrs. Iyer is traveling by bus to see her in-laws with her young son. A young man named Raja is enlisted to help her on the trip if she needs anything because their families and friends are acquainted somehow. Once on the bus however, they encounter a region where tensions between Muslims and Hindus have escalated to extreme violence. Mrs. Iyer (a strict Hindu) lies in order to protect Raja (a Muslim) from the mob that boards the bus. This scene is perhaps one of the most claustrophobic I have seen in a long time, and is extremely well done. From this point, the tension of the film increases, and it is quite possible to feel the fear and panic, and the sheer danger that could occur in situations like this. It is quite hard for someone like me, who has never had to encounter terrors such as the people in this film do, to understand how scary something like this truly is. "Mr. and Mrs. Iyer" however, puts even the most privileged and clueless people in the positions that I imagine are still not uncommon in countries where religious and political strife still runs high. While this films was made a decade after the Bombay (Mumbai) Riots, and religious tensions are said to have subsided, they are not impossible. "Mr. and Mrs. Iyer" is a very interesting and eye-opening look at how ordinary people must deal with and live through events like this.

There are many films about terrorists, and perhaps this is the wrong label for what this film is about. But usually (and since Bollywood is my example, I'll stick with it), violence stemming from national issues, religious issues, or what have you is glamorized with fast cutting, loud MTV-style music, and James Bond-like figures who try to control the situation. The film "Fanaa", which I greatly emjoy, uses a background of the political tension surrounding the disputed region of Kashmir to set an epic romance. I admit that I love the movie (as I do with anything Aamir Khan is in), however, in comparison with a film like "Mr. and Mrs. Iyer", it is clear to see with is the better film--both in cinematic terms and narratively. The latter film also foregrounds romance, however it is a more subdued and realistic star-crossed romance, where people behave as they actually might in real life. The shots are long and ponderous, allowing the viewer to soak in the whole image, and letting the actors act, and creating their relationship through their interaction, versus through editing. The music in the film does not consist of lip-synching and dancing, but is non-diegetic and adds to the atmosphere and the reflection of the film. There are even shots that reminded me of Yasujiro Ozu's work, such as a shot of an old Muslim couple, where the woman looks at her hands after her husband mentions it's the only thing he saw of her the first time he saw her. These types of shots are not necessary to advance the plot, but instead are present to add a sense of time, an understanding of their relationship, and a sense of evanescence (hence, the connection to Ozu).


The framing of the film is also something that I found quite stunning, with careful selection going into the composition, allowing at times for beautiful symmetry and also helping construct the relationship between the two people who the film is about. Which leads me back to my final point about how the characters interact. Often in films, the meeting of two people who fall in love is fast, and suddenly they're in a montage, or are in love after 2 days, or any of that nonsense. Don't get me wrong, I think this is fine (especially if, in the course of the movie, they only spend a total of 2 weeks in each other's presence, a la Fanaa). However, it is not very realistic (call me a cynic, but I have yet to witness something such as love at first sight, which I don't think I necessarily believe in). The relationship of the main characters in "Mr. and Mrs. Iyer" is carefully navigated as they try to understand one another. In a country as religiously, linguistically and culturally diverse as India, she is Tamil (I'm not sure if this is the correct term for someone from Tamil Nadu) and he is Bengali. The only common language that they share is English--a feature of the film that I also found was very interesting and that someone who does not come from a country with as many languages as India would not think about. They are from different religions, with different practices (for example, she is vegetarian, and he is not), leading to several confrontations about how they interact that are very interesting. It seems to me that in more mainstream popular cinema, this is also something that, while it is mentioned a lot (eg. "you can't get married, she's Muslim and you're Hindu!), it is not fully explored, and I think that Mr. and Mrs. Iyer did a good job of this as well.

Anyway, after a long post, and an even longer abscence, I will wrap up this post by saying that I think this is one of the best Indian films that I have seen, and I hope that I will see many more like it. I would definitely recommend it if you aren't a fan of the "Bollywood" genre, but are interested in Indian film and culture.

Still Waters Run Deep

I have known and admired Sarah Polley, a young Canadian actress, ever since her days on the popular television series "The Road to Avonlea" (laugh if you want, that show is amazing!). When I saw a suggestion on Netflix for a movie that I might enjoy called "The Secret Life of Words", starring Sarah Polley and Tim Robbins, I decided to add it to my list, even though I had heard nothing about it.

The 2005 independent film is about a young nurse (Polley) who is a refugee from the Bosnian War of 1992-1995 in which approx. 100,000 people were killed, and over a million were left homeless and refugees. Working in a factory where she has never missed a day, she is forced to take a vacation by her boss, and when she hears of a chance to fly to an oil rig off the coast of Northern Ireland to take care of a burn-victim (Robbins), she takes it.

The film is slow and quiet, and the atmosphere perfectly suits the characters that inhabit it. We do not know anything about the nurse, Hanna, at the beginning of the film. She doesn't say much, and it is through her slightest actions, daily routines and small expressions that we must decipher what there is to know about her. When we meet Josef (Robbins), he is blind and bed-ridden, and tries his best to get any information out of her. As we have seen her introverted, paranoid character go through the motions of living, when she starts to unwind just a little bit, you can sense the bond that is forming between Hanna and Josef. The supporting cast also adds charm to the film, especially Javier Cámara, who plays a chef, bored to tears with the isolation of the oil rig, in contrast to Hanna's ease and comfort away from people.

This character-based film plays itself out beautifully, dealing with the aftermath of one of the more brutal wars in recent history. During the Bosnian War, the atrocities included genocide, mass rape, ethnic cleansing and psychological rape. While the film doesn't dwell on the actuality of these events, in one of the more tragic moments I have seen on screen lately, details of these events are gone into, and it is heart-breaking to think about what people can do to each other. One of the reasons that I love this film is that it was a film that truly made me think. I suppose it kicked off with thinking about the events and information of the film, but it then turned into a thinking about humanity in general, and I was surprised that a film could still do that.

One of the sad realities that this film mentions is that events like the Bosnian War are not part of a collective conscious (at least in America). I remember learning briefly about it in middle school, and I have to give credit to my teacher for bringing it up, because it certainly is not part of public knowledge in the way that the Vietnam War, WWII, and even WWI are. If nothing else, this film is important because it remembers (or tries very hard to) that there were victims and survivors of that horrible conflict, and in its own small way, it is trying to make sure that they are not forgotten, as best as it can.

More than a Buddy Film

The buddy film has typically been a male dominated genre of American film (predominantly Hollywood). Iconically this is represented by Walther Matthau and Jack Lemon in "The Odd Couple", other famous duos include Mel Gibson and Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon, David Spade and Chris Farley in all their movies, even going all the way back to the days of Abbott and Costello, Laurel and Hardy. You hardly ever see female buddy movies in the same way (note SPOILER: "Thelma and Louise" is about to ass-kicking women, however unlike most male buddy films, they are not allowed their power and end the movie by driving off a cliff--not quite the happy ending often given to men in these movies).

In my last year of college, I took a sex and gender in the media class, and we all had group projects to do. One of the groups picked the buddy film and discussed this very aspect. However, their presentation, led by one student who always kind of annoyed me for some reason, turned into an advertisement for the new at the time film "Baby Mama". She talked about how we all should go support women in film making, and how these women are more involved at higher levels than most women are in Hollywood, and how this movie was a "buddy" movie, only women were at the forefront and emancipated from their absence in buddy films except as the object of desire.

Another point came up however, during the discussion, and that was that yes, technically this movie is about the bonding of two women, and yes, they are the main characters, so technically it is a buddy film. However it is centered around one of the most stereotyped images of a woman today, and that is that a woman--even a hard-working, successful type--will always want a baby, and go to extremes to get one. Granted I am not against women having children. Where would the human race be without them? But seriously? It's almost like having a movie where the women become buddies as the plaster themselves in makeup and go out because there only goal in life is to find a husband (oh wait...there are movies like that). I know I sound a lot more bitter than I am. I like a chick flick as much as any other girly girl, and I've heard that "Baby Mama" was pretty funny (I also like Tina Fey). I can't criticize too harshly because I haven't actually seen it yet. I just think it was a mistake to say that this is the movie that will revolutionize the female buddy film and suddenly raise women's status in American Film and society away from typical gender roles that not all women fall into. (Plus this girl was really annoying!). A lot of films fail to realize complexities about women's connections to each other, to their children, and to men.

The reason I bring this all up is because of a film that I screened on my second day of volunteering at Ebertfest (don't get used to daily posts--it's just that Ebertfest movies inspire me more than most). "Frozen River" was my favorite film of the day, and the reason I bring up the buddy film is because during the discussion afterwards, the head of Sony Pictures Classics described this movie in those terms. It is an unconventional buddy film to say the least. There are moments of comedy, but over all it is a drama about two women, both mothers but not defined by their motherhood. They are defined as so much more than that, as I think most women would like to be. Sure, much of their motivation derives from their situation as single parents trying to bring up their kids on more than popcorn and Tang. They are defined by their relationship to their kids, to each other, to the law, to the frozen river they cross often transporting immigrants from Canada. They are so much more real and have a greater sense of depth than many of the female characters you see in mainstream Hollywood cinema. This film is directed by a woman, also a mother a believe, unlike "Baby Mama" which is directed by a man despite being produced by Tina Fey. This may explain why it understands these women, and doesn't seem to condemn or praise them for what they do. They're just trying to make a life for themselves and their kids. Their actions are illegal (maybe not depending on if they're on tribal land), and they can shoot a gun with surprising ease. Never once do we feel sorry for the people who they are deceiving and threatening (mostly men now that I think about it, in positions of authority--deserved or not). We never meet Ray's husband (one of the main characters)--he's a gambling addict and by the beginning of the film has taken off with all of their money. Ray's children want her to go look for him, but what can she do? She is alone, holding down a part time job at the Yankee Dollar, trying to save up enough money for a house better than a trailer. She accepts the fact that he is gone and moves on, figuring out how to do things on her own.

Anyway, I'm sure I've rambled on enough by now. I just want to say, "Baby Mama" is all well and good I'm sure. Tina Fey is a great actress (and a magnificent writer, as 30 Rock proves), but if you really want to support women in film making (especially you, annoying girl from my sex and gender in the media class), go see "Frozen River"--an independent film directed by and starring women who are much more real and complicated than almost anything you can find in mainstream Hollywood film. And not only gender issues, this movie tackles a lot of different problems such as illegal immigration, the Indian Nation, abandonment, even credit card fraud is thrown in there.