My Journal: Sick and Sidetracked, but I'm Back

I hope that you all haven't forgotten about me. These last couple of weeks have been kind of non-stop, working an inordinate amount of days in a row and logging two illnesses in two weeks, but I've held her steady and true. A few days I wasn't able to watch anything, but on other days I made up for them. This round is only half of what I have. I'm a little behind on the writing part of this blog because of illness.

Also, Netflix released on Instant Watch Season 7 of How I Met Your Mother, and needless to say I had to watch it. In my challenge to watch on average 1 movie a night, television shows fall into the "fine print" category. There has already been a journal entry about The Walking Dead, and I counted that as one "movie." (Maybe one day I'll delve into the ever-blurring line between TV and Movies.) So, I will do the same for HIMYM, but because I love the show so much (I will go out on a limb and say that it is probably my favorite TV show of all time) and because I watch it so often, not just on a single day, I will reserve the HIMYM journal entry for its own special post.

In this round of journal entries, I went through a whirlwind of emotions that drove my choices in films. Some older (Ninotchka, Notorious), some from the same director (Woody Allen), some "holiday" (Eight Crazy Nights), and all worth checking out, and hopefully my words will inspire you, intrigue you, or whatever you to just go out of your comfort zone and check out one of these films.

****WARNING SPOILER ALERT****

22.) How I Met Your Mother (2005-2012) Season 7, 12/2/12 – 12/18/12

Exclusive journal entry coming soon!

23.) Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) 12/3/12

I went on a Woody Allen kick this week. I reserved a few of his films I haven’t seen and have wanted to see, and I went about it chronologically, this being the first of three.

As per usual for an Woody Allen film, there are nearly, nearly, too many stars to name, but I'll name 'em: Michael Caine, Barbara Hershey, Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia, duh. But also in a bunch of other ‘80’s gems ala When Harry Met Sally), Mia Farrow (in the wake of my Rosemary’s Baby outing), Diane Wiest (She was in Edward Scissorhands and Footloose!), don’t forget Max Von Sydow (he’s been in everything, most recently Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close), and naturally Woody Allen in a role that I actually liked him in.

(Left to Right) Diane Wiest, Barbara Hershey, Maureen O'Sullivan (the mother), Mia Farrow, Michael Caine

            Amongst Allen’s very poignant Thanksgiving dinners (there are three in this film), aunts, uncles, the family is crowded around the piano listening to Dad serenade Mom while uncle So-and-so gives the little kids what are surely their first beers. The scene plays out like a home-movie, everybody reminisces, “Hey, remember that one Thanksgiving when Uncle So-and-so gave all the kids beer?” There are family scenes in all of Allen’s films, but for me, this one is the most ardent scenes of his. It plays well into the rest of the theme of his film: it’s funny how things—people’s lives—can turn out years later.

            The film is about a love web, not a triangle, and how pleasantly amusing and pleasing the results can be. Mickey (Allen) and Hannah (Farrow) are divorced. Hannah’s new husband (Caine) has a crush on, then an affair with Hannah’s sister Lee (Hershey). Lee dumps him and falls for another guy. Step back a while, after Hannah and Mickey's divorce, Hannah tried setting Mickey up with her other sister Holly (Wiest) with disastrously incompatible results. Then after Mickey has a mid-life crisis of sorts years later, he and Holly end up, by chance, stumbling upon each other in a record store. They court and end up falling in love with each other. Timing. That is what love is all about. That is Woody Allen’s message here. And timing is a funny thing.

24.) Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) 12/312

Starring Martin Landau (he was in Ed Wood, a few episodes of Entourage, and a long time ago North by Northwest. You’d barely recognize him without his glasses and with dark-colored locks.) Also starring Angelica Huston, Sam Waterston (form Law and Order and the little gem Capricorn One), Woody Allen and again Mia Farrow! Oh, and directed by the Woodster.

            It’s an “ethical dilemma because I’m married,” Cliff (Allen) says to his niece about his infatuation with Halley (Farrow). The difference between crimes and misdemeanors is essentially a moral dilemma. The film Crimes and Misdemeanors is split into several dualities. First, there are two moral dilemmas. The dilemma Cliff is having about whether he should cheat on his wife because the marriage is basically over, and the dilemma that Judah (Landau) is having, whether or not to kill his mistress and whether or not to give himself up.

I mean really, what better image do you need? (Martin Landau, Woody Allen)

            Another duality is that each man, Cliff and Judah confess to someone who in their lives would normally “confess” things to them. Cliff tells his niece all his relationship problems and seeks her guidance, and humorously so, she gives it. A doctor, Judah entrusts his secrets to his patient Ben (Waterston)—who is also a friend—while in the examination room. Judah is playing doctor, but instead of curing Ben’s slowly progressing blindness (justice is blind?), the roles are reversed again and Ben is the one giving out the consolation.

            These dualities become clear in the final scene of the film, when Cliff and Judah meet at a party and share a drink together. Judah explains the dilemma between crimes and misdemeanors. The fine line between them is in choice, choosing to be the bigger man and turning yourself in if you’ve committed a crime, but being an even bigger person and never making the misdemeanor choices that lead to their dilemma—their guilt. As Judah points out, referring to what seems like scripture, “And after the awful deed is done, he finds that he's plagued by deep-rooted guilt.”

25.) Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993) 12/4/12

This is Woody Allen playing Alfred Hitchcock.

Starring mainstays Angelica Huston, Alan Alda, and Diane Keaton.

            I feel like this is Allen’s humorous homage to Alfred Hitchcock. The entire story seems as if Hitch wrote it himself. The main characters all sit around a table discussing murder. This was something Hitchcock loved to do, have his characters parlor-talk about murder, then there talk turns to hysteria, and “imagining” someone close to them murders someone else.

Mirror Scene with Woody Allen.

            Carol (Keaton) starts it off, imagining that Larry (Allen) and her neighbor killed his wife to disguise several affairs he was having. In the process, Larry slowly becomes more convinced of the murder taking place, he becomes more jittery (just as Allen always is), but ultimately he become more brave, ultimately saving his marriage and riding in at the end of the film as Carol’s White Knight, which is escalated in the hilarious scene where Larry offers his neighbor his wife’s corpse, (that he doesn’t have). So he dresses up a dummy in women’s clothes and hides it in the trunk of his car and to make on last, feeble attempt to throw off his neighbor. The film ends in one last amusing homage to The Lady from Shanghai, when the neighbor confronts his mistress behind a theater screen, in a room full of mirrors as the same scene in Lady from Shanghai plays in the theater.

26.) Notorious (1946) 12/4/12

Speaking of Hitchcock, we’ll just follow up Woody with Alfred.

Starring Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman (Casablanca but also Belle’s of St. Marys one of my favorite Christmas movies), and Claude Raines (also most notably from Casablanca) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock.

            I will be brief with this one. I could go on about the countless brilliant aspects of this film, like the stairway throughout the film, or how Hitch build suspense like none other in the wine cellar scene, or about how gorgeous Bergman is and accredit them to Hitch’s genius (which would be justified), but I will forgo the usual compliments, to say that man, does he know how to use the Dutch-tilt. For those who don’t know what a Dutch-tilt is, see the following photo:

Cary Grant photographed from an upside-down Dutch-tilt angle.

The Dutch-tilt or Dutch angle is typically used to show that there is something askew about the image or the scene in the film. Hitchcock does it the best, especially to add more suspense ti his films. And I applaud him for using it with such grace (unlike Kenneth Branagh in Thor as I describe in an earlier post.)

            Another underrated mastery of Hitchcock’s is how he block’s his kissing. At the time of Notorious’s release, the Production Code had rules about kissing—and just about everything else for that matter. But, it stated that a kiss couldn’t last longer than three seconds. So, Hitchcock got past that by the heated make-out session between Grant and Bergman that is sprinkled with rubbing of noses and heavy breathing—which sounds more sensual to you? And who is the smart one now?

27.) Eight Crazy Nights (2002) 12/6/12

In celebration of St. Nick’s day, I watched this, one of the most raunchy, disgusting (Holiday) films ever, but for some reason I still love it. This animated new “classic” stars all of the Happy Madison (the Adam Sandler production company) regulars. Sandler of course, Rob Schnieder, Kevin Nealon, etcetera, etcetera, and lined with raunchy and sometimes (rarely) touching songs by Sandler.

            My youthful affinity for Sandler and his earlier films (especially Waterboy) is probably the reason that I’m not completely turned off by the filth that is this film. Everyone’s allowed a couple guilty pleasures, and for me, Holiday films, in particular Christmas films, no matter how bad they are, hone into my sense of nostalgia. This is one that I remember freezing my tush off watching it on the big screen in my barn with my brother and some of my closest friends. It was hilarious and appealed to our high-school minds, and looking at it again, I realize that it is part of a genre of animated films: animated musicals. This is a practice that has gone out of style, say so-long to all the claymation classics. With the likes of Pixar greats like Toy Story for example, animated films have good soundtracks (regardless of how you feel about Gary Newton) with original songs, but it doesn’t feature the characters singing these songs. The same thing can be said for Up and many of the other Pixar films. Eight Crazy Nights is a throw-back (for Sandler) to his raunchy stand-up days, mixed with some self-deprecating songs that just plain offend you and everybody else you know.

28.) Ninotchka (1939) 12/7/12

Starring the great Greta Garbo and her muse Melvyn Douglas in the second of their three pairings, (Two-faced Woman which I watched earlier and As You Desire (1932) which has now been added to my “watch” list).

Directed by Ernst Lubitsch, who was Garbo’s favorite director to work with, and written by a young Billy Wilder (who directed one of my personal favorites Some Like It Hot (1957), also Sunset Boulevard (1950) and Double Indemnity (1944) which are I write about later in my journal). Also, George Cukor was scheduled to direct this but left to do a little old film called Gone with the Wind (1939).

            Now that I’ve made all my pretentious six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon connections (which I swear will all have relevance later), I will feign over Greta Garbo for a while, but only after I comment on the writing! It seems I tend to do this a lot with these older films, but this is something that should be understood that older films were some much better written. Then had less of a visual crunch (ie Special Effects) to lean on. In Ninotchka, the titular Garbo is a stern Russian “comrade” sent to Paris then becomes falls for the slick Melvyn Douglas character. Garbo’s attitude exudes in sequences like when Melvyn Douglas is attempting to seduce Ninotchka (Garbo) for the first time. She says to him, “You’re so talkative.”

Garbo overpowering Douglas with her charm.

            They kiss, and then Douglas replies, “Was that Talkative?”

            “No that was restful.” She says deadpan. “Again.”

            They kiss.

            “Thank you,” she says.

            “Oh my barbaric Ninotchka. My impossible unromantic statistic.”

            They kiss.

            “Again,” she says.

            Exchanges like that are just wonderful and show how much control both the character Garbo was playing and Garbo herself was in control. She typically played very powerful, strong and feminist characters. If you look at the rest of Ninotchka, she over-sees three other bumbling, womanizing Communist Russians, (who actually quip a line I find hilarious: “Capitalist methods: they accumulate millions by taking the loss.”) But back to Garbo. In relation to the whimpering Douglas, she is in control the entire time. In the exchange I mention, although she is the one being kissed, it is on her terms. She is telling Douglas what to do. She commands, “Kiss me.” And, “Again.” It’d be hard finding another woman on screen who demanded that much attention with just three words.

29.) The Last Detail (1973) 12/7/12

Starring Jack Nicolson, Randy Quaid (cousin Eddy, anyone?), and Otis Young.

Directed by Hal Ashby, who directed Harold and Maude (1971) that I watched earlier, and written by Robert Towne who wrote Chinatown (1974) which was directed by Roman Polanski who also directed Rosemary’s Baby (remember?). Although uncredited, he wrote Bonnie and Clyde until it was taken out of his hands.

            From what I’ve seen and especially what I’ve read, Hal Ashby is a directed who flourished and suffered during the American New Wave/New Hollywood movement during the late Sixties and Seventies. Unlike Spielberg or Francis Coppala, Ashby’s legacy especially in mainstream American cinema has been overlooked. Most credit this to his lack of visual style, which may be a fairly valid point; however, his films do have a style. His style is dealing with different issues.

Hal Ashby, Otis Young, Jack Nicholson on the set of The Last Detail.

Harold and Maude and The Last Detail are both politically charged films. The Last Detail deals directly with the military, in this case the Navy, and two sailors (Nicholson and Young) who are ordered to take a third (Quaid) to prison, but throughout the entire film, the three do just about everything but follow military orders. They drink, fight, and get hookers, and then in the end nearly go AWOL. They start to question the establishment much as Harold does throughout Harold and Maude. He constantly does the opposite of what his mother expects.

The Last Detail is also a coming of age story, like Harold and Maude. Randy Quaid’s character does everything. He loses his virginity, he gets really hammered with the guys, he almost sees his mother one last time, and says that he doesn’t want to do any of that again because he doesn’t want to ruin the significance of it. This is almost like Ashby’s career. He dabbles in a little bit of everything, the generation gap, the military, the counter-culture movement in Coming Home (1978), and a sociological experiment in Being There (1979) just to name a few. They all deal with something a little bit different. So, maybe Hal Ashby’s style was just a little bit different.

My Journal: Tis the Season

The decorations are up in our winter wonderland of an apartment; the lights are lit, the stockings are hung, and the fake, sparkly snow is draped softly over our shelves. Tis the season for holiday joy, etc. But it's also the season where I love to sit by the fake fire, cuddle up and watch some classic films with Turner Classic Movies as my guide (I don't think I can plug that station enough). My film journal is taking root!

The past five or so days have been fun and productive. There have been a few movies that I have chosen to watch and a few that have chosen me, so to speak. We have Basic Instinct, Harold and Maude, Edward Scissorhands, The Philadelphia Story, and Two-faced Woman. I chose each for certain reasons, some because there was a connecting element, like a director or actor, and others are connected in unintentional ways, an actor or actress surprising me in a film I didn't know they were in. So here are films 14 through 19:

14.) Basic Instinct (1992) 11/24/12

The most wonderful piece of trash I’ve ever watched. 

Starring Michael Douglas (someone who I grew up hating because my mom would always watch his cheesy, Kathleen Turner Romantic Comedies but who I’ve grow to enjoy in a cult sort of way), Sharon Stone (who you definitely don’t see enough of in this film), and too many other “that guy” characters to name each. Directed by Robocop’s Paul Verhoeven.

I just finished a book called The Film Club about a father who lets his son drop out of school as long as they watched 3 films a week together. The father chooses many art films in which to show his son to try and give him the most effective and “formal” education possible. But to keep his son’s attention, one of the first films they watched was Basic Instinct. To which, the son replied: “Now that’s a great film!” I have to agree.

Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct. What a hartlett. 

The dialogue (as the father tells the son) is indeed repulsively wonderful. It has a very ridiculously complex and sometimes ambiguously incomprehensible plot. But at the end, the point of the film is to get to the end. It wraps things up exactly how you want every film to end: the protagonist (Douglas) ends up with the girl (Stone) even though she’s no good for him. That is my problem with the film. But, this is outweighed by my “cult” love for Michael Douglas and the extremely rich-with-cheese dialogue (from Douglas, Stone, and every other “that guy” in the film) that reminds you of Barney Stinson picking up girls at McLaren’s Pub.

And of course, you can’t forget the interrogation scene; I mean come on, who doesn’t love laughing at Wayne Knight sweeting in embarrassment. Also, the car chase scene where Douglas crashes his ways through the San Francisco streets, I was just waiting for a little green bug to pop into view. Basic Instinct was so full of too-clever one liners and movie reference that it had more cheese than Scary Movie.

15.) Harold and Maude (1971) 11/25/12

Starring Bud Cort and Ruth Gordon (who a few years earlier became the oldest actress at the time to win an Oscar for her role in Rosemary’s Baby). Directed by Hal Ashby.

Aside from the great soundtrack by Cat Stevens, which is essential to the film, a lot more can be said about this film, but I’ll try to be short. Visually, I would compare it to The Graduate, where there is a strong balance between times of musical interludes and the lack of music completely and also a moving, active camera and a static one. This can be seen from the very first shot, where the camera follows Harold’s (Cort) feet as he walks through the parlor. They don’t show his face, just his feet, as he prepares a noose to hang himself. In contrast to later in the film, Harold and Maude talk to each other in a patch of daisies, then in a grave yard with uniform white headstones. The camera zooms out, pixelating the characters, making them practically blend in—assimilate almost.

Ruth Gordon and Bud Cort in a daisy patch in Harold and Maude.

These two examples and the age gap of the new couple, Harold and Maude represent the heated topic of the day: the generation gap. Ashby expresses his own conundrum and the perception that the older generation (that of Harold’s mother) is so out of touch with the younger (Harold’s) generation, but the relationship between Maude (also the older generation) and Harold shows that there is still much to learn. This is definitely a film of its time, everything that Harold does, all of his suicide attempts and antics with Maude, they are all initially rebellions against the authority figures of the older generation, but eventually with the help of Maude, they flower into not just Harold’s rebellion but his identity, which is what he is in search of the whole film, isn't it?

16.) Edward Scissorhands (1990) 11/26/12

Starring Johnny Depp, Winona Ryder, Anthony Michael Hall (as the bully/punk boyfriend of Winona Ryder) and Vincent Price in his last ever film role. Also, Diane Wiest and Allan Alda as the parents of Winona Ryder and Robert Oliveri as her brother, who was Nick Szalinski in Honey, I Shrunk the Kids and Honey I Blew Up the Kid. Directed by Tim Burton.

            Having seen this film already, I simply enjoyed this film for what it was worth, but Tim Burton’s themes are unavoidably noticeable. His creativity, style, and humor are evident throughout, most distinctly in the cookie-cutter cul-de-sac; houses painted in stark but bright pinks, blues and greens emphasize his criticism of the ‘burbs: that everyone who lives there is just a little bit weird.

Snowing on Winona Ryder

            Burton’s inclusion of Vincent Price just magnifies the darkness of the picture; Price is known for many of his Gothic horror films, collaborations with early horror masters William Castle and Roger Corman, and also his uniquely foreboding voice that I personally have a particular affinity for stemming from my childhood. When I would think ominous, I would think of Ratigan from Disney’s The Great Mouse Detective (Yes! Vincent Price was indeed Ratigan’s voice!) And what would the film be without the hauntingly beautiful score that is never more touching than when Edward (Depp) shaves an ice sculpture of Kim (Ryder)? The television station I watched this on bills the film as a “Christmas” film, and the ice flakes that gently loft down on Kim capture the spirit of the holiday. With the music, the snow falling down, and a robot boy (that Edward is) having true emotions for a girl are embodied in the child-like wonder that the Holiday Season allows. I will for the time being reserve my comments on Burton’s more recent movies, but this is one of his most original and creative works.

18.) The Philadelphia Story (1940) 11/27/12

Starring Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn, Jimmy Stewart (who won a Best Actor Oscar) Ruth Hussey, and Roland Young. Directed by Hollywood Studio workhorse George Cukor, who collaborated 10 times with Hepburn and directed 20 different actors in Oscar-nominated Performances.

Hepburn and Stewart, champagne in hand.

            The film centers around a family who is under media scrutiny and is based off of an actual Philadelphia family. At the base of the film, there is a classic romantic comedy brewing that includes a divorcée (Hepburn) who wants to get remarried. But her ex (Grant) hires a tabloid team (Stewart and Hussey) to write a bomb of story destroying her reputation (but secretly winning her back). Stewart falls for Hepburn, Hepburn falls for him, Grant falls back for Hepburn, and she falls back for him. The plot is about as eye-rolling as you’ve ever seen, but what makes this film so endearing (for me at least) are the performances and the set-pieces.

            Ole Jimmy Stewart gets loaded on Champagne (always Champagne and probably actual Champagne) at a dinner party with Hepburn and uncle Willie (Young), and they return to her house, they (Jimmy and Katharine) have a romantic dip in her pool and everyone thinks: scandal! Yes, this is the scene however with the most classic scene, Hepburn in Stewart’s arms Jimmy mimicking or maybe foreshadowing a George-Bailey-esque performance gobbles some sweet poetry, and they kiss. Classic cinema at its best, and of course, in the end, Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn, the original divorcés end up back together again. Under the Production Code, it would not have been heard of to let such a heresy as divorce exist. So it didn't, and the plot wrapped up happily-ever-after.

19.) Two-faced Woman (1941) 11/27/12

What a gem to stumble upon, so appropriate indeed. After having watched The Philadelphia Story on DVD, this was on the never-failing Turner Classic Movies right after I finished.

Starring the stunning and intense Greta Garbo (so sassy was she in this—her last film!), Melvyn Douglas, Roland Young (Uncle Willie from The Philadelphia Story), and Ruth Gordon (yes, many years before her performance as Maude in Harold and Maude.) Also, directed by George Cukor again (coincidentally)!

            Cukor follows the formula that made him such a mainstay in Hollywood during the thirties, forties, and into the fifties: the remarriage comedy. In this particular film, the couple never divorces, but they might as well have. Larry (Douglas) marries his ski instructor Karin (Garbo) on a whim after he falls dramatically in love with her after she saves him from falling backwards down a mountain on his skis. He goes back to work in New York, basically shafting her in the process, so she comes to New York to surprise him. She suspects foul-play on his part, so as Garbo does so well, she decides to play afoul too. She pretends to be Catherine, her twin sister (of which she has none—shucks! Two Garbos would be great!)

Greta Garbo seducing Melvyn Douglas

Pretty standard rom-com, but what sets it apart to me, and what kept me rolling throughout the film was how Garbo was able to keep delivering line after innuendo-laced line of the stuff romantic comedies are made of. In a scene in a hotel room when Karin is “playing” her twin sister Catherine, Larry offers her cash money (her being his sister-in-law, not for any other "services") to help her pay for her clothes. She denies him quipping, “It’s against my morals,” to which he replies in a beat, “You sure have an unusual sense of morals.” Then he trusts himself upon her.

Another impassioned scene between Larry and “Catherine” finds the two again in a hotel room. Catherine (Garbo mind you) comes on to Larry saying, “I looked up that word you told me about: alone. It means to be with you.”

              “That sounds like a charming dictionary,” he slyly replies. No matter how good a film may look today, no matter how many special effects, or camera movements, none of those aspects of the movies can compare to dialogue like this.

My Journal: Round 2

Here's Round 2

It has been about a week, which means it's high time for my newest installment of My Journal. Although I'm not watching a film every day, I am making up for it when I can. These are films 5-13, so I think that puts me ahead of the count by about  one. Keep on keeping on.

****WARNING****SPOILERS****

5.) Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) 11/12/12

Starring Chris Evans, Tommy Lee Jones, and Hugo Weaving (that’s right, V is now a rogue Nazi super villain); directed by Spielberg protégé Joe Johnston who directed Jurassic Park 3. He also has a very generic body of work behind him, so I think that it is safe to say that Johnston is Hollywood’s director—movies that appeal to the masses and don’t particularly say anything worth saying. Captain America certainly fits into that category. It was indeed entertaining, as long as the cheese didn't melt from all the explosions in the movie. The number of inaccuracies in military code aside, there were too many instances when I kept thinking this is ridiculous. The leading lady was in every action scene even though she wasn't even American, the friend died for Captain America (Evens), the evil red-faced Nazi villain died in a spectacular final fight scene. Yawn. I can’t even remember any of the characters names because they all formed perfect stereotypes. The CGI of Evans before he becomes Captain America is a joke and he has no chin. And, the sound mix was bad. When you watch a movie this bad it is hard to find the redeeming things about it, but it had potential. If only Johnston could have turned this film into a good neo-noir film like he did in directing one of the great fictional World War II films—The Rocketeer.

6.) Hellboy (2004) 11/13/12

Staring Ron Perlman, Slema Blair, and John Hurt and directed by the always interesting Guillermo del Toro. In contrast to Captain America, Hellboy is a much more well-rounded film. The major difference being: character development. This is something that del Toro as a director is good at doing while blending his uniquely Gothic style of filmmaking. The special effects, like in his more critically adored film Pan’s Labyrinth, are not all CGI, and they add a more substantial and gritty texture to the action. Hellboy as a character is complex and so is his love-interest, they are well written and have a telling past. Hellboy obviously has been locked up and branded an outcast by the media and even the government. Liz (Blair) has been hazed for her unique ability to set herself a blaze and has coping issues with it. You get the sense of this conflict in the characters from the very beginning. This is something that isn’t often seen in action/super hero flicks (ie Captian America) very often. Also the action sequences didn’t over shadow the story.

7.) Thor (2011) 11/13/12
Staring Chris Hemsworth, Anthony Hopkins and the always lovely but unpredictably inconsistent Natalie Portman. Directed by Kenneth Branagh. I watched this film to finish of the superhero/comic book kick that I was on, seeing that it was available streaming. I was also intrigued by two elements: Kenneth Branagh and Natalie Portman. Branagh has had a sketchy career as a director and should probably stick to acting, preferably as Sir Lawrence Olivier in My Week with Marilyn (2011) where acted as a director better than he directed. For instance, he and cinematographer chose so many unsavory dutch-tilts throughout the film, particularly at the beginning of action sequences, that the typically useful and jarring camera angle just became annoying and predictable. Branagh’s interest in theatrical or Shakespearean-esque dramas is obvious, but his delve into this superhero/comic book/whatever-you-want-to-call-it genre that is taking over movie screens just seems formulaic. And Portman’s involvement must have been the result of some sort of Entourage-type contract arrangement, but as my roommate recently pointed out to me, she has a track record of inconsistent roles (i.e. the Star Wars prequels). She’s beautiful in this film, but she slips into an over acted performance, making me roll my eyes with how cheesy and predictable the lines delivered when she first “runs into” Thor and how she oogles over him in her trailer because of his big muscles and his arrogance. Fortunately I’m done with the film.

8.) The Walking Dead (2010-2012) 11/14/12 – 11/17/12
( I know this is not a movie, but it’s the same basic concept and I spent a lot of hours committed to the series so here it is.)
Created by Frank Darabont (director of the excellent adaptation of Stephen King’s The Shawshank Redemption and a film I feel is highly underrated The Mist, both co-incidentally co-starring Jeffrey DeMunn who is Dale in The Walking Dead and delivers and equally excellent performance.) So, I know I’m way too late on The Walking Dead bandwagon; I’m way behind on the “best show on television,” according to many of my friends, but I got to it, started it, and am hooked. The success of other AMC shows aside and done on an incredibly cheap budget especially in the early episodes, the success of this show probably comes from its holding true to original zombie apocalypse films, like Night of the Living Dead. Although in my opinion there is a lot of over acting and cheesy zombie attacks, I respect the choice of the show’s creators to execute it this way, holding true to that original campy-ness, because they establish the strong social commentary based on every decision made by each character and how it affects the rest of each group. Several characters in particular stand out to me. Dale was probably my favorite character, selfless (for the most part), wise and forward thinking; he provided the rest of the group with a moral compass. He of all the other characters tried continually to hold onto that little bit of the past, that little bit of “civilization,” if you will. Although Rick claims to be trying to do so, his decisions are too often influenced by his family and Shane (a hot-headed Neanderthal, in my opinion) who usually forces his hand. The most underrated of the characters is of course Glenn, who has the best intentions, and is absolutely right when he says, “I’m tired of lying. I’m not good at it, and people get killed when you don’t tell the truth.” (That is, of course, paraphrased.) And, to keep this post short, I’ll end by saying that I also approve of Glenn’s decision to start the repopulation of the post-apocalyptic world with that farm girl. You go Glenn.

Maria Schell

9.) The Brothers Karamazov (1958) 11/20/12
Based off of the novel by Dostoevsky which I’ve never read, starring Yul Brenner, Lee J. Cobb (from 12 Angry Men and On the Waterfront amongst others), and ole William Shatner as the priest Alexi Karamazov. To my surprise, this film was directed by Richard Brooks who direct Cat on a Hot Tin Roof  and In Cold Blood amongst other notable films that I won’t bore you enumerating. His style in this film at least was a surprise to me. Cat and Cold Blood, although really good movies, are more conventional stylistically. For example the lighting in this film reminds me of German expressionism but with colors. Brooks blends greens and blues and reds in his lighting, which is a far cry from many movies you see today, and after having watched Thor not too long before this film, it was a shocking change of pace from the lighting palate of blue in contrast with orange that seems to be the industry standard in movies nowadays. On a lighter note, Maria Schell plays the foxy temptress who literally dances between the eternally drunk Father Karamazov (Cobb) and the gambling romantic Dmitri (Brenner). She is so elegant and true when responding to Dmitri’s bride-to-be Katya’s pleas as to why she wouldn’t let Dmitri from her attention, Schell sweetly replies something like “If you were ever to experience the pleasure of passion, you would understand why I can’t be without Dmitri. Because there is passion whenever I’m with him.”

Robert Young and Eleanor Powell in Honolulu

10.) Rosalie (1937) 11/21/12
Directed by the esteemed W. S. Van Dyke (who did Tarzan the Ape Man and The Thin Man films.) Staring Eleanor Powell, Frank Morgan and Ray Bolgar. Now, you may not regognize these actors’ names, if you saw them in this musical from 1937, you would say, “Hey! Isn’t that the wizard! And that’s the scarecrow!” Yes, Morgan played the wizard from The Wizard of Oz, and Bolgar was the scarecrow. The film Rosalie was produced from the same studio as The Wizard of Oz: MGM, which during the 30’s was known for its musicals. Also during this era, actors, actresses, directors, etc. were in contract to certain studios, which meant that often times, actors and actresses would be in many movies together. Thus, MGM gives you this film starring practically half the cast of one of the most timeless film classics. I watched this film on TCM (the best station on cable! No arguments, it’s a fact.) as part of their Eleanor Powell 100^th birthday Tribute. This was the first movie of the day that I watched with her in it, and the most striking moment to me came from this tap dance number she does as she’s disguised in a military uniform of some sort. Powell is light on her feet and trying to prove to the rest of the boy that she is one of them, only to reveal herself and her long locks at the end of the number. Typically, I’m not a fan of musicals, but every now and then, TCM reminds me of the magic of movies. One of there old films is playing and at that point in time, I just decide to stop and watch…and watch and watch, and every second is magical. I’m transported into Hollywood’s dreamland. This film wasn't particularly a great film, but it put my mind in that mood that comes about this time every year, when all I want to do is relive the magic of great classic movies.

11.) Honolulu (1939) 11/21/12
Directed by Edward Buzzell (who directed the latter 2 Thin Man films.) Starring again Eleanor Powell who is indeed quite lovely, and George Burns and Gracie Allen! That’s right folks form The Burns and Allen Show. If many of you don’t know this show, it’s your loss. It was on in the early years of television and unfortunately not a lot of the episodes exist today. Television studios where in the habit those days of filming shows, then reusing the tapes that they recorded TV shows on as a way to save money, so many early television shows are lost. But I digress; the film was really stolen by Gracie Allen. Eleanor Powell although lovely and wonderful in a tap dance number around the pool on the ship to Honolulu, is overshadowed by Allen’s hysterical and witty comic relief. For example, when she meets Robert Young’s character (yes, Robert Young from Father Know’s Best), Allen quips “My name is Millicent De Grasse, but most people just cut De Grasse.” Show stealer! There is also an adorable and funny moment at the end of the film when Burns and Allen share their first scene of the film. Burns and Allen were married for about forty years before Allen’s death in 1964. The scene at the end of the film sort of sums up there school mate kind of crush for each other. Find the film and watch it, because I have difficulty summing a moment that pure. Also, my first exposure to George Burns was from my grandma, who showed me and my siblings the film Oh, God! Burns plays an ornery God, and John Denver plays the helpless, down-on-his-luck protagonist. I need to watch that one again.

George Burns and Gracie Allen

12.) The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) 11/21/12
Starring Daniel Craig (quickly becoming one of my favorite contemporary actors) and Rooney Mara. Directed by one of my favorite directors David Fincher (with a résumé too long to sum up but some of my favorites are Benjamin Button, The Social Network, and Fight Club.) Fincher does it again. Typically, I’m not a big fan of remakes, but as Rosalie did to me for musicals, Fincher did with remakes. While maintaining a true sense of the novel and the original film, Fincher was able to create his own piece of art, something that is often times lost when films are remade. A good remake of a film or adaptation of a book should stand alone as its own piece of art, and in my opinion, shouldn’t be judged on its commitment to the previous work. Dragon Tattoo does exactly that, beginning with the way Craig is photographed, scruffy, scratched face, a man with wrinkles caused by stresses. The beauty of the art direction when Mikael (Craig) first arrive on the island, the image almost looks as if it is filmed in black and white. The starch snow against the black outlines of the cars and Mikael’s dark clothing. It represents the “facts” of Anita’s death that for so long have seemed black and white. I could go on and on about the Fincher’s photography, but I will be brief concluding with one of the most unique moments in the film. Near the end, when Mikael is tied up by Martin (played by another great actor in the film Stellan Skarsgard). Martin flips in a little tune “Sail Away” as he’s about to cut Mikael up. The scene is reminiscent, to me at least, of the cocaine-purchase-gone-wrong scene near the end of Boogie Nights and Funny Games, oh and American Psycho’s Huey Lewis chop scenes. The light music mixed with the seriousness of murder makes it all the more chilling!

13.) Roman Holiday (1953) 11/22/12
Directed by William Wyler (Ben-Hur), starring Gregory Peck, Eddie Albert, and the baby-doll faced Audrey Hepburn. I’m a sucker for romantic films, especially older films, and everything that I love about this film is embodied in Audrey Hepburn’s innocence as the princess. Essentially a Cinderella story in flipped from rags to riches to riches to rags (a plot seen a few times since I’m sure), Hepburn is the sweetest in the scene along the river. Yes it is the most iconic scene of the film, but for a reason. It’s the moment that Gregory Peck falls for Hepburn (little did Peck know, that the audience fell for her form the opening scene.) Both soaking form evading the secret service after her, Peck looks into her eyes, water dripping from her short, dark curls, embraces her with a kiss. What a wonderful moment. It is like salt on the wound after watching the exchange between Peck and Hepburn in his room shortly after, where they both realize the complexity and impossibility of their love for each other.

My Journal: the Challenge

I know, I know. It has been a long time since I've written in my blog, and a lot has happened since my last post. (I have been writing, just not posting.) There are reasons, some good, some bad, but neither will change the fact that I haven't. So to quote a certain presidential campaign slogan, let's move forward!

In my many (or few) years, I have watched a lot of films--some good, some bad some good ones I've liked, some bad ones I've liked and vice versa. Recently the idea struck me, or creeped up from a memory actually, to keep a journal of all the films I've watched. I used to do this for a class in college and a friend told me about doing this too. So, this is my running journal, comments, analyses, and reviews of the films that I watch. 

My goal: at least on average a film a day, so 365 films by next year on 11/11/13. I've got a head start. Wish me luck!

Here are the First 4 entries:

****WARNING**** There will be SPOILERS!!!





1.) Beginners (viewed 11/7/12) 

Starring Ewan McGregor, Christopher Plummer (who won an Oscar for best supporting actor in this role), and gorgeous Mélanie Laurent (who was the blond in the cinema in Inglorious Bastards). Touch seemed to play a large role in the film, Anna (Laurent) hands on Oliver's (McGregor) face when they first kiss. The theme continues throughout between Oliver and his father (Plummer). The relationship between Oliver and Anna reminded me of the relationship that I wish that I could have, where Oliver and Anna don’t even speak the first time they meet, but they somehow say so much to each other. The film is about relationships and how we are all just beginners—we never know what to do, and no relationship is perfect, but in the end it turns out right (or maybe it just turns out the way it turns out). Oliver’s father and mother didn't know what they were doing, but in the end it was right even though Oliver’s father was gay; he was happy and loved his wife and came out at 75. Oliver makes mistakes with Anna, but they eventually stay together. They figure it out. "The history of sadness" that Oliver works on is sort of "the history of life." In the end, you can never get it “right,” there is always sadness, but it can work out, maybe not perfectly because we’re all just beginners at life, even at the end of our lives.

2.) The New World (viewed 11/7/12)

Directed by Terrence Malick, starring Colin Ferrall, Christian Bale, and also Christopher Plummer, and Q’orianka Kilcher as Pocahontas. One of my favorite directors and one of my favorite movies, this is not the first time that I have seen this film so I will try and be brief. The film builds up the inner turmoil in Pocahontas and in John Smith. There are their lives in the wild, untamed, natural, new world, and then there are their lives in the old world. They are in love in both lives, but each atmosphere and culture demands different expectations from each. The new world is innocent and pure—and so was Pocahontas when she was there. The old world is gray and unnatural—and muddy. When Pocahontas marries John Rolfe (Bale), it does not seem as natural as when she “courts” Smith (their relationship is like a symphony between each other, he follows her, they teach each other language. They communicate naturally.) Whereas her and Rolfe, and there life in England is for show, to the King and Queen specifically, and the trees and the courtyards are so artificial and structured. Just like Pocahontas’s dress. Natural animal skins in the new world, and tight, suffocating, and unrevealing in the old world. The film offers two versions of love: you expectations of love and society's expectation of love; but also how you perceive love and how society perceives it. 

3. ) The Romantics (viewed 11/8/12) 

Staring Katie Holmes, Josh Duhamel, Elijah Wood, and the reason that I watched the film, the always lovely and gorgeous Anna Paquin. The performances were just about all that held this film up. Holmes was nice like she usually is, and Paquin, who is always smoking in my book, was so as a controlling and neurotic fiancée to Duhamel. The film, directed by no one of note (Galt Niederhoffer), was originally a novel, written by the director and was essentially a romantic gesture by him to Romanticism and romantics as per the name of the film—this allusion could not allude the audience. However, production value was very poor and inconsistent, especially in the final key scene at the altar, where from shot to shot, the image went from grainy to sharp; it looked like a high schooler just learning how to use their father’s digital camera was filming in underexposed lighting. And, the “ambiguous” ending failed to be ambiguous or poignant like it wanted to be. Maybe this worked in the novel?

4.) Death Wish (1974) (viewed 11/11/12) 

Starring Charles Bronson. Directed by Michael Winner who did the first sequel of this film and The Sentinel. Well, the film wasn't more than I expected going in. Actually, it was much less I think. Bronson has developed this image as a perpetual badass, but after watching this, it seems the image is deformed. He is a bad actor, not a badass one. There is a moment in the film after he is nearly mugged and shoots a guy for it. He quivers over a glass of Whisky, quite pathetically so, and it is not a redeemable moment. Setting aside his acting (which I think is quite convincing in Once Upon a Time in the West), the film seemed incomplete. Bronson’s character Kersey abandons what seems at the beginning of the film to be his goal, which is catch those who killed his wife, but instead, he starts to take on every mugger in the city. Not only is it odd that every he steps foot outside his office with his new gun the muggers seem to be attracted to him like vampires to blood, but his conviction is emotionless and not fulfilling of his badass image, (although that may result as watching the film assuming that his reputation preceded him.) On a final note, it is interesting now living in New York how crime and the approach towards it in the city have changed since the seventies. Along with Serpico, Death Wish can be categorized as a film that either exploiting the high crime-rate or shedding light on it.

Ray Bradbury’s Problem with John Carter

“The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that! […] People want to be happy, isn’t that right? […] Don’t we give them fun? That’s all we live for, isn’t it? For pleasure, for titillation? And you must admit our culture provides plenty of these.”

               -Fire Captain Beatty- 

Although not his sole intention in Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury predicts and warns about the future of entertainment and in general America. In a recent article, Disney reported that it was going to have to eat nearly $200 million on its 3D, special effects darling John Carter, and for any cinephile (including this one), this could not be a more pleasing sight. (Although I have not seen it in theaters and will not, so as not to support it. It's doing so well without my help anyways.)The film seems to be another factory-made, big-budgeted blockbuster hopeful that flopped. But the intriguing part about Disney’s failure is that John Carter is a perfect example that there is a problem with the state of Hollywood, a good problem, if the movie industry adapts. So what is this “problem?”

John Carter looking bewildered at a book burning on Mars. "What's the problem?" he asks.

The internet: with it, a niche attitude has been created, not only in the United States, but all around the world. People are able to surf and find anything they are interested in, as specific and obscure as it may be. Whether someone is interested in Crunkcore or 1990’s-era Nicktoons, or whether someone is into men, women or animals for example, the internet is the place to be. Along with having access to that information, there are also small communities for said interests—minority groups, if you will—concerned exclusively with this type of entertainment. So why is this a concern for Hollywood?

Well, let’s put it in an economical context. Disney is recently declaring a $200 million dollar loss on the film John Cater, which, in its second week of release, has plummeted nearly 55% in revenue from ticket sales from its opening week. So why is this important, and why is this not just another flop? Who made the film: Disney—a giant, super-wealthy corporation. Who was their audience: everyone—the average Joe (or rather John). Disney wants everyone to see the film (including those into animals) so that it can recuperate its nearly 250 million dollar budget, and then some (ten-fold would be great.) Naturally, they are a business and want to make as much profit as possible; so in doing so, they try to appeal to the most general audience—the least common denominator.

Speaking of films that appeal to the least common denominator...

Why does the movie industry, and specifically Disney, have this attitude? Well according to Boxofficemojo.com, these are the statistics: on average, while the number of movies being made since 2001 has been wavering but been generally consistent, the total gross of films and the average price per ticket (by more than a dollar since 2001) has been steadily rising perennially; however, the number of total tickets sold has been decreasing since the peak year of 2002 (the immediate post-9/11 year.) Although these numbers can be interpreted in many different ways, and the reliability of said statistics may not be entirely accurate, what seems to be occurring is that while films garner record profits, less and less people go to the movies each year. Their audience is decreasing.

In fact, since 2001—the pivotal year—this decline in movie theater attendance has been attributed to increasing, cheaper-rental outlets (like Netflix, Redbox, etc.), but more recently, to the rise of the internet and movie bootlegging. At the same time, there seems to be a generalized trend in the content of film. For example, it seems that there are more film sequels, trilogies, or franchises; there is an increased number of remakes, superhero movies, and movies based on other popular material like book series’ and comic books; there are a lot more rehashed ideas (not that this did not exist before) with a bunch of glitzy special effects that create an even greater divide between actuality and fantasy.

It is difficult to pinpoint an exact moment or film that caused this trend, or the belief of this trend, to manifested itself, which makes it possible that, in general since the start of the millennium, record profits and decreasing attendance have developed concurrently. However, if you compare the average film budget in 2001 to the average film budget in 2011, it leaps from around 50 million to about 139 million dollars, compared to the ten years prior, approximately 25 million to 50 million from 1991 to 2000. Granted, these numbers are not set in stone, but what can be gleaned from them is a huge change, budgets have nearly tripled in the past decade, whereas only doubling the decade prior. Ticket prices have also increased at a greater rate from 2001 to now, compared to the decade prior (1991-2000). It seems safe to say that Hollywood is riding high on the waves of this trend, all the while making “beaucoup dolares.”

So, what is the point of this? Well, recently there has been an increase in anti-piracy legislation greatly aimed at restricting the internet. But why would Hollywood really care? They are still making a bunch of money. An interesting fact to note, that in post September 11^th America, there were claims of government officials meeting with Hollywood executives to “share […] the themes we’re communicating at home and abroad of patriotism, tolerance, and courage.”

Murica!

If this were to be correct, it would make sense that the government and Hollywood would want to restrict the internet, having less people use it to download freely “indie” or “subversive” films that do not align with what the government propagates. (Now, now, I’m not trying to proliferate a Hollywood/government propaganda conspiracy; I’m just trying to present the possibility of one.) It would make sense, that they would want audiences to increase—to flood, even—to the movie theaters. This is Hollywood’s current concern anyways, the decrease in theater audiences.

This is why such a big flop in John Carter could be important and beneficial to us as the audience. It would benefit companies like Disney to restructure what films they approve for production, to take on a new business-model, to separate themselves from the government (look at how well the government is running their business.) For example, if they start making six smaller-budgeted films rather than one John Carter-esque, huge-budgeted film, it would be easier to recuperate the money. It is easier to gain back 50 million dollars than 300 million dollars isn’t it?

Granted with more films on the market at lower budgets viewers would have more choice (oh no! wouldn’t want that! People thinking different things?!). And this would seemingly just disperse the already sparse theater-going public just creating more flops, right? Not necessarily. Assuming—hoping—that these films were of better quality and Hollywood lowered ticket prices, more people would go to cinemas, pumping more of that green into the economy. But also, studios could afford to do because they would not need to recover 300 million dollars for every film. So if audiences would increase, more people would see more films, it would be easier to gain back smaller budgets. And, if one film were to be very successful, the rewards would be extremely lucrative.

There is less risk, less chance of flopping a 50 million dollar film that Hollywood thinks “no one will see,” rather than a 300 million dollar film like John Carter that everyone has already seen. The movie industry appealing to a more diverse audience would be more beneficial for the audience, for the companies, and for the economy. Diversity is good. Look at the internet for example. If everyone keeps seeing John Carter in droves, what’s to say the makers of these films won’t start telling us that books are evil, that we should burn them?