Ping Pong Playa (2007) is the story of Christopher "CW" Wang, a Chinese wannabe homeboy, who's forced to teach his mother's ping pong class, and defend his family honor at the annual Golden Cock ping pong tournament. Just when you thought the slacker genre had gone everywhere it could go, Jessica Yu presents us with this little gem.
In other hands it might have been a formulaic little indie, but the direction here is spot-on, whimsical, slightly irreverent, sweet, and full of heart. I like the way it approaches race, very directly and casually, humorously. Jimmy Tsai, who also co-wrote, holds it all together with a clueless but endearing Christopher who, as we know he will, steps up in the end. It's predictable, but nonetheless rewarding, and never overly contrived. And Elizabeth Sung as his mother is hysterical.
Jessica Yu also directed In the Realms of the Unreal, one of my favorite documentaries. Or, rather, one of my favorite stories. She seems to have done a lot of work with art and artists; she's directed a lot of television, including ER, the West Wing, and Grey's Anatomy. She won an Oscar for the short documentary Breathing Lessons. She's also done Protagonist, which I'm going to check out on Sundance On-Demand.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Zeitgeist (2007)
Zeitgeist (2007) and its companion piece Zeitgeist: Addendum (2008) are the work of Peter Joseph, and are well-discussed on the internets. I still haven't figured out exactly who Peter Joseph is yet, but the films are essentially personal essays, dissecting our social, political and financial cultures, and the intersection of all three. It falls among a growing number of voices that are questioning the validity of our current socio-economic system that effectively requires consistent debt and warfare.
I think documentary film genres will need to expand over the next little while, as more people take to this form of expression and use it intellectually more than cinematically, which is not to say the latter is absent. It's an interesting form; a crafted lecture of sorts with an agenda. Michael Moore might be the father of this genre, but it seems to be coming into its own in the open-source and social-networking communities.
As for the content, there's also ample back and forth on the validity of Joseph's claims. Again, this is great example of the additional content and discourse such films can generate; it's not just metadata - it's meta-information. I think it's awesome. As a bleeding-heart liberal, I tend to align with many of his views. I think Joseph lays out his argument neatly, and delivers his points well. It's an interesting hybrid: the academic document crossed with the cinematic artform. I think it can be truly powerful. Clearly, there are times when Joseph goes for the emotional response over the intellectual one. Isn't that appropriate, given the form, or should that be judged similarly to a written academic text? It will be interesting how those guidelines shake out in the academic world, and in popular acceptance. If this is the way we're going, I do hope that visual media education becomes a bigger part of our general education. We're lacking. Joseph would agree, but add that that's the point.
In brief, the film provides: (1) an examination of the concurrence among documented deities and religious beliefs, a la Joseph Cambell; (2) a look at the political underpinnings of 9/11; and (3) an argument linking financial hegemony and socio-political oppression. The Addendum expands on information about the fractional reserve system, and provides a call to action and activism. Does he have a point-of-view (aka "an agenda")? Absolutely. That's the point. Is he fair and balanced? Not always, but he makes strong arguments and backs them up. If there are elements in his overall theory that seem somewhat weak, his overall logical framework is sound. Is he histrionic? Not necessarily. The economy is collapsing around us as we speak.
I really enjoyed this doc. I found it entertaining, engaging, and successful in its intention to spur action and social reflection. More than that, I think it's really interesting how film/moving images can be very powerful modes of communication and cannot be merely categorized as fiction/documentary or Objective/Subjective but range across both of these variables. Too, the use of the internets to not only distribute the document (whether watching online, or downloading via torrent) but also to comment and notate the document is exciting. Cinema is dead; long live cinema.
See this movie online at http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
I think documentary film genres will need to expand over the next little while, as more people take to this form of expression and use it intellectually more than cinematically, which is not to say the latter is absent. It's an interesting form; a crafted lecture of sorts with an agenda. Michael Moore might be the father of this genre, but it seems to be coming into its own in the open-source and social-networking communities.
As for the content, there's also ample back and forth on the validity of Joseph's claims. Again, this is great example of the additional content and discourse such films can generate; it's not just metadata - it's meta-information. I think it's awesome. As a bleeding-heart liberal, I tend to align with many of his views. I think Joseph lays out his argument neatly, and delivers his points well. It's an interesting hybrid: the academic document crossed with the cinematic artform. I think it can be truly powerful. Clearly, there are times when Joseph goes for the emotional response over the intellectual one. Isn't that appropriate, given the form, or should that be judged similarly to a written academic text? It will be interesting how those guidelines shake out in the academic world, and in popular acceptance. If this is the way we're going, I do hope that visual media education becomes a bigger part of our general education. We're lacking. Joseph would agree, but add that that's the point.
In brief, the film provides: (1) an examination of the concurrence among documented deities and religious beliefs, a la Joseph Cambell; (2) a look at the political underpinnings of 9/11; and (3) an argument linking financial hegemony and socio-political oppression. The Addendum expands on information about the fractional reserve system, and provides a call to action and activism. Does he have a point-of-view (aka "an agenda")? Absolutely. That's the point. Is he fair and balanced? Not always, but he makes strong arguments and backs them up. If there are elements in his overall theory that seem somewhat weak, his overall logical framework is sound. Is he histrionic? Not necessarily. The economy is collapsing around us as we speak.
I really enjoyed this doc. I found it entertaining, engaging, and successful in its intention to spur action and social reflection. More than that, I think it's really interesting how film/moving images can be very powerful modes of communication and cannot be merely categorized as fiction/documentary or Objective/Subjective but range across both of these variables. Too, the use of the internets to not only distribute the document (whether watching online, or downloading via torrent) but also to comment and notate the document is exciting. Cinema is dead; long live cinema.
See this movie online at http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Zach & Miri Make a Porno (2008)
Zach and Miri make a porno (2008) is the latest offering from Kevin Smith, and revolves around two long-time platonic friends who decide to enter the adult film business to solve their financial woes. It's a bit of a stretch, but the winning cast makes it work, with Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks as the title pair, with Craig Robinson, Jason Mewes, and Traci Lords as supporting cast (in the movie and in the movie in the movie). The chemistry between Rogen and Banks is probably what makes the somewhat silly premise both believable and sweet. Much of the sex is outright stupid, which is really the point. The goal, in our adult lives, successful or not, is to fall in love, and find intimacy. And, typically, this has been under our nose all along. Like The Wizard of Oz, but with more swearing and potty humor.
And I think Smith makes a wise choice to leave himself out of the movie, and attend to what he does best: cementing the details of late-20-something life in the cold, wintery, dead-end little town you went to high school in. And it's effective. You care about the characters, and root for them, even though (or because) they're adorable losers - perfectly, relatably flawed.
Cinematography is by David Klein, who has worked with Smith in the past, and done a lot of TV (including Pushing Daisies). Smith himself does the editing, and I think he's to be commended. The story moves swiftly without overexploiting its laughs and gaffes. The sentiment is sweet but not overbearing; and the happy ending is deserved.
And I think Smith makes a wise choice to leave himself out of the movie, and attend to what he does best: cementing the details of late-20-something life in the cold, wintery, dead-end little town you went to high school in. And it's effective. You care about the characters, and root for them, even though (or because) they're adorable losers - perfectly, relatably flawed.
Cinematography is by David Klein, who has worked with Smith in the past, and done a lot of TV (including Pushing Daisies). Smith himself does the editing, and I think he's to be commended. The story moves swiftly without overexploiting its laughs and gaffes. The sentiment is sweet but not overbearing; and the happy ending is deserved.
Seven Pounds (2008)
Seven Pounds (2008) is the latest collaboration between Will Smith and Gabriele Muccino, in which Ben Thomas (Smith) is on a mission to change the lives 7 people. Why? Naturally, because he is responsible for killing 7 people, and trust me when I tell you I'm not spoiling anything; you can figure that out right away. In order to redeem himself, Ben sets out to find 7 worthy human beings who deserve renewal and rebirth. Who determines worthiness? Why, Ben; yes, the man who's trying to make up for his moral failures. How are they reborn? Well, I won't give it all away, but it doesn't take long to figure it out. Also, jellyfish are deadly.
The Pursuit of Happyness (2006) had a certain restraint that is definitely missing here. Philippe Le Sourd does the cinematography, and perhaps that is the difference. Visual sentiments are often sloppy and overbearing. Sitting in a field of waving wheat means love. Candles in the rain means everlasting. Beyond that though, I think the story was just fundamentally flawed. It becomes clear that the dreamy sequences and mysterious plot are merely covering up the fact that there's no real truth at the center of the film. Once all is revealed and disclosed, the whole thing just seems kind of absurd. And you know, kind of full of itself. What is the point of this really: self-sacrifice, or martyrdom?
That said, Rosario Dawson is beautiful, even when she's dying. Very Bette Davis of her.
The Pursuit of Happyness (2006) had a certain restraint that is definitely missing here. Philippe Le Sourd does the cinematography, and perhaps that is the difference. Visual sentiments are often sloppy and overbearing. Sitting in a field of waving wheat means love. Candles in the rain means everlasting. Beyond that though, I think the story was just fundamentally flawed. It becomes clear that the dreamy sequences and mysterious plot are merely covering up the fact that there's no real truth at the center of the film. Once all is revealed and disclosed, the whole thing just seems kind of absurd. And you know, kind of full of itself. What is the point of this really: self-sacrifice, or martyrdom?
That said, Rosario Dawson is beautiful, even when she's dying. Very Bette Davis of her.
Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
Slumdog Millionaire (2008) is a modern-day fairy tale about two poor orphan brothers who make their way growing up in the slums of India. The story is adapted from the debut novel of the same name by Vikas Swarup. When Jamal Malik, a poor, uneducated "slumdog" finds himself one question away from winning 'Who wants to be a millionaire?", his integrity is questioned and he is accused of cheating. Reviewing each question with authorities, we learn that each piece of information has been tied to a deeply personal and sometimes transformative moment in Jamal's life. The story unfolds then over three periods in the boys' lives, so that we learn, through them, not only the extreme poetry and violence endemic to Mumbai's slums, but also why Jamal has come to be on this particular show. The story is a meditation on fate and chance, and, naturally, on love.
Danny Boyle, of Trainspotting fame, directs, with Anthony Dod Mantle as DP. Mantle has worked with Boyle before on 28 Days Later, and it's clear that it's his work in both films. To be honest, some of the tricksy editing felt a little contrived at first, but I came to not mind it after a short time; it lent, in fact, a sort of dream-like quality to the whole film.
Dev Patel as Jamal is really cute. Both boys are played by three separate actors as they grow up, and, naturally the two brothers are set against each other in terms of character types and life choices. We know from beginning that Jamal is going to prosper, that he is good, that he is bound for good things. Dev Patel plays the character with great grace; very attractive and dignified - we want him to win and, of course, get the girl. As much as the story is of the two brothers, it is also, at its root, a love story. And it doesn't disappoint. Definitely a feel-good movie; not saccharine, not overly histrionic; but very sweet; makes the world seem a little better.
Danny Boyle's Sunshine is in my queue. Dev Patel hasn't done much, but he is on a BBC America teen soap called Skins. It is flixed.
Danny Boyle, of Trainspotting fame, directs, with Anthony Dod Mantle as DP. Mantle has worked with Boyle before on 28 Days Later, and it's clear that it's his work in both films. To be honest, some of the tricksy editing felt a little contrived at first, but I came to not mind it after a short time; it lent, in fact, a sort of dream-like quality to the whole film.
Dev Patel as Jamal is really cute. Both boys are played by three separate actors as they grow up, and, naturally the two brothers are set against each other in terms of character types and life choices. We know from beginning that Jamal is going to prosper, that he is good, that he is bound for good things. Dev Patel plays the character with great grace; very attractive and dignified - we want him to win and, of course, get the girl. As much as the story is of the two brothers, it is also, at its root, a love story. And it doesn't disappoint. Definitely a feel-good movie; not saccharine, not overly histrionic; but very sweet; makes the world seem a little better.
Danny Boyle's Sunshine is in my queue. Dev Patel hasn't done much, but he is on a BBC America teen soap called Skins. It is flixed.
Pineapple Express (2008)
Pineapple Express (2008) is the story of two stoners (Seth Rogen and James Franco) who unwittingly find themselves embroiled in murder, police corruption and drug warfare. There's plenty of wackiness, stoner humor, situational and slapstick comedy, but the film has far more sophistication than I would have expected from a Judd Apatow affair. Apatow serves as producer (and it's clearly his ensemble), but the direction from David Gordon Green lends the film a nice finesse.
Green frames the story with a nice little exposition on marijuana, first on talk radio, and later at the requisite diner conversation scene (one of my favorite, in fact). But he's never dogmatic or overbearing. The real story is the relationship between Saul and Dale ("Who is this Dale Denton?"), cemented by James Franco's fantastic performance. He timing is impeccable, and his Saul the pot dealer is incredibly sweet and endearing. It's him, of course, but he's hysterical. I think I fell in love with him in Freaks and Geeks, and certainly in Acting with James Franco, but this seals the deal.
The film has a distinctly 70s vibe, from the transitions to the lengthy conversations, and some contrived wackiness. And it's a fun ride. I'm pleasantly surprised to see David Gordon Green, who debuted so brilliantly and beautifully with George, Washington and All the Real Girls, branch into comedy. His DP is Tim Orr, who's worked on Green's previous films, as well as Year of the Dog, directed by another of Apatow's circle, Mike White. Snow Angels, another of Green's films photographed by Tim Orr is now in my Netflix queue.
Green frames the story with a nice little exposition on marijuana, first on talk radio, and later at the requisite diner conversation scene (one of my favorite, in fact). But he's never dogmatic or overbearing. The real story is the relationship between Saul and Dale ("Who is this Dale Denton?"), cemented by James Franco's fantastic performance. He timing is impeccable, and his Saul the pot dealer is incredibly sweet and endearing. It's him, of course, but he's hysterical. I think I fell in love with him in Freaks and Geeks, and certainly in Acting with James Franco, but this seals the deal.
The film has a distinctly 70s vibe, from the transitions to the lengthy conversations, and some contrived wackiness. And it's a fun ride. I'm pleasantly surprised to see David Gordon Green, who debuted so brilliantly and beautifully with George, Washington and All the Real Girls, branch into comedy. His DP is Tim Orr, who's worked on Green's previous films, as well as Year of the Dog, directed by another of Apatow's circle, Mike White. Snow Angels, another of Green's films photographed by Tim Orr is now in my Netflix queue.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
The Pursuit of Happyness (2006)
The Pursuit of Happyness (2006) tells the story of Chris Gardner, a down on his luck father who overcomes a series of setbacks to create a life for himself and his 5 year-old son. To be honest, this would probably not be a film I would go out of my way to see. I expected a much more saccharine treatment. I was pleasantly surprised.
Will Smith plays the lead, and his real-life son Jaden plays his fictional son, with a face so cute, and hair so adorable, you can't help but root for them from the beginning. I really liked Will back in the Six Degrees of Separation days, and here, too, his performance is very refined. Chris goes through one stupid situation after another, none of it contrived or histrionic, just stupid, just like life. Losing a shoe, running across town for a meeting, catching the subway to escape being beaten, but losing his bone-scanner machine - his only source of income. It's a reminder that it really does all come down to those silly details, how life is so much an exercise in timing and luck, and that the only piece we can control is our own sense of happiness and comfort.
The film is directed by Gabriele Muccino, who also directs Will's 2008 film Seven Pounds, not to mention the oft-lauded Viva Laughlin. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael, who seems to have worked quite a bit for a lot of different directors, most recently on W for Oliver Stone. The director and camerawork are fine, nothing extraordinary. Smartly, they let Will do the majority of the work, maintaining his dignity and pride and love for his son, even in the most drastically dark circumstances. Much of the action happens on Will's face, and the filmmakers did a good job of allowing the camera to linger, longer than we might expect, to really give a glimpse into the range of emotions Chris is going through. Will, for his part, is to be commended for not overacting. A nice early morning feel-good movie.
Will Smith plays the lead, and his real-life son Jaden plays his fictional son, with a face so cute, and hair so adorable, you can't help but root for them from the beginning. I really liked Will back in the Six Degrees of Separation days, and here, too, his performance is very refined. Chris goes through one stupid situation after another, none of it contrived or histrionic, just stupid, just like life. Losing a shoe, running across town for a meeting, catching the subway to escape being beaten, but losing his bone-scanner machine - his only source of income. It's a reminder that it really does all come down to those silly details, how life is so much an exercise in timing and luck, and that the only piece we can control is our own sense of happiness and comfort.
The film is directed by Gabriele Muccino, who also directs Will's 2008 film Seven Pounds, not to mention the oft-lauded Viva Laughlin. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael, who seems to have worked quite a bit for a lot of different directors, most recently on W for Oliver Stone. The director and camerawork are fine, nothing extraordinary. Smartly, they let Will do the majority of the work, maintaining his dignity and pride and love for his son, even in the most drastically dark circumstances. Much of the action happens on Will's face, and the filmmakers did a good job of allowing the camera to linger, longer than we might expect, to really give a glimpse into the range of emotions Chris is going through. Will, for his part, is to be commended for not overacting. A nice early morning feel-good movie.
Monday, December 22, 2008
The Assassination of Richard Nixon (2004)
The Assassination of Richard Nixon (2004) is the feature-film directorial debut of Niels Mueller, starring Sean Penn as divorced father Sam Bicke, so deeply wounded and down on his luck, that his last perceived shot at the American Dream is to make his mark eliminating the moral scourge that is President Richard Nixon. Sam, himself, struggles with a very rigid morality, a seeming inability to adapt to world that is increasingly not drawn in black and white. This rigidity and stubbornness causes him to lose nearly every relationship in his life, and, indeed, causes him to cease to function socially.
Sam's plot is recounted throughout the film in voice-over, as Sam creates a series of tapes to send to Mr. Leonard Bernstein. Sam wants Bernstein to tell his story because Bernstein's music represents perhaps the one truly pure thing he's experienced in the world. And, certainly, as befits the character of Sam, he sees only the ultimate product in all of its grandeur, without understanding the messy work and effort that's gone into creating it. Sam, too, wants his world to be effortless. Not that he's lazy, but that he's not able to confront the ambiguity he must encounter each day in order to be a functional adult in society.
The movie truly hinges on Penn's incredibly nuanced, heartbreaking performance as Sam Bicke, middle-aged failure, hopelessly unable to connect to those around him, deeply sincere and well-meaning, heartbreakingly naive. Because of the emotions that Penn is able to craft in his lined face, we somehow understand how Bicke comes, in his mind, to the conclusion that his only shot at greatness must be also be self-destructive, misguided, fatal. Penn makes it clear, in very subtle movements, how much Bicke is hurting, how desperately he's flailing for meaning and connection. It's an impressive performance, and I think the film depends on it. The supporting cast is also excellent, with Naomi Watts as his ex-wife, trying to keep things together for her kids while dealing with a increasingly disturbed and disturbing Sam, and Don Cheadle as Sam's only friend.
Behind the scenes as well, Mueller has an incredible team. The movie is co-produced by Alexander Payne, apparently a film school buddy. Alfonso Cuaron also produces, as does Emmanuel Lubetski, Cuaron's cinematographer, and DP for this film. So, the movie has a great creative team from the start, and it's hard to know exactly what Mueller's mark on this film is. Still, he wrote Tadpole, which I loved, so I expect good things from him. A welcome subtle character study with fantastic performances. I also really liked the use of archival footage, from Nixon's television appearances to general late 60's/early 70's social upheaval. Highly recommended. Based on a true story.
Sam's plot is recounted throughout the film in voice-over, as Sam creates a series of tapes to send to Mr. Leonard Bernstein. Sam wants Bernstein to tell his story because Bernstein's music represents perhaps the one truly pure thing he's experienced in the world. And, certainly, as befits the character of Sam, he sees only the ultimate product in all of its grandeur, without understanding the messy work and effort that's gone into creating it. Sam, too, wants his world to be effortless. Not that he's lazy, but that he's not able to confront the ambiguity he must encounter each day in order to be a functional adult in society.
The movie truly hinges on Penn's incredibly nuanced, heartbreaking performance as Sam Bicke, middle-aged failure, hopelessly unable to connect to those around him, deeply sincere and well-meaning, heartbreakingly naive. Because of the emotions that Penn is able to craft in his lined face, we somehow understand how Bicke comes, in his mind, to the conclusion that his only shot at greatness must be also be self-destructive, misguided, fatal. Penn makes it clear, in very subtle movements, how much Bicke is hurting, how desperately he's flailing for meaning and connection. It's an impressive performance, and I think the film depends on it. The supporting cast is also excellent, with Naomi Watts as his ex-wife, trying to keep things together for her kids while dealing with a increasingly disturbed and disturbing Sam, and Don Cheadle as Sam's only friend.
Behind the scenes as well, Mueller has an incredible team. The movie is co-produced by Alexander Payne, apparently a film school buddy. Alfonso Cuaron also produces, as does Emmanuel Lubetski, Cuaron's cinematographer, and DP for this film. So, the movie has a great creative team from the start, and it's hard to know exactly what Mueller's mark on this film is. Still, he wrote Tadpole, which I loved, so I expect good things from him. A welcome subtle character study with fantastic performances. I also really liked the use of archival footage, from Nixon's television appearances to general late 60's/early 70's social upheaval. Highly recommended. Based on a true story.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Modern Times (1936)
Modern Times (1936) is Charlie Chaplin's last "silent" film, a satire of the industrial age, and a commentary on the plight of the modern worker. Sound on film was, by this time, widely available, and Chaplin certainly uses sound (if not dialog, per se) in unexpected ways here, but, in total, I think the film is an homage to the short-lived silent moving image art form. The real joy of the film (and indeed I think most silents) is the sheer physicality of the images. Chaplin is an artist, bumbling his way to near-disaster with such precision and effortlessness. Chaplin roller skating blindfolded near a broken balcony is sheer visual poetry. It's a pleasure to watch. It's a ballet.
Too, the film's love story, with its many glowing close-ups of our feisty Heroine, played by Paulette Goddard (Chaplin's maybe-maybe-not paramour), and sweet goofy devotion seems a dead-on nod to a staple of the silent cinema (as I've seen it): the chaste and noble romance. Goddard does literally glow on screen, whether with dirt-smudged face or not, and she and Chaplin have a lovely chemistry. And she's a spitfire, a really great complement to his aw-shucks obliviousness.
Still, Chaplin manages to include plenty social commentary in such a short sweet love story. As a factory worker, he literally becomes caught in the machine, another stunningly choreographed scene (with a special special effect!). As an audience, we follow him as he becomes entangled in one sticky situation after another, accidentally falling into positions of action, or perceived action, all with good humor, all with endearing willingness. While he points to plenty of social ills (factory strikes, hunger, homelessness), he is never a direct social commentator. Chaplin certain is; but the Little Tramp is an accidental social commentator. He is arrested, twice, only because he happens into situations at inopportune times. Modernity is simply one more obstacle between the Little Tramp and Love, and its this heart, I think, that makes these films so enduring.
Other silents on my DVR: The Great Dictator, which should be an interesting complement in terms of content and directon; The Godless Girl (another film which existed in the cross-over from silent films to talkies); and Movie Crazy, starring Harold Lloyd.
Watch this movie on archive.org!
Too, the film's love story, with its many glowing close-ups of our feisty Heroine, played by Paulette Goddard (Chaplin's maybe-maybe-not paramour), and sweet goofy devotion seems a dead-on nod to a staple of the silent cinema (as I've seen it): the chaste and noble romance. Goddard does literally glow on screen, whether with dirt-smudged face or not, and she and Chaplin have a lovely chemistry. And she's a spitfire, a really great complement to his aw-shucks obliviousness.
Still, Chaplin manages to include plenty social commentary in such a short sweet love story. As a factory worker, he literally becomes caught in the machine, another stunningly choreographed scene (with a special special effect!). As an audience, we follow him as he becomes entangled in one sticky situation after another, accidentally falling into positions of action, or perceived action, all with good humor, all with endearing willingness. While he points to plenty of social ills (factory strikes, hunger, homelessness), he is never a direct social commentator. Chaplin certain is; but the Little Tramp is an accidental social commentator. He is arrested, twice, only because he happens into situations at inopportune times. Modernity is simply one more obstacle between the Little Tramp and Love, and its this heart, I think, that makes these films so enduring.
Other silents on my DVR: The Great Dictator, which should be an interesting complement in terms of content and directon; The Godless Girl (another film which existed in the cross-over from silent films to talkies); and Movie Crazy, starring Harold Lloyd.
Watch this movie on archive.org!
Thursday, December 18, 2008
There Will Be Blood (2007)
There will be Blood (2007) is Paul Thomas Anderson's feature-length adaptation of Upton Sinclair's novel Oil!, about an oil prospector's rise in early 20th century America. Daniel Day Lewis plays Daniel Plainview, who, after losing his wife in childbirth, builds a drilling business from ground-up. Oil is a dirty business, and Anderson never misses an opportunity to make that point visually. From gurgling crude to big black plumes of smokes, we constantly see the dark soot seep into corners of the frame, and into lines on faces.
Part of the beauty of the film is the way the camera lingers on Faces. Or rather, it lingers on landscapes, be they the physical landscapes or the landscape of the face. Indeed, much of what I loved about this film was how wordless it often was. It wasn't silent; in fact, the soundtrack by Jonny Greenwood is awesome. Often operatic, sometimes tribal, the music was a perfect, and unexpected complement to the film, weaving nicely into, and commenting nicely on, the content, camerawork, and explosive performance by Daniel Day Lewis.
Daniel Day Lewis really commands the whole film. He's just so, so good. I hated him so deeply, and yet could not take my eyes off him, almost relishing his descent into the bitter, despicable, evil tycoon he becomes. Certainly, he steals all scenes. But his supporting actors were impressive. Dillon Freasier, as Daniel's son and "associate" gives a really impressive performance in his first-ever film; and Paul Dano as Daniel's preacher/nemesis is a strong counterpoint. He's come a long way since L.I.E. and Little Miss Sunshine. I hope he goes good places.
Anderson is to be commended for his restraint in directing this 2 1/2 hour film. The first 15 minutes are without dialogue, and he frequently opts for long lingering shots over extensive exposition. I don't know if that subtlety comes from the novel (which I have not yet read) or the cinematography by Robert Elswitt. Elswitt has been working with PTA since Boogie Nights, and done some other pretty films like Good Night and Good Luck and Syriana. The camera work was simply beautiful; it had a lot of the movement I liked in Magnolia, without the ADD. Some shots were sweeping, gorgeous; some felt like ominous horror shots, zooming in on an oil fire.
It's clear Anderson is approaching the content from a modern perspective, knowing what we know now; and I'm not sure it could be done any other way. All of this is inevitable, we already know the consequences of this sticky black road. But, he never over-argues or browbeats; he focuses instead on the character of Daniel, and the power he wields (or doesn't wield) in his world of wealth, morality, mortality, kinship.
Part of the beauty of the film is the way the camera lingers on Faces. Or rather, it lingers on landscapes, be they the physical landscapes or the landscape of the face. Indeed, much of what I loved about this film was how wordless it often was. It wasn't silent; in fact, the soundtrack by Jonny Greenwood is awesome. Often operatic, sometimes tribal, the music was a perfect, and unexpected complement to the film, weaving nicely into, and commenting nicely on, the content, camerawork, and explosive performance by Daniel Day Lewis.
Daniel Day Lewis really commands the whole film. He's just so, so good. I hated him so deeply, and yet could not take my eyes off him, almost relishing his descent into the bitter, despicable, evil tycoon he becomes. Certainly, he steals all scenes. But his supporting actors were impressive. Dillon Freasier, as Daniel's son and "associate" gives a really impressive performance in his first-ever film; and Paul Dano as Daniel's preacher/nemesis is a strong counterpoint. He's come a long way since L.I.E. and Little Miss Sunshine. I hope he goes good places.
Anderson is to be commended for his restraint in directing this 2 1/2 hour film. The first 15 minutes are without dialogue, and he frequently opts for long lingering shots over extensive exposition. I don't know if that subtlety comes from the novel (which I have not yet read) or the cinematography by Robert Elswitt. Elswitt has been working with PTA since Boogie Nights, and done some other pretty films like Good Night and Good Luck and Syriana. The camera work was simply beautiful; it had a lot of the movement I liked in Magnolia, without the ADD. Some shots were sweeping, gorgeous; some felt like ominous horror shots, zooming in on an oil fire.
It's clear Anderson is approaching the content from a modern perspective, knowing what we know now; and I'm not sure it could be done any other way. All of this is inevitable, we already know the consequences of this sticky black road. But, he never over-argues or browbeats; he focuses instead on the character of Daniel, and the power he wields (or doesn't wield) in his world of wealth, morality, mortality, kinship.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Guys and Dolls (1955)
Guys and Dolls (1955) is Joseph L. Mankiewicz's adaptation of the tony-award winning musical, staring Marlon Brando, Frank Sinatra, Jean Simmons, and Vivienne Blaine. This has been a long time favorite of mine, and I was excited to see it on cable.
I suspect I first came to this movie because of Frank Sinatra. Marlon Brando is fine; he's good; he's Marlon Brando. Though I can do without him singing. And I've always been annoyed by his judgmental missionary girlfriend, who is mostly concerned with her own failure as a soul saver rather than any actual souls that might need saving. Naturally she and Marlon's character Sky Masterson (spoiler alert) fall in love, unexpectedly, of course, following a bet, and blah blah blah.
The real magic here is with Sinatra and Blaine, as Nathan ("Nathan, Nathan, Nathan Detroit") and his long-suffering girlfriend Adelaide. Nathan is a slick gambler (ahem, "general manager") who is just trying to arrange a dice game to make some money to buy Adelaide an anniversary present (they've been engaged for 14 years). Adelaide is longing for Nathan to make an honest woman of her, and to get rid of her long-standing psychosomatic cold. (Adelaide: "The doctor thinks my cold might possibly be caused by psychology." Nathan: "How does he know you got psychology?"). Adelaide's Lament remains one of my favorite show tunes, reading from her psychology book and interpreting her relationship with Nathan ("In other words, just from waiting around for that plain little band of gold, a person could develop a cold.")
And the stars of the show are really the fabulous song and dance numbers. Vivienne Blaine, who reprized the role of Adelaide from her performance on Broadway, really shines. Sinatra, the coolest crooner in the world, is also fantastic. But I really love Harry the Horse, all the gamblers, the "New York" sets, the colors, the dancing, and, how, every time I see it, I want to break into song ("Sit down, sit down, sit down, sit down, sit down you're rocking the boat").
So, what do I know about Joseph L. Mankiewicz? Besides Guys and Dolls, he also directed the brilliant All About Eve, and Suddenly Last Summer. Two films I haven't seen which are now in my queue: Cleopatra and The Ghost and Mrs. Muir. I've never been huge into musicals, so I'm not going down that queue path, but I did add a documentary on Gene Kelly, as well as On the Town, a musical with Frank Sinatra and Gene Kelly. To round it out, another Frank Sinatra movie, albeit one of the dark ones: Suddenly, in which Sinatra plays a presidential assassin.
I suspect I first came to this movie because of Frank Sinatra. Marlon Brando is fine; he's good; he's Marlon Brando. Though I can do without him singing. And I've always been annoyed by his judgmental missionary girlfriend, who is mostly concerned with her own failure as a soul saver rather than any actual souls that might need saving. Naturally she and Marlon's character Sky Masterson (spoiler alert) fall in love, unexpectedly, of course, following a bet, and blah blah blah.
The real magic here is with Sinatra and Blaine, as Nathan ("Nathan, Nathan, Nathan Detroit") and his long-suffering girlfriend Adelaide. Nathan is a slick gambler (ahem, "general manager") who is just trying to arrange a dice game to make some money to buy Adelaide an anniversary present (they've been engaged for 14 years). Adelaide is longing for Nathan to make an honest woman of her, and to get rid of her long-standing psychosomatic cold. (Adelaide: "The doctor thinks my cold might possibly be caused by psychology." Nathan: "How does he know you got psychology?"). Adelaide's Lament remains one of my favorite show tunes, reading from her psychology book and interpreting her relationship with Nathan ("In other words, just from waiting around for that plain little band of gold, a person could develop a cold.")
And the stars of the show are really the fabulous song and dance numbers. Vivienne Blaine, who reprized the role of Adelaide from her performance on Broadway, really shines. Sinatra, the coolest crooner in the world, is also fantastic. But I really love Harry the Horse, all the gamblers, the "New York" sets, the colors, the dancing, and, how, every time I see it, I want to break into song ("Sit down, sit down, sit down, sit down, sit down you're rocking the boat").
So, what do I know about Joseph L. Mankiewicz? Besides Guys and Dolls, he also directed the brilliant All About Eve, and Suddenly Last Summer. Two films I haven't seen which are now in my queue: Cleopatra and The Ghost and Mrs. Muir. I've never been huge into musicals, so I'm not going down that queue path, but I did add a documentary on Gene Kelly, as well as On the Town, a musical with Frank Sinatra and Gene Kelly. To round it out, another Frank Sinatra movie, albeit one of the dark ones: Suddenly, in which Sinatra plays a presidential assassin.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
La Notte (1961)
La Notte (1961) is the portrait of an unhappy, rapidly unraveling marriage. It's an examination of loneliness and aloneness, isolation and intimacy, intellectualism and sensuality. Marcello Mastroianni and Jeanne Moreau play Giovanni and Lidia, two beautifully sad creatures dripping with ennui. Over the course of a day, the couple visit a dying friend, attend Giovanni's book launch party, visit a nightclub (where they enjoy a mesmerizing dance performance involving contortion and red wine), attend a party at a wealthy business man's estate (cue commerce v. art dialog), and commit infidelity to varying degrees.
Yet the shroud of darkness following these two through their day, together and apart, never diminishes their ability to seemingly glide across the screen with such heart-breaking grace. It's a stunning film. Director Michelangelo Antonioni and Cinematographer Gianni Di Venanzo craft a deftly shaded piece of work. I love the shots of Lidia wandering the crumbling city, accompanied by an echoing soundtrack of her clicking heels. Gorgeous.
The film was a welcome escape on a cold, snowy day. It reminds me in, in its style, something I've often felt when watching Bergman's films: the simultaneity of a kind of shiny metallic distance, and a deeply raw intimacy.
I'll admit I originally sought out this film because it was the movie Don Draper watched when he slipped out of the office to catch a matinee, and was the only intimate offering he extended to Bobbi, before crashing his car on their drunken drive to the beach. If Don Draper likes it, it's swank to be sure.
But, I'm quite glad I did. Last week, I re-watched La Dolce Vita (also staring Mastroianni), and I think it's time for a mid-20th-century Italian Film Refresher. So, here's what my netflix queue is looking like:
Yet the shroud of darkness following these two through their day, together and apart, never diminishes their ability to seemingly glide across the screen with such heart-breaking grace. It's a stunning film. Director Michelangelo Antonioni and Cinematographer Gianni Di Venanzo craft a deftly shaded piece of work. I love the shots of Lidia wandering the crumbling city, accompanied by an echoing soundtrack of her clicking heels. Gorgeous.
The film was a welcome escape on a cold, snowy day. It reminds me in, in its style, something I've often felt when watching Bergman's films: the simultaneity of a kind of shiny metallic distance, and a deeply raw intimacy.
I'll admit I originally sought out this film because it was the movie Don Draper watched when he slipped out of the office to catch a matinee, and was the only intimate offering he extended to Bobbi, before crashing his car on their drunken drive to the beach. If Don Draper likes it, it's swank to be sure.
But, I'm quite glad I did. Last week, I re-watched La Dolce Vita (also staring Mastroianni), and I think it's time for a mid-20th-century Italian Film Refresher. So, here's what my netflix queue is looking like:
- La Notte is part of a trilogy. So, I'll be checking out L' Avventura (1960) and L' Eclisse (1963).
- I haven't really watched Michelangelo Antonioni's films, so I've also flixed Story of a Love Affair (1950) and Blowup (1966).
- Marcello Mastroianni was dreamy to watch, so I'll be checking out Too Bad She's Bad (1954), Le Notti bianche (1957), Yesterday, today, and tomorrow (1953), and The 10th Victim (1965). Sophia Loren appears in two of these. I'm guessing they are a smoking couple on screen.
- Vittorio De Sica - I've seen The Bicycle Thief several times (and it's fantastic, sad, and lovely - highly recommended) so I thought I'd check out Umberto D. (1952), another of his oft-lauded works.
- De Sica and his contemporaries are ususually associated with the italian neorealism movemen. I plan to watch The Railroad Man (1956), another prime example from the genre.
- Federico Fellini - I've seen several of Fellini's films, and am planning to see the restored version of Amarcord at SIFF Jan 2 - 8, so I picked out two I haven't yet seen: I Vitelleoni (1956) and The Swindle (1955)
- The Conformist (1970), directed by Bernardo Bertolucci, is a film I've heard referenced for years, so I figured this would be a good time to finally sit down and watch it. Looks to be an interesting look at Italian facism, a theme also often visited by Fellini. It might also make for an interesting comparison with some German post-tyranny literature.
The Moving Image is no Evidence
The title of this blog comes from "The Death of Cinema" Paolo Cherchi Usai's dense, beautiful and complex meditation on moving images, memory, and preservation:
"The moving image is no evidence. Nature and social life are perceived by cinema as a sequence of events that can be remembered. Moving images produced outside the world of fiction give identity to the viewing experience as fragments of empirical evidence, but they can prove nothing unless there is some explanation of what they are. Be it ever so eloquent, the moving image is like a witness who is unable to describe an event without an intermediary. The ability to transform it into evidence, true or false, is inherently linked to a decision to preserve, alter or suppress the memory of the circumstance under which the image was produced. The loss of the moving image is an outcome of an ideology expressed by the very object that made it possible."
I'm still not sure I have any idea what that means. But it touches on several ideas I've persistently been drawn to emotionally and intellectually. How our minds transform our experience and perception, how the art we attend to and celebrate reveals our values, our self-image, our desired legacy.
I want to use this as a place to focus my ideas and to return to the practice of watching and writing about film daily. Who knows if anyone will ever want to read it besides me, but maybe it will evolve into something coherent and interesting. Or not. Whatever.
"The moving image is no evidence. Nature and social life are perceived by cinema as a sequence of events that can be remembered. Moving images produced outside the world of fiction give identity to the viewing experience as fragments of empirical evidence, but they can prove nothing unless there is some explanation of what they are. Be it ever so eloquent, the moving image is like a witness who is unable to describe an event without an intermediary. The ability to transform it into evidence, true or false, is inherently linked to a decision to preserve, alter or suppress the memory of the circumstance under which the image was produced. The loss of the moving image is an outcome of an ideology expressed by the very object that made it possible."
I'm still not sure I have any idea what that means. But it touches on several ideas I've persistently been drawn to emotionally and intellectually. How our minds transform our experience and perception, how the art we attend to and celebrate reveals our values, our self-image, our desired legacy.
I want to use this as a place to focus my ideas and to return to the practice of watching and writing about film daily. Who knows if anyone will ever want to read it besides me, but maybe it will evolve into something coherent and interesting. Or not. Whatever.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)