Subscribe to Posts
Subscribe to CommentsCategory Archive: Movies
Reviews and comments on movies.If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr. No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).
If you want to know more about me, click here.
September 02, 2008
Voice, Over
Sigh. A bit too late I realized this would have been the perfect title for my previous post on Don Lafontaine
Posted by Steven at 12:49 PM | Permalink
Don Lafontaine RIP
A Hollywood legend died yesterday. Most people wouldn't recognize the name, and even fewer would know the face; but everyone who has gone out to the movies for the last 40 years would certainly recognize the voice of Don Lafontaine – the "king" of movie trailer voice-overs (he did the narration of over 5000 movie trailers). His signature phrase "In a world where…" has been parodied many times.
A couple of links for those who still might not know who I am talking about:
- A short (5 minutes) biography
- A bit of humor with all five of the top voice-over artists.
Posted by Steven at 09:39 AM | Permalink
June 04, 2008
2008 Blockbusters So Far
I've been doing a lot of heavy faith posts lately, and already have a couple more in mind; but I thought it was time to take a break and comment on some of my other interests – in this case cinema. Specifically, my reactions to the three big blockbuster movies that have been released in the last couple months.
Iron Man
Ah, that's what a comic superhero movie should be like. Not sure it is better than the second Spiderman movie (which had been at the top of that category in my opinion); but it is certainly in that league. The movie's success is almost entirely a result of Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow's performances who managed to bring some life to otherwise standard material.
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
All in all, a fairly good adaptation of the book. The problem is that I never thought that the book was all that strong. I didn't think it worked as pure adventure, nor as allegory; and this is reflected in the film. A pleasant way to spend a couple hours; but certainly not high on my list of favorite movies.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Other than the age of the characters, this film seems like it was made only a couple of years after the last film (instead of nineteen). Same formulas, same techniques, same "feel". That's both a compliment and a criticism. While it was a very entertaining film (the original Raiders' remains one of my all time favorites), I couldn't help feeling that it should have somehow been "more" given another 20 years of film technology and experience from Lucas and Spielberg.
Speed Racer
Well, I didn't actually see this flick. I found the trailers to be rather overwhelming visually and had doubts about sitting through a whole movie done in that style. When the poor reviewers started to come in, I decided to punt.
Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
February 27, 2008
Desert Island Media (Movies)
A couple weeks ago, Melissa asked “If you were on a spaceship to Mars and could only take three movies with you, which three would you choose and why? What about Books? Computer games? TV series?” This is a variation on the standard “If you were stranded on a desert island, what 3 (or 5, or 10) books would you want to have with you?” I assume the variation is to allow for movies, TV and games to be considered (kind of hard to find an outlet to plug the computer into on a desert island.)
I’ll note that this is slightly different from the question of which works I think are “best” or that I would recommend that other people read/watch. There are many excellent works for which a second pass might be enjoyable; but a third or fourth pass starts to get boring. Having those on a desert island (or trip to Mars) would be undesirable. So while I think all of my answers here are great works that I think everyone should experience, there is a bias towards those great works that have sufficient depth to warrant reading / viewing / playing them again and again.
So without further fanfare, here are my picks for movies (I’ll hit the others in later posts):
This proved to be more difficult than it might have been. I used to be a serious cinemaphile; but have grown disenchanted with the limitations of the medium over the last decade or so. The truth of the matter is that I would be content to live several years without access to any movies – I’d rather have more books, TV, or games with me. However, if I had to pick, here’s my short list of movies I’d enjoy watching again and again:
1. Pleasantville
2. The Abyss
3. Contact
I note that what these three all have in common is that they are nominally Science Fiction movies but all use SciFi to communicate a strong message about the nature of the human condition. They are all also (in one way or another) about faith.
If I could take three more I would grab:
4. The Stunt Man
5. Raiders of the Lost Ark
6. The Princess Bride
“The Stunt Man” is a wild movie that constantly bends the line between reality and illusion. It you have never seen it, I consider it a must-see movie.
“Raiders of the Lost Ark” is one of my favorite movies of all time. I actually saw it 8 times before the end of the first week it was out – once in a preview showing the week before, and then once it opened, each night I dragged a new group of friends to see it. It isn’t a deep movie; but it was never meant to be – it is a straight entertainment movie made to perfection. It is down in fifth place because the others are not only well made; but they have something important to say.
“The Princess Bride” is a wonderful mix of comedy and action.
There is a real step down in my opinion from those sixth to the seventh, so I will stop there.
Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)
February 19, 2008
Persepolis
Anne and I saw the movie "Persepolis" last weekend and enjoyed it.
In 2000, Marjane Satrapi (an Iranian woman and professional illustrator living in France) started publishing a series of autobiographical graphic novels entitled “Persepolis” covering her coming of age in Iran and Europe in the time of the Iranian Revolution. This movie is essentially an animation of her graphic novels using the same illustration style. The movie is in French with English subtitles.
While the politics of Iran are never far in the background (her family suffered under both the Shah and the Islamic Revolution), the story is really about her own development as a young, naive, foolish, and often self-centered young woman living in turbulent times. Unlike some autobiographies, she makes no effort to portray herself as noble – instead fully acknowledging her own weaknesses. The result is a powerful story about one woman and the world in which she lived.
It is also a hilarious story, full of both visual and verbal humor. Anne and I both had a great time watching it and had great conversations afterwards. People might have a work to find this one in the theatres; but it is well worth it.
Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
January 22, 2008
Cloverfield
If you have ever watched one of those old Japanese monster movies and wondered what it might be like for someone to be in one of those building being stomped on, “Cloverfield” Is the movie for you. It is essentially a cross between “Godzilla” (giant monster stomping through Manhattan) and “The Blair Witch Project” (the film is presented as a discovered camcorder tape made by a small group of friends trying to get out from underfoot).
Of course, what the film is really about is 9/11 and the filmmakers take every opportunity (once things start) to remind people of that. It starts with an explosion on a building, and within minutes we are treated to a shot of a building collapsing and the crowd running away from the resulting dust cloud (sound familiar?). The film is really about the sense of hopelessness that comes from being stuck in an incomprehensible act of violence that one has no ability to control. In that, it also harkens back to the old monster movies from the 50’s where the monsters were regularly stand-ins for the atomic bomb and the dangers of the atomic age.
For me, the whole un-steady camera work was just too hard to watch to really enjoy the film; but I do respect what they did.
Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
December 26, 2007
Enchanted
Anne and I saw the movie "Enchanted" and quite enjoyed it. For those unfamiliar, the core premise is that a bunch of characters from a typical Disney animated movie (compassionate princess, handsome prince, wicked witch, etc.) get dumped into real-world, present day New York City. The movie is full of gags and inside jokes on various classic Disney films (and how ridiculous they would be in the real world); but is also a very sweet film about (what else) "true love".
As an example, the princess talks to animals and can summon their to help by singing (as in Sleeping Beauty); but when she tries this in New York, only Pigeons, Rats and Cockroaches come to help – which is no bother to her (she loves all animals); but proves to be problematic to some of the other characters.
While not up to the original Shrek or Princess Bride, it is (at least in my opinion) in the same league as those films.
Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
June 20, 2006
A Prairie Home Companion
Writers and Directors in Hollywood have been fighting for decades about the "possessory credit" – who gets to say "a film by…" (or equivalent) in the opening credits. On the one hand, who doubts that "Psycho" is an Alfred Hitchcock film (as opposed to Robert Bloch or Joseph Stefano, the writers)? On the other hand, who doubts that "The Odd Couple" is a Neil Simon film (as opposed to Gene Saks, the director)? Then there are cases like "Carrie" – should it be labeled a "Steven King" film after the writer or a "Bran De Palma" film after the director? Each profession has practitioners who are able to leave an indelible mark on their work, leaving no doubt as to whose work it is; yet coming up with industry rules to cover these "I know it when I see it" issues has proven impossible and too frequently has ended up in court.
Thus I start this review with the observation that the movie "A Prairie Home Companion" is without a doubt "owned" by its director, Robert Altman; not its writer Garrison Keillor, creator of the radio program from which it gets its name. Altman is famous for many things in his films: large casts of characters (check), complex overlapping dialog where characters either talk over each other or where there are multiple conversations going on screen at the same time (check). He is also known for using character as opposed to story to carry his themes. The plots of Altman films are often thin meandering affairs where not much actually happens, but where you understand the various characters' points of view quite well (check).
Most of all, Altman films are often not about what they seem to be about. M*A*S*H was not about the Korean War. Nashville was not about country music. Prêt-à-Porter was not about fashion. And "A Prairie Home Companion" is not about a radio show. It isn't even set in the real-world radio show of that name, as is evidenced by the fact that many of the fictional characters from the radio show appear as real people in the film. No, as with many of his other films, Altman presents us with a stylized version of some reality as a setting for characters who have something else to say.
This is important to understand as I have seen many negative reviews by critics who seem to have gone to the screening expecting this movie to be come kind of concert film – showing the production of the actual show – and were confused and disappointed when it did not meet those expectations. No, this film is something quite different.
As to what this film is actually about, that's another matter. I think I understand it; but am hesitant to express my opinions here because I fear they would lead people astray. It is a film about X; but quite unlike any other film about X which has ever been made. Were I to say what X is, I suspect I would discourage people from seeing the movie that would very much enjoy it, and might attract people who would be bored by the experience. The film's greatest virtue is its uniqueness and any simple statement here would not do it justice.
To be honest, it took me a while to form my own opinion about the movie. When I got home I felt like I had to wait for my brain to reset after the experience (in part because I too had gone to it with incorrect expectations). In the end I have decided that this is a truly great film, and want to actually go out and see it again soon (now that I know what to expect). My recommendation to others – if you go to the movie without expectations of what it will be, you are likely to enjoy it.
Posted by Steven at 06:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
May 21, 2006
The Da Vinci Code
I'll start by saying that as a work of entertaining fiction, I really enjoyed Dan Brown's book, "The Da Vinci Code". It reminded me in a lot of ways of one of my favorite films: "Raiders of the Lost Ark". A professor chasing clues to find some relic of the past, being chased in turn by murderous enemies who want the same relic for different reasons. It was a quite enjoyable story. The movie likewise was good, although not great. The story requires a great deal to be explained to make sense, and while you can hide that amount of exposition in a several hundred page novel, it tends to take some of the wind out of a movie. Ron Howard did an excellent job, probably as good as could be done with the material; but there have been many better movies made (some even by Howard).
So as a work of fiction, there is much to praise in this story. Unfortunately, it is having an effect on society beyond mere entertainment. Poll after poll by diverse groups have indicated that significant numbers of people are actually taking this story seriously. Answering "yes" to question like "Has 'The Da Vinci Code' influenced your religious beliefs" or even more directly "Do you now believe that Jesus was married?" To me, this quite astounding. If someone came out of watching "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and seriously said that they now believed that the Nazi's has recovered the Ark of the Covenant and that it was now held in a US Government warehouse, people would give them a wide birth; but there are people who accept the fictional premise of "The Da Vinci Code" as true and other people are treating this as normal.
Perhaps it is because I have in fact studied Christian Church history that I find this so strange. The claims of the story make no sense if you know a bit of history. I'll not expound here the many ways that the evidence presented in the book is flawed (but entertaining) - there are wonderful sources out there for anyone who is interested. Let me merely state three points which, for me personally, killed the believability of the premise long before needing to do the kind of serious textual or artistic analysis which can be found elsewhere.
First, a large percentage of the people who attended the council of Nicaea (where the book's conspiracy was supposed to originate) were the same leaders of the church world-wide who had survived the persecution under Emperor Diocletian which had ended only thirteen years earlier. Many had been imprisoned for their beliefs and had seen close friends and family killed for their faith. These were not people who would go along with any "change" to Christianity, and if the decisions at Nicaea did not represent what they understood to be true, they would have fought against it with the same energy with which they fought against Diocletian's persecution. A conspiracy to somehow change Christianity at Nicaea from what was a true consensus belief would have failed. No, what was made official at Nicaea was in fact what was the consensus belief of most (but I'll acknowledge, not all) Christians from long before 325AD.
Second, the Christian tradition (at least until 380AD) was to exclude "heretics" from the church; but otherwise to let them be. The idea was that people were given a choice by God. Those who followed The Way were a part of The Body. Those who weren't were lost and would pay the cost for their decision in due time. The result was that almost every doctrinal debate within the Church would result in some group of dissenters who would head off and "do their own thing." From the church's point of view, they were abandoned to their folly. The idea of trying to suppress these alternative ideas and otherwise persecute those who followed them did not become church policy until 380-381. The result is that there is a rich literature of alternative views of Christianity from the first three centuries which exists until today. Many of these ideas are far more problematic then the ideas presented in "The Da Vinci Code". This was actually one of largest surprises for me as I began to research church history on my own – how easy it was to find information about the "loosing side" on various doctrinal debates. The existence of all of this "heretical writing" (some quite divergent) leaves me disbelieving that any conspiracy to suppress any single doctrine would have occurred and left all of these other views out there.
Third, while the whole "Jesus was married and had a kid" part of the story is flashy, a key part of the book (which the movie dances around – using the words but never really explaining what they mean) is that "original" Christianity embraced the "sacred feminine". According to the book, suppressing the existence of Jesus' family was only a means to suppress the role of "sacred feminine" in the church. And what exactly is the recognition of the "sacred feminine"? Well, it essentially boils down to worshiping "the goddess", including having ritual sex. For those who have only seen the movie, this aspect is played down; but recall in detail what Sophie saw her "grandfather" doing which led to their estrangement (its only on screen a moment; but its there). If this is what first-century Christianity was about, I would first suspect that Rome would have had a lot less problem with the religion, and second, there would have been records – not just church records (which might have been suppressed); but personally letters, historical documents, etc. There were several sects within the Roman pantheon which included traditions like this, and those practices left echoes in the larger community which can be found by historians in places which would be difficult to eliminate perfectly. Yet there is no such record for Christianity anyplace in the world. Instead there are records of complaints about Christian's unwillingness to participate in such activities. The idea that the "sacred feminine" was ever a part of the early church is just not believable.
I have more to say about "The Da Vinci Code"; but that will have to wait for another day.
Posted by Steven at 06:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)
April 30, 2006
United 93
Good, respectful, honest movie. No sermons.
I find it hard to imagine how you could make a better movie about 9/11 than this. A documentary, perhaps, with a narrator filling in all of the details; but as a narrative, it would be difficult to improve on this. I certainly have no expectation that Oliver Stone's movie, due later this summer, will have half this virtue.
Despite the name, the story of United flight 93 is only one of the threads followed by the movie. It is far more about the chaos of those few hours that morning where everyone (the people on the plane, the people at the various air traffic control centers, the people at the Strategic Air Command, etc.) were trying to piece together the details and understands what was happening.
In fact, the movie to me was far more about the nature of crisis – any crisis – than about 9/11 itself. How people respond in the face of conflicting and incomplete information and how they finally reach a point of action where something must be done, even though the complete picture remains unclear.
While a few of the mistakes of that day are apparent in the movie, I found it interesting to note that most of the problems people had were of the kind which would have been hard to avoid (short of knowing the attack was going to occur in advance). If "United 93" has any "message" (and I think the film maker steered away from such), I think it is about the heroism of all of the people (in the air and on the ground) who did the best that they could under an extraordinary situation.
Thumbs up from me.
Posted by Steven at 04:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
March 17, 2006
V for Vendetta
Very interesting flick.
I'll start by saying that as a pure action movie, V' is wonderful ride. Well choreographed fight scenes which are well filmed, separated by just the right amount of drama and symbolism to keep it interesting.
But that's not what makes it interesting.
The real question I guess is – where do you place the character V in the moral spectrum.
Let start with the observation that the government depicted in the film is a totalitarian state which maintains control of its people by fear and force. This is a government which does not disserve to govern, and by the end of the film it becomes clear just how true that is. So by American standards of conduct, someone fighting to overthrow such a government is a "good guy" (historical pun there, since the term "guy" actually comes from Guy Fawkes, whose attempt to blow up the British parliament in 1605 plays a central role in the movie V'). We would generally classify someone like that as a "freedom fighter".
And if that was all there was to the movie V', then it would be pretty uninteresting.
The problem is, the character V is definitely not a good guy. When all is said and done, he is an evil man, driven by his desire for vengeance. Well spoken, kindly in his own way; but evil. If you doubt that, objectively consider for a moment what he does to Evey in the course of the film. He is (pun again intended) a Bad Guy. His ultimate goal (the overthrow of the government) may be good; but he most definitely is not. I think even the character knows that, which is why the film ends the way it does. So, perhaps, when all is said and done, V really is just a terrorist, and not a freedom fighter.
Personally, I tend to stay with the Freedom Fighter version. My reasoning is simple – we never see him attack any innocent people. His attacks are always carefully directed at guilty parties and empty buildings. His goal is not to instill terror in the population at large; but only in the hearts of government officials. If anything, the government is run by terrorists who use fear to manipulate the population.
Still, the movie managed to paint a complex, and often ambiguous picture and I enjoyed it.
A special note should be made of Hugo Weaving's (a.k.a. "Elrond" and "Agent Smith") performance as V. Not once in the film do we see an inch of his face (it is always hidden behind a Guy Fawkes mask); but with his voice and body alone he managed to create a compelling and interest character. Quite a challenge for an actor, and he disserves credit for his accomplishment.
Posted by Steven at 04:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
December 26, 2005
Munich
Score two for thought provoking films this season.
Munich is the latest film from Steven Spielberg (the side of Spielberg that made Amistad and Schindler, not the side that made ET and Indiana Jones). It, like Syriana, is a film that asks a lot of questions and only answers a few of them, and as such it is excellent fodder for both thought an conversation.
The basis of the story is that after the massacre of the 1972 Israeli Olympic team in Munich, the Mossad (Israel's secret service) formed a special covert team with the mission to find and kill eleven people who were identified as responsible for planning and organizing the kidnapping. To ensure that their actions could not be traced back to Israel, the team was not formed with regular trained agents; but rather non-field-agent specialists with the skills that would be needed. The film follows the team through the process of successful and unsuccessful attacks, showing the toll on the individuals and the repercussions of their actions.
The film was attacked, even before release, for showing an "equivalence" between the Israeli agents and the Palestinian terrorists. Having seen the film, I think that is an unfair attack. The film is in fact careful to acknowledge the differences between the terrorists and the Mossad agents – for instance showing the agent's effort to ensure that there is no collateral damage (an effort that is not always successful) vs. the news reports of whole airplanes bombed by terrorists. However, what the film dares to ask (and not answer) is – do those acknowledged differences in methodology make a difference from a moral perspective? I think people who already have strong opinions on the subject in either direction can find all of the ammunition they require in the film, and those who have a more open mind can find plenty to consider.
The other theme of the film is the price and value of revenge – regardless of whether vengeance is morally justified; does it actually provide enough benefit to justify the costs? On this question the film provides a clear opinion – vengeance leads only to more vengeance, and the personal cost of exacting revenge is too high given the non-existent benefits. Regardless of the politics of the film, at a personal level the message is that "an eye for an eye" is a policy that will tend to leave the whole world blind.
There's another aspect of the film to consider – its relevance to 9/11. There is certainly no doubt that the United States has teams of operatives working now to track down and "bring to justice" those who were responsible for that attack. Whether you assume that these teams have as their first goal the capture of the individuals involved so the individuals can stand trial may depend on your personal politics; but I would be surprised if anyone doubted that such teams are authorized to use "deadly force" if such capture is resisted (which it almost certainly will be). So film goers who find themselves with strong reactions to this film should also consider if their reactions are consistent with their reactions to how the United States is conducting its own war on terror.
As with my review of Syriana, I will withhold my own opinions on these questions and merely encourage others to see the film for themselves.
Posted by Steven at 06:50 PM | Permalink
December 16, 2005
Syriana
Americans today have been raised on a steady diet of episodic television in which any problem, no matter how complex, can be solved in 30 or 60 minutes. They have been trained by politicians that the solution to any problem can be expressed in a single memorable phrase. They have been prepared by the news media to expect a clear division between "the good guys" and "the bad guys".
Therefore I can say with great confidence that while the movie Syriana is an excellent film that deserves all of the critical praise it is getting, it will almost certainly be a commercial flop because the movie represents everything Americans don't want to hear – that there are problems that defy explanation, must less solution; and that the goodness and badness of real people and real governments tend to be more of a matter of degree than an absolute.
The movie itself is complex – presented as a sequence of puzzle pieces that only partially fit together by the end; and it is left to the audience to decide what the final picture is. The few negative reviews I have read all come back to the critic not understanding the movie. It is a movie that begs to be seen with a friend, with a cup of coffee planned afterwards to discuss what it meant. I would certainly encourage anyone who is willing to engage their brain while watching a movie to see Syriana.
Oh, and what do I think the movie means to say? That would be telling…..
Posted by Steven at 07:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)
November 20, 2005
Harry Potter
I'm not especially a fan of Harry Potter. I have not read the books, and while I have seen all of the movies, I haven't made a particular effort to see them soon after release (although it did work out that way this time).
I did enjoy the first movie a great deal, mostly because of what it said about English boarding schools and the culture that surrounds them. The whole environment was also intriguing as an exploration of "what would it be like if magic was real". Harry's story itself, however, did nothing for me, being targeted at a much younger crowd. The second movie provided some entertainment; but nothing much of substance, and the novelty had worn off. The third movie was just plain bad. They seemed to have dropped all of the small affectations which made the original movie charming – as if the story had been transplanted into an American boarding school instead.
I have now seen the fourth move, and while not without virtue, it is only marginally better than the third. The movie is clearly darker (the bad guys effectively win, with Harry barely coming out alive), and the main characters are allowed to act more like the teen-agers they are supposed to be. Those facts make it a more interesting move than the third; but when all is said and done; it is still just a juvenile fantasy.
The deepest observation made in all of the films is that "a mother's love is stronger than any magic". A noble sentiment; but I have to wonder, how many of the viewers and readers have ever experienced that kind of love in their own lives, or is that just another part of the fantasy for them?
Perhaps the problem is that I am an adult American, and can't help but to read the story as a (sympathetic) exploration of the English upper class. Consider: Harry is raised by a very common family of commoners ("muggles"), only to discover that he is in fact a noble by birth (a "wizard" born of wizards), and is the sole heir to his real family's legacy ("magic"). As the heir, he has powerful friends (Dumbledore and McGonagall) and enemies (Lord Voldemort). As part of coming into his inheritance, he is afforded the opportunity to attend an elite boarding school where he can learn his rights and prerogatives as a noble ("wizardry") and where he makes friend with other nobles. At the school, those whose parents married beneath their station (the "half breeds") are looked down upon by those of pure noble birth. Harry however, who is noble both in birth and in character wishes only to use his station for the good of others.
I could go on; but I think you get the idea.
I just have a hard time getting excited by a story which, at every turn, seems to support the concept of a strong hereditary class system.
Posted by Steven at 06:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)
November 14, 2005
Fall movie roundup
I already provided details reviews on the movies "Serenity" and "Good night and Good Luck"; but there were a few other movies I saw which did not seem to warrant reviews at that time. Here's my quick takes.
Flightplan
I found the journey to be thrilling; but the destination to be a disappointment. Not surprisingly, I enjoyed Jodie Foster's performance; and found that the movie maintained a solid level of suspense and mystery. Unfortunately, final explanation of what was going on struck me as a bit implausible; although I'll grant them there were hints of it early on. So while I recommend the movie, it isn't without reservation.
A History of Violence
An interesting film. I'm still not sure what to make of it, which is in itself a kind of recommendation. As an exploration of the origin and nature of violence, I think it provides the basis for some good discussions with friends afterwards; but beyond laying the scenario out, I'm not sure the movie tries to draw any conclusions of its own. The best parts in my opinion were some of the humor moments towards the end with William Hurt's character.
Proof
I probably should have blogged on this one. Proof is an excellent film, well written, well acted. An exploration of sanity, madness, family, and most of all, lost opportunities. The opening scene sets the stage perfectly. A father (who is established as having mental illness) is comforting his daughter who fears that she too is mentally ill. He tells her that the fact that she is wondering if she is crazy is proof that she isn't – crazy people always think they are sane. To which she responds that that would be proof that he is also sane, at which point he reminder her that he's not actually there – he's dead. The movie is full of moment like that where you suddenly discover what you thought was happening is completely different from what is actually happening.
Tim Burton's Corpse Bride
Such a disappointment. I loved "A Nightmare before Christmas" and was hoping and expecting something similar; but unlike "Nightmare", this film has no heart. Even the songs lacked the 'soul' of the operatic numbers in the first film.
Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit
I'm a big W&G fan (and in fact of all of the Ardman Animations projects); but while the style of Wallace & Gromit makes for wonderful shorts, it doesn't appear to expand to fill a feature film very well. It reminded me of all of the Saturday Night Live skits that have been turned into movies with disastrous results. Just because something is a good short story, doesn't mean you can make a novel out of it.
Posted by Steven at 05:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
November 11, 2005
Movies and Television
Those who have known be for a long time (Roland?), will know that when I was younger I was a serious cinemaphile. I would go to two or three movies every weekend (and sometimes more), year around. Sometimes I would see a movie I liked and right away collect my friends who had not seen it yet and drag them back to see it again. I actually saw "Raiders of the Lost Arc" eight times in the first week it was open that way. Conversely, while I did watch television, I didn't watch a lot of it, and often heard about cool new shows from other people at work before I started to watch them.
These days, things are quite different.
There are still movies I rush out to see on opening weekend; but more often than not I wait to see what the reviews and word-of-mouth is like before I go to the local multiplex; and if some movies slip by, well, I'll catch them on HBO or DVD rental. Conversely, as has been noted by some commenters on this blog (again, Roland), I tend to watch more television than I used to.
So the question is – why?
Now the proximate cause is clear – as I have stated several times in this blog, I just have too many things I want to do and too little time, so I am cutting back on activities to focus on those I feel are of greater value. In that calculation I have found television to be of more value than movies, hence the shift. But that merely redirects the question – why is television worth more of my time than movies?
The answer gets back to another point I have made often – television is a writer's medium, while Movies are a director's medium. As someone who aspires to be a writer, I find I am learning more that is of value to me as a writer from television than from Movies.
Anyone who has seen a favorite novel made into a movie has seen how small a subset of a typical novel will fit into a typical movie. The reality is, from a writer's point of view, movies are short stories. You have enough time to establish a few characters, set up a premise, and then make some point (perhaps with a clever twist at the end). There are very very few movies which (in my opinion) come close to the depth you can have in a novella, much less a full novel. Now a good movie, because it is a multi-media experience, can make the same point as a short story in a much more compelling way; but it is still, in essence, a short story.
Television on the other hand has the option to do much more. A typical season of a television drama these days is about 16 hours of programming. That's 60% more than all the Lord of the Rings movies put together. The kind of story you can (if you choose to) tell in that amount of time is fundamentally different than what you can tell in a movie. You can spend the time to really flesh out several characters, establish deep background, carry multiple themes to conclusion. You can employ multiple styles in different episodes; you can do everything a good novel writer does in a good novel.
Now, of course, just because someone can do something, doesn't mean that they do it. Most television today is still written as an anthology of short stories that happen to have recurring characters. The best of these are good short stories, and much can be learned from them about writing short fiction. And then there are a few shows on television where the writers stretch their wings and try and tell an epic story, a novel, over the course of a season (or better yet, a whole series). These are the shows that are even better when watched on DVDs where you see all of the episodes together in rapid succession. The fact that a few such shows exist is one reason I value my time spent watching television over movies.
Posted by Steven at 05:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
October 15, 2005
"... merely wires and lights in a box"
I just saw the movie "Good night, and good luck" about when newsman Edward R. Murrow took on Senator Joseph McCarthy. It is both artistically excellent and thought provoking - a triumph in both style and substance. The movie also provides a glimpse back into a world which would seem quite foreign to most people today (imagine a news anchor smoking while delivering the news on TV).
I'm not so interesting in commenting now (as I am sure many others will after seeing the film) about McCarthyism and our present age; although I will propose an interesting exercise while watching the film – simply replace in your mind the word "terrorist" for "communist" every time it is spoken and see if the movies plays any differently for you. For those who find your sympathies changed by such an exercise, I suggest you have some thinking to do.
I don't want to focus on that aspect because in the end, I don't think the movie is actually about McCarthyism, then or now. I believe the movie is in fact about television journalism. What it can be, what it was, and what it has become. The movie is bracketed by the speech which Murrow gave to the Radio Television News Directors Association (RTNDA) in October 1958 (the full text of the speech can be found here), which served as a challenge to the industry which even then was guilty of pandering to the public, sponsors, and special interests. The words should serve as a rebuke to the modern television news industry, and a reminder of how far it has fallen from the days of Edward R. Murrow.
That's what the movie is about – a time and place when even though no one was willing to sponsor a TV news show because it was too controversial, even when people were threatened with having their lives ruined for reporting the truth, news people still chose (without interference from their network) to present the facts to the public, come what may.
It is also important to realize that in this day and age where much of what passes for television journalism is in fact editorialization in a thin disguise, it is important to look back at how men like Murrow, even when expressing opinions, acknowledged other points of view. In his "Report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy" (around which the movie is built), Murrow starts with the offer " If the Senator believes we have done violence to his words or pictures and desires to speak, to answer himself, an opportunity will be afforded him on this program"; and closes with " This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve". When McCarthy took up Murrow on his offer to rebut the program, Murrow allowed him to speak his mind without interruption or counter argument on that show – giving him the fairest opportunity possible to defend himself (on the subsequent show, Murrow countered the accusations which the senator had made against him personally; but let the rest of the senator's words speak for themselves.)
The real message of the film was put better by Murrow himself in the conclusion of his RTNDA speech (only partially quoted in the film):
This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.
Stonewall Jackson, who knew something about the use of weapons, is reported to have said, "When war comes, you must draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." The trouble with television is that it is rusting in the scabbard during a battle for survival.
Posted by Steven at 07:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
September 30, 2005
Finding Whedon's Serenity
I was never a big fan of the TV show "Firefly" when it was on the air. After the first few episodes I put it into my "I'll watch it if I'm around; but don't bother recording it" category. It wasn't until the DVDs came out and I could see the episodes all together that I began to appreciate the show.
Of course I should have known better of a Joss Whedon TV show. He always works at multiple levels - there are individual shows and then there is the quilt he builds out of them which is always far greater than the sum of its parts. It's not just that there's an arc to the show (there are many TV writers that do that - having a big plotline that is played out over many episodes). What Joss does is more subtle than that - creating themes at the grand scale that are barely visible when you see an individual episode.
It's like a mosaic made out of photographs. You look close and see each picture (each episode) and enjoy it, and step back you see the mosaic (the season, the arc) and enjoy it on another level. But then you realize the choice of individual pictures also tells a third story - the fact that the blue in the mosaic is made of pictures of the sky and not of water or something else becomes meaningful, connecting the individual stories to the arc in ways unrelated to the plot. That's Whedon's genius.
Which brings us to the movie "Serenity" which continues (concludes?) the story he began telling in his cancelled TV series "Firefly".
Where there are a few times the engine stutters, overall this is an excellent movie. For someone who has seen the TV show, I think the only complaints will be the price that is paid by the characters (Joss was never one for completely happy endings). In one case the price paid will seem to be random and arbitrary; but I'd say that's whole point -in real life the guilty are not the only ones who are hurt.
While I think there are many moments in the movie that will be more significant for those who have seen the TV show, the movie overall should be quite enjoyable without that background. I do think the scenes where they visit Shepard Book will ring a bit hollow if you didn't watch Firefly; but that's a small part of the show. The fact that they never really explain what Inara does for a living won't be missed by those who don't know (it isn't a factor in the story being told by the movie). My only concern is I don't think they get across in the movie that this is a bilingual culture (English/Chinese), so the one time River starts speaking Chinese, it seems more like raving than actual communication.
The bottom line is that it is an enjoyable story, told with great humor and drama and well worth seeing.
Posted by Steven at 08:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
July 30, 2005
Summer Movies
Some quick movie reviews
I've been out seeing some summer movies, and thought I'd comment on a few:
Mr. and Mrs. Smith
A fun (if violent) romp that is really about a couple rediscovering the passion in their marriage.
Batman Begins
Quite nice. It fills in the blanks in Batman's origins nicely, established key relationships (for instance with police lieutenant Gordon), and generally told a good entertaining tale. This is a much more believable story than most since it shows him learning to become the characters we see in the more established stories.
War of the Worlds
Eh. The best part of the film is Morgan Freeman reading the prologue and epilogue to the original film. Nothing in between adds anything of value.
Fantastic Four
I really wanted to like this film; but in the end it fell short. The individual characterizations were actually fairly good; but the story was not worthy of the performances or the special effects. If they can come up with a better story next time, I think they have the other pieces in place.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Interesting. Entertaining. Bizarre. I am a big fan or the book and the original movie, and despite their having added new material to the end (which I think was unnecessary), I am a fan of this one as well. I don't think it is better than the Gene Wilder version, just different in ways that make seeing it worthwhile.
The Island
I actually saw the 1979 film "Parts: The Clonus Horror" which this is essentially a remake of. Clonus was an absolutely horrid film (bad writing, bad acting, bad directing) built on top of a truly excellent concept. Thankfully The Island takes that good concept and actually makes a good film out of it. It can be enjoyed both for its ideas and for the extended chase sequence which makes up a majority of the film. Thumbs way up from me.
Posted by Steven at 08:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
June 29, 2005
Ella Enchanted
I had meant to see this movie when it was in the theatres; but never got around to it (I don't go out and see as many movies as I used to). Fortunately, Anne and I were able to Tivo it off of premium cable channel and watched it this week. We laughed the whole time, and frequently paused to be able to spot things in the background. The next day we made a special trip to purchase the DVD for ourselves.
The movie is essentially "Cinderella" by way of Knights Tale and Shrek. It is full of anachronistic references (want-ads in the newspaper for "abacus programmers"), cultural references ("If the gauntlet does not fit, you must acquit"), and outright jokes. A couple times it threatened to become overly-silly for me; but always tossed in just enough drama to keep it centered. Well worth the time spent.
Posted by Steven at 10:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
May 03, 2005
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
I've never heard the original radio drama which started this mess. However, I have read the books which were based on the radio drama, I have seen large parts of the BBC TV series which was based on the books, and now I have seen the movie.
It was... different.
Not necessarily bad, but different.
The books were amazing. They were a balanced mix of absurd British humor, amazing Sci-fi, and yes there was a point in there someplace (having, of course, to do with not having point).
The BBC miniseries, completely captured the absurd British humor; but the special effects were laughably bad and therefore it missed the mark on the sci-fi aspects, and I'm not really sure there was any sense of it saying anything.
The movie appears to be a compliment to the TV series. The special effects were wondrous (I loved the effects of the Infinite Improbability Drive), and it most definitely has a point to be made if you paid attention; but a lot of the humor seemed to have been lost. Don't get me wrong – it was quite funny, in an American Comedic Film kind of way; but the total absurdity of the books was, in my opinion, lost.
So my suggestion is – read the books; or if you can't read the books, watch the movie and the BCC TV series (available on DVDs for $30-ish) and shake your head well to mix them together.
Posted by Steven at 08:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)
April 06, 2005
What the Bleep Do We Know
Short Review: New-age pseudo-science in a visually stunning package. I particularly enjoyed the wedding reception sequence. Long version…..
I blame Niels Bohr
He's the individual primarily responsible for the "Copenhagen Interpretation" of Quantum Mechanics and therefore the ongoing sequence of people trying to justify their religious/philosophical beliefs using Quantum Mechanics (of which this movie is an example).
For those who aren't "into" theoretical physics (yes, I am a geek). Here's the short non-technical version of the problem.
Quantum Mechanics is a collection of equations which very accurately predicts the behavior of the smallest things in the universe (the particles that make up atoms for instance). If you simply plug the numbers into the equations and use the values they provide, everything works just fine. The problem comes when you try to step back from the equations and try to figure out what they mean.
People generally understand things by analogy.....
People generally understand things by analogy. A is like B but with C. A motorcycle is like a bicycle with an engine. Perhaps not a perfect description; but it gets you close enough that you can then work on the details with a comfortable foundation. The problem with Quantum Mechanics is that there is absolutely nothing that people have common experience with that behaves the way Quantum Mechanics describes. There are just no good analogies to use. The best explanations seem like non sequiturs: "It is like a purple fish and a transistor radio".
There have however been many attempts to develop explanation of what Quantum Mechanics means, and one of the earliest and still most popular is the "Copenhagen Interpretation". Their explanation actually works rather well if you ignore one problem - they had to add a new concept not found in or explained by the equations to make it work: "the observer". Without going into details, the Copenhagen Interpretation says that quantum mechanics works like "A" as long as there is no one looking at what is happening; but then starts working like "B" if "an observer" is looking. Like an employee who plays solitaire on the computer all day unless their boss is watching. Now that's an analogy which can be understood. (For those who'd like slightly more detail - it says that particles are fuzzy clouds of probability until you try and observe them, when they suddenly snap into sharp clarity at a single place - but only as long as you are looking).
However, as I said the problem with the Copenhagen Interpretation is that it only makes sense if you add the concept of "an observer", and the proceeds to not explain what exactly an observer is. This is a hole large enough that many strange things can be pushed through it, many of which are totally non-scientific, and the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know" is a wonderful survey of many of these ideas. The basic thread is that an observer is a mind (not actually stipulated by the Copenhagen Interpretation), and that therefore we create our universe by observing it; and we can in fact choose to create the kind of universe we want (in the Copenhagen Interpretation, the observer does not actually influence the nature of the outcome).
There are explanations of Quantum Mechanics other than the Copenhagen Interpretation (including not trying to explain it at all and just using the equation); and even if you stick with the Copenhagen Interpretation, there are explanations of what an observer is which do not resort to them having to be "minds". If you want to have a good counter-balance to the pseudo science in this movie, I'd suggest reading Where Does the Weirdness Go?: Why Quantum Mechanics Is Strange, but Not As Strange As You Think by David Lindley.
Posted by Steven at 06:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
