Fantastic Mr. Fox

My growing disappointment and frustrations with the slew of juvenile and intelligence-offending trailers were immediately diffused with the first frames of Anderson’s animation. The warm orange sky and simple childish staging of Mr. Fox next to a single tree was all at once amusing, captivating, and calming. And to the benefit of young and old alike, the entire film remains as such.

It should come to no surprise to those savvy to the films of auteur Wes Anderson, his ascribed quirkiness and fondness for a particular color palette remain intact. The little suits and details that exist in the Fox world could have come from the Tenenbaum’s house or from the director’s closet. However, the minutiae of set designs, miniature props, and detailed creations could hardly be contained with a closet of even the most successful director. The film’s visual exuberance and craftily ingenious construction return to an inspired and inspiring state of animation lost on the repetitive computer based child fare audiences yearn for. Aided by twelve frames per second rate, the film captures early animators attempts at fluid motion limited by the then current state of technology. The result is not some quaint attempt at nostalgia nor homage to the early days of film but rather a re-envisioned distancing from the kind of movie audiences are used to.

Praise to Anderson for making a children’s movie not aimed at kids. And praise for making an adult movie not too grown up to be inaccessible. The 87 minutes flow by in what seems like ten and the visual and narrative deliveries provide both complex and simple exposition. Any fears that this be throwaway kiddy fare should be instantly allayed if not simply given the man at helm. And any fears I had the Anderson was selling out and taking the easy road seem trivial and irrelevant.

Still, I cannot help but ask how one directs an animation. And while the concerns and mentions of such questions arising during the production exist, in the wake of the final product they are better left for another day. Fantastic Mr. Fox is full of standard Anderson comedics, detailed and intricate creations, and likable, relatable characters. The complex and carefully executed action readily ignores the rules of logic to great benefit and pays little attention to common sense. And while the rich visuals do wonders for the senses themselves, the fact that all the characters seem to find their place doesn’t leave the film on any sour note.

Lost on the Road

Months and months of anticipation have lead to the Thanksgiving weekend and the release of The Road. The big screen adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s post-apocalyptic novel from the director of The Proposition has been on my to-see list since its existence first came to my attention long ago. So imagine my supreme disappointment when no theatre anywhere close to me was showing it. For those not savvy to the name John Hillcoat, then certainly McCarthy would yield some interest given the deserved response to No Country for Old Men. This goes without mentioning Viggo Mortensen, Charlize Theron, and Robert Duvall. What a disgrace to the state of cinema when the screens are crowded with 2012, Couples Retreat, Planet 51, and Twilight. What’s disappointing is that we are not talking about some independent arthouse film with limited audience but a $20-30 million dollar budgeted film with names, visuals, etc.

I don’t know who’s to blame, nor do I really care, I just wish that good movies came out and not bad ones. Add to this that over the weekend I hunted down a copy of the fantastic, flawless, under-appreciated and totally ignored Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Best Buy? Only on Blu-ray. Meijer? Negative. I guess I should not be surprised when hundreds of copies of trash line the shelves consuming much mismanaged space.

Enough complaining, but not really. The studios listen to what the audiences say and the only way they hear us is in sales. Paranormal Activity was demanded by popularity and made its way to wide release. If only we had such decisive voice on everything we saw.

Review: 2012

     There are many varying beliefs that the world will end catastrophically. The Mayans in particular believe that the end of the world starts with a cosmic alignment of the sun with the center of our Galaxy, which happens to be in December of the year 2012. The cosmic alignment will cause the sun to have wild solar flares which will emit neutrinos that will act like microwaves on the planet's inner core, heating up the center of the earth until the crust begins to melt and the tectonic plates shift and cause massive earthquakes and eventually tsunamis, wiping out the inhabitants of the world. The question is: how are we going to survive it?
    That is what Roland Emmerich's newest disaster movie 2012 bases its action on. Several families across the face of the earth must survive the ensuing earthquakes that split the earth and kill billions. Emmerich, a native German, has been making disaster movies for years. Independence Day (1996) was about aliens attempting to destroy the earth, Godzilla (1998) had a giant lizard destroy Manhattan, and The Day After Tomorrow (2004) saw the side effects of pollution cause massive global warming to the point of human destruction. Each movie bears its own set of cheesy families fighting for all of humanity.

The Tsunami pours over the mountains...

     According to Robin Wood and Christian Metz, these families are what the American public wants to see. John Cusack plays Jackson Curtis, a divorced writer still trying to save his family, both literally and in the sense of the ideological family. This ideological family is the two parents (of opposite sex) and two children, one son and one daughter. The family starts out broken, a divorce separates the parents and the children seem more privy to their new dad, Gordon (Thomas McCarthy) who dotes them with cell phones and attention. But, in the end, it is the ideological family that wins out, and the audience cheers when the mom and dad get back together again.

The Curtis family's first plane flies through two falling buildings.

 

     Another, not so prominently featured part of the American Dominant Ideology theory is the male dominance in the film. Of course, the scientists who discover that the world will end in three years are all males, and they bring the information to male politicians who see to it that they are saved. Also, when John Cusack's family is in an airplane flying to China with a family from Russia, Gordon (who is forced to pilot the massive cargo plane on just two flying lessons) comes to the cargo hold to ask the two men to come look at the issues they will be facing. In essence, it is the men who will protect and save the women, and who willingly give their lives to save their families.
     Robin Wood's Ideological film theory claims that the American public believes in the Rosebud syndrome (as from Citizen Kane, 1941). The Russian family flying with the Curtis family are billionaires, having payed billions to be saved. But clearly, money cannot buy you happiness. The Russian family seems broken, money having bought the father's new girlfriend, who isn't the brightest. The sons are two brats ready to cut down their American family counterparts.

Yellowstone explodes.

     Lastly, the ideological theory calls for a resolution of current pressing issues. Our current pressing issue is the ticking timeclock the Mayan calandar layed out for us. Only three years away, December of 2012 is an oddly pressing issue for many people today, and they're all wondering what we're going to do to survive it. 2012 offers that wildly outrageous solution for us. The billionaire Russian family has recently paid billions of dollars to get tickets onto an ark. The bigtime male politician to whom the scientists brought the information of the end of the world, have used the money from the tickets to build seven enormous arks (like from Noah's Ark in the bible) to store the people when the tsunamis come and flood the planet. Thus, only the rich can survive... but, being human is to care for each other, so they open the gates to the arks to let in all those who are in the vicinity, including the workers who helped build the ships.
     The movie cost $200 million to make, most of that money going to the immense amounts of CG (I swear that 85% of the film was CG). Although the film has already earned that money back and then-some (although 75% of its gross so far has been from foreign box offices), it really has nothing to offer its audience outside the satisfaction of the dominant ideology. The Movie was shot on a Panasonic HD camera, probably since most of it was going to be going through the computer to be CGed up, making the whole movie seem a lot more fake to me. HD cameras just aren't good enough yet for me to enjoy watching a 2 hour and 40 minute movie recorded in it.

Escaping from the ensuing disaster... a sight seen more than once.

     The movie really lasted too long, and there were so many cheesy moments I wanted to gag. I found myself throwing my hands up in the air at every syntagma (plot point), angry either with the poor CG (or at least its overuse) or with the poor design of the story, or with a decision the characters made, or with some outrageous moment, or something else, OR SOME OTHER STUPID THING! Really, there is no need to see this movie, unless you want to know just how much CG one can actually fit into a "Live Action" film... It gets me real excited for Avatar!

Review: The Men Who Star At Goats

If it wasn't funny enough to see Ewan McGregor deny any recognition of the word Jedi, George Clooney's performance as a dead serious real-life Jedi really got me laughing. Directed by Grant Heslov (who starred in Good Night, and Good Luck and Leatherheads) and written by Peter Straughan (How to Lose Friends and Alienate People), The Men Who Stare at Goats is a comedy about a secret military operation that honed the superpowers within select new army personnel. The real story, however, revolves around Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor) as a journalist searching for a good story. After his wife leaves him for one of his co-workers, Wilton realizes his life isn't what it could be. He thus heads to Iraq to prove his manliness where he finds Lyn Cassady (George Clooney), a name that came up earlier when he was interviewing a man about "remote viewing." Cassady claims to be heading into Iraq on a mission and Wilton comes along to find himself and a good story.
The film is uniquely crafted, jumping through time to tell important facts and stories that relate to the unfolding story of Bob Wilton. There were plenty of comical moments, and overall the story wasn't too shoddy. I did enjoy several moments where Cassady's powers were hinted at being real. Unfortunately, many of the comical moments relied heavily on the use of physical pain and physical comedy to achieve laughter. While it did manage to cause laughter in the audience around me, and often in me myslef, in my opinon, the movie shouldn't have relied so heavily on it. In general, the movie was no better than many of the ludicrous comedies coming out in recent years, relying on stupidity rather than wit to achieve its humorousness.
It is based on the book by Jon Ronson and had its wide released on November 6, 2009.

Upcoming Feature: Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightening Thief

If it wasn't obvious from the fact that it shares the same director, and the fact that the name is very similar, Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The lightening Thief appears to be, from first glance, a movie as similar to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone as it can get. Christopher Columbus' style is emanating even in the trailer for his upcoming child's feature, also based on a book (by Rick Riordan).
The movie is based on the story of a boy who doesn't realize that he has the power of the Olympian gods of old, who have returned to help him fight those that would seek to kill him. The young boy must quickly learn the ways of the gods and find his place and his power to defeat the growing evil around him.
Sound somewhat familiar? I told you so...
Watch this trailer:

Notice anything interesting about the castle of the gods?


Starring Logan Lerman (3:10 to Yuma and Gamer), as well as Kevin McKidd, Uma Thurman, Pierce Brosnan, and Sean Bean, the film is set to open in theaters February 12, 2010.

Imminent Death.

SLING BLADE SPOILER ALERT!
Though not explicitly stated at the beginning of the film as was the death of Lester Burnham in American Beauty, the death of Doyle in Billy Bob Thornton's Sling Blade is just as imminent. We are introduced to the character Karl, a mentally challenged man who murdered his mother and her lover with a Kaiser Blade (some people call it a Sling Blade) when he was a young boy. After many, many years of being locked up in a mental institution, he is released into the free world. Because of the abuse inflicted upon him by his father, Karl's issues with the free world arise when he meets Frank. Frank is a young boy whose father died when he was younger, leaving him and his mother to live life together. His mother sought out a new boyfriend, and unfortunately wound up in the hands of Doyle, an abusive drunkard who loves controlling people.
As Karl befriends young Frank, he learns of his troubles with Doyle. And as Frank learns of Karl's current situation (Frank is living in the back of a repair shop), a deep friendship forms between the two. Frank invites Karl to live with he and his mother, and this is when the audience knows that Karl will kill Doyle. The moment the audience actually meets Doyle, they see him for what he is: a man only concerned with himself, only with a family to make himself look better, seeking to control everything, and never relenting on degrading those around him. He is the abusive father figure in Karl's life once again.
Karl understands, even with his mental challenges, that killing is wrong. But why it is wrong remains elusive to him. The fact that he'd been locked up in a mental institution for forty years makes his understanding of the world very limited. And indeed, after all is said and done and Karl winds back up in the institution, he claims that the world was just "too big" for him.

December 2009

Hey, what a surprise, a ton of movies are coming out this holiday season and are certain to flood the theatres in a full spectrum of quality. ‘Tis not my uneducated and unbiased place to tell you which ones to see or not to see, you will decide for yourself. But certainly I could point to some of the more offensive ones to those of us that consider ourselves at least mildly cultured, educated, and respectable. If you are anxiously awaiting either Transylmania or Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel please stop reading at this time. This is not to say that these films are representative of the cornucopia of features available to us. The month includes what look to be fairly promising films like Brothers and Jason Reitman’s Up in the Air. Clint Eastwood’s new Matt Damon/ Morgan Freeman film Invictus comes out on the 11^th. And of course blockbuster filmmakers James Cameron and Peter Jackson release their visions, Avatar and The Lovely Bones, respectively.

The two films for which I reserve the most anticipation both find themselves conveniently ushering in Christmas. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus has already been discussed here. The same day also marks the arrival of Guy Ritchie’s (Snatch, Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels) Sherlock Holmes interpretation. From the look of the trailer it seems to resort to the heavy style found in the directors early films. It also comes more star-studded than any of his films even if it sits on the edge of ridiculous.

Imminent Death.

Regardless of the fact that he states it himself in the voiceover narration not five minutes into the film, we know Lester Burnham will die. So the only reason we hang on is to find out who kills him. It is not, as could perhaps be expected from the sedated lifestyle he occupies, himself. It is not his cheating wife who discovers the release of firing a gun and drives home with it placed conveniently by her side. And it is not his daughter who, in the opening frames, looks into the camera and asks for his death. As a matter of fact, it is his closet-homosexual ex-military neighbor who believes Lester to be having an affair with his drug-dealing son. Lester’s death is imminent. But it is not, as is readily suggested, the moment when his brains splatter over his white kitchen walls.

Lester died an indefinite amount of time earlier. We meet him as he stumbles, in job, marriage, and life. But more importantly, we also meet him when our shared ideologies stumble. The perfect American Family with a projected image of prosperity, success, and happiness is an empty promise. The idea that one man can build his life, be master of his own success, and age into happiness is shattered. Lester had quite likely done so. And so what? Years later this very lifestyle of materialism and consumption and working to provide had its hold on him and would not let go. He tried to escape it by reverting to the mentality of his youth. He tried to challenge expectations by working down the occupational ladder from writer to burger-flipper. He also tried to satisfy himself by pursuing the attention of his daughter’s best “friend.”

American Beauty is an unnerving film even if its effect is not immediately noticeable. It is a film that has the ability, and in a way the responsibility, to challenge our accepted beliefs. So many films re-iterate the same ideals of success and the importance of image and the infatuation and inability to cope without commodities and possessions. We can only really grow if we know what we are growing from and without films that point this out to us how are we to know?

Upcoming Feature: Fantastic Mr. Fox

Wes Anderson's films have been known to be not the biggest blockbuster movies around. It might be a shared opinion that many of them simply don't make sense. Released yesterday in LA and New York, Wes Anderson's most recent film Fantstic Mr. Fox is based on a childrens book by Roald Dahl and is expected to have a wide release on Wednesday, November 25, 2009. The story was adapted for the big screen by Mr. Anderson himself along with a co-writer Noah Baumbach and runs approximately 87 minutes long.
Similar to this years Coraline (Henry Selick), the film breaks away from recent animated features put out by Pixar and Dreamworks, utilizing stop motion instead of computer generated characters and landscapes. Unlike Coraline, though, Fox is capture on film (instead of HD video) and uses a less than perfect stop motion technique, giving the characters a choppy, amateur-esque appearance. The strong emphasis on this style may distracted Anderson from the story, according to one New York Times writer, which is loosely based on the book, "truer to the spirit than to the letter of the source."
Don't miss this one of a kind animation starring George Clooney, Maryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman, and Bill Murray.

Ever Seen It: Freaks Revisited

Cinema has always shocked people, and filmmakers have always looked for the next way to do so. But Tod Browning, who had just directed the classic Dracula starring Bela Lugosi, was not trying to shock anyone. He was not trying to disgust anyone. He was simply make a film, from a story by Tod Robbin’s, about a dwarf’s infatuation with an average sized woman. The result was more than an oddly paired couple, it was more than a lust story, and it was more than the oft-described horror film that categorizes it today. In 1932, Freaks repulsed its audiences and was banned in the UK for 30 years. It essentially destroyed Browning prolific if not profitable career. And it now stands as one of the more potent and poignant films of cinema past.

Browning worked as a contortionist among other things during his teen years in the circus. The material of Robbin’s short story, “Spurs”, was natural to him. For the audience it was not. He cast real sideshow oddities; a testament to the abnormalities of human anatomy. The pinheads dance merrily in the forest, encircling the human skeleton whose thin physique exposes his inner framework. The legless Johnny Eck joins them; moving adeptly on his arms as if they were legs. The Human Caterpillar (aka Human Torso) rocks back and forth, moving inch by inch. Later, he lights a cigarette by manipulating the match with only his mouth. We may be shocked at what we see, we may be offended. We may wish, as one character does, that such creatures be smothered at birth. Browning does not, and while the inherent exploitation that exists because of cinema’s nature may argue against it, neither does his film.

The creatures on-screen, the freaks, are not monsters. The physically deformed and mentally unequipped are not the danger. It is those that are “normal” that cause the trouble, those that consciously harm others to better themselves. Browning not only humanizes those that look least human but he uglifies those that are the true monsters. It’s no little wonder that the film turned out as it did; the source story casts the freaks as incompatible and indeed freakish. Certainly a horror film today would make them the monster. And it could certainly be argued that such portrayal would be more effective. Does this mean that this film could not be made today, not only because of its content but because of its tone?

Cinema has undoubtedly changed since the early thirties and more legality surrounds what one can do, for better or worse. I would like to think that such an interesting and eye-opening film could be made today without suffering the expected turns. I recommend this film not only for its various success at fostering humanity and acceptance but also because it is, frankly, weird and amazing. I mentioned in an earlier post a quote that suggests the final interpretation is with the viewer. And in this case it may become shock value, we may watch it simply to see the freaks in all their glory, certainly the cult status this film has achieved can give credit to this reason. To me, that’s part of cinema; to see things, observe them, and hopefully be amazed.

A Book: The Way Hollywood Tells It.

David Bordwell has amassed an impressive amount of film writings and his knowledge of the subject is never more evident than it is here. In two parts, composed modestly of four chapters each, Bordwell traces the changes in how films are made by evaluated their stories and styles. He theorizes that the way films are made now are not in fact that much different than older films. With ample references to hundreds of film examples he traces similarities and differences between the films of yesterday and today.

Bordwell’s thoughtful and impressive ideas are worth more than one view and are articulately supported by the reels of film history. It’s puzzling how he has so much time to watch as many films as he does but still write about them. The book was published in 2006 and includes an excellent and informative appendix giving a Hollywood timeline from the year 1960 until 2004. I have encountered a few other Bordwell books thus far in my education and always find them thorough, somewhat daunting, and incontrovertibly helpful.

Not A Movie Poster.

I came across this website recently and it has become one of my favorites. If you cannot decipher from the title, these are not movie posters. Actually, they are simply designs that didn’t make the final cut and, far from a surprise, many of them are better than what the studios went with. Naturally some of them aren’t up to par to what was used but many seem to suggest different feelings for the films advertised. Check the site out often for updates.

Telegraph 100

Telegraph has compiled a list of 100 films that have defined the first decade of the new millennium. While the entries seem rather, or very, haphazardly organized they are doubtless interesting. And while many of the films deserve to be included for their social, political, and cinematic importance this cannot be said for all. The introduction begins to speculate on the changing ways we views films and the list seems to represent a grab bag of representative films. Interesting none the less, but Knocked Up, Saw, Mamma Mia, The Incredibles at number 3, really?

This would indeed be a difficult list to compile because of its limited size but mainly due to the sheer quantity of entries. And, undoubtedly 100 films used to define 10 years hardly cover the changing global face. The list indeed seems strongly slanted in the English speaking direction but, who knows, maybe we make the most defining movies. This list is not amazing, but it is still fun. I’ve seen only 60 of these films with 10 more of them on my to-see list.

Objectivity and Interpretation.

It would be a privilege to think that true objectivity exists in any art form. Certainly it can be argued that with the introduction of the photographic process artistic interpretation could be dissolved and the mechanical/chemical process would take over. But lest we forget, someone still had to set up said camera. Let’s expand to film, where we have and endless combination of still and moving images laid atop sound. Certainly, given the compound nature of film, objectivity would be flushed out with the chemicals in the developing process.

So, then, is the interpretation of what is seen suggested by the artist? This would seem the logical explanation. But if this were the case, everyone should take the same thing away. This is very rarely, if ever, the case. In one of the more interesting essays I have ever read, “I Panic the World”: Benevolent Exploitation in Tod Browning’s Freaks and Harmony Korine’s Gummo by Jay McRoy and Guy Crucianelli, the following is stated, “The artist or director may choose what we see, may even manipulate how we view it, but certainly the final interpretation is determined by us, the film’s spectators.”

It is undoubtedly true that the director is paramount in choosing what we see and don’t see. And it is usually true that how we view it is purposefully directed. But undoubtedly, as the authors state, it is up to us to decide what we take from it. Eisenstein experimented heavily with forcing an idea on the audience; unfortunately for him much of the audiences of the time didn't get it. On the other hand, the realists called for ambiguity, they wanted to give the audience as much freedom as possible. Does this mean there is less objectivity in formal films, where the vision is more controlled? Hardly. Every single spectator comes in with their own viewpoints, expectations, prejudices, and experiences which shape how they see things and why they see it a certain way.

This is not to say that things cannot be firmly suggested. Propaganda, in that case, would not exist. However, even in the case of a purposefully and forcefully suggested idea constructed through the formal elements of cinema, we have freedom. We can choose to fully interpret the content in the ways the filmmaker desired. Or we can completely ignore any attempt at persuading our senses and combine the content to fit our own ideals. Or we can combine the two anywhere along the spectrum. Like Captain Planet says, “The Power is Yours.”

Review: The Cook, The Theif, His Wife, and Her Lover

The original 124 minute cut of Paul Greenaway’s 1989 film was given an X rating for its sexuality and violence. And at the time, this was likely an apt rating for the films prolonged sexual escapades and climatic cannibalistic entrée. Michael Gambon demands his screen time as the brash, overbearing, insult-slewing thief. His wife, Helen Mirren, is surrounded by decadence in food and fashion despite her fleeting moments of being clothed. Her lover, a bookworm/book depository owner finds moments of her company hidden within the restaurant.

The restaurant, home of the four namesake characters, is a lavish and baroque set piece. In turn, the set itself is divided into four parts. The alley; a dark disgusting home to a pair of trucks filled with rotting food and home to a pack of roving canines. The kitchen; a green workshop of pots, pans, servants, fowl, bread, and all manner of food preparation debauchery is fitting transition into the dining room. This blood-red room plays host to Gambon’s petty gang whose threatening antics control the locale. And the stark-white coed bathroom is home to the beginning stages of Mirren’s dangerous affair.

Greenaway’s lavish film studies the dangers of food, of sex, and of violence. Aided by Michael Nyman’s dramatic and self-propelled score, the visual indulgence combined with the fluid elegance as characters stroll through the linear set creates an experience inspired by stage but unfit for anything but film. With hoards of opulent food, accents of hallucinogenic lighting, and scenes of passion and aggression, Greenaway’s film is a visual feast and experience for the senses. Much akin to A Zed and Two Noughts, this stimulating cinematic orgy demands an additional viewing.

More Mashes.

The Toy Story/ Requiem For A Dream mash has long been my favorite in that it rather seamlessly blends two films with completely different content and tones. Not only does it take specific images (tv, turntable) and employ them in the context of the darker film but also adds the highly effective Dirtbag by Brad Sucks reuslting in an even more unfortunate story with toys as characters. I only recently came across this YouTube playlist that has 50 of the best mash-ups according to Empire. Make sure to check out the one for Yes Man.

Akin to The Shining recut linked earlier, an effective and strangely more fitting Mary Poppins horror trailer makes the list. And, as if made for each other, check out the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle/ Reservoir Dogs mash. It becomes incredibly obvious after watching a few of these that music plays such an important part in developing the feel of a film. And while we could argue all day about how mainstream Hollywood cinema uses it as a crutch, I give a little more slack to the creators of these re-edits.

Life and Art

I came across the following quote in the demanding and impressive Kubrick: Inside a Film Artist’s Maze by Thomas Allen Nelson.

Kubrick’s films, in fact, reflect one writer’s belief that reality in the late twentieth century had become “so extravagant in its contradictions, absurdities, violence, speed of change, science-fiction technology, weirdness, and constant unfamiliarity” that the traditional division between imagination and fact seemed neither definable nor relevant.

It’s quite a thought that the need to distinguish between fact and fiction is cast off into irrelevance. Such seems very rarely the case. Viewers often complain the film is unrealistic. That, or the bore of realism got in the way of what should have been an exciting story. To suggest that the nature of reality is so extreme that it passes unfiltered as product of the imagination is both amazing and terrifying. And as is the case with Kubrick films, his envisioned reality is often plagued with jaw-dropping misfortune, proverbial pessimism, and what seem psychic prognostications. So is this writer’s pessimistic observation to suggest that our world is presented as such in our art that we waive their distinctions? And that this world is in such a state of decay that we give in to the violence, weirdness, and absurdity?

Well sign me up! Never more do we have to worry ourselves with the triviality of fact versus fiction. Rest assured, I have simplified matters as were stated in the above quote. I do not mean neglect the gravity that this opinion reflects, however ambiguous it exists between supreme compliment and blatant insult. Should we assume that the quotee thinks our films so advanced and indicative of our culture that we not distinguish their existence as art, or does it state the misfortune of our society is reflected in what should be dramaticized and glamorized? Life imitating art or vice versa?