Ewan McGregor Double Feature

            The possibility that Roman Polanski might not make another film renders The Ghost Writer an important piece of the director’s work.  The fact that it is so classically suspenseful and darkly tonal makes it worth just as much discussion.  It also stars Ewan McGregor, which marks its only obvious connection to Trainspotting.  Dark in its subject and humor, it is much more energetic and youthful and a more fitting entry for the early stages of McGregor’s body of work.

            Renton and his droogs are chemical pounding twenty-somethings whose only interest is scoring hits and having fun.  It is nearly impossible not to have just as much fun watching their convoluted antics render the situations more horrifying and delightful.  But there is more than mindless indulgences of chemical companionship and street-level scores.  However sickening and gross, they seem intent on not learning from their mistakes.  The death of a baby only serves as motivation to shoot up.  Even today, and perhaps because of its longevity, the film feels as edgy as modern fare and much more calculated.

            Calculated would be a proper word to describe Polanksi’s moody and dreary thriller.  The sun exists not in this East Coast intrigue and, having been filmed mostly in a studio, we should not be surprised.  Unlike the grimy street feel of Boyle’s film, Polanksi remains enclosed in a smoothly lit if still entirely inhospitable environment.  This is not to say it feel like a story world, it is just gritty-less in comparison.  And this is as it should be.  The story follows a clean-cut ghostwriter who steps into his predecessor’s shoes to pen the prime minister’s life story.  And as the trailer clearly tells us, nothing is as simple as it seems.

            In a squared cement house situated next to the ocean, the writer recomposes the 600+ pages of explication laid down by the work before him.  And as he delves deeper into his subjects career, and associates with his wife, finds the story not so clear-cut.  The usual twists and turns play out in a cold, largely shadowed arena.  The film remains evenly paced and taut from start to finish and concludes in a typically un-American simplicity. 

            Taken back-to-back, the films span almost the entirety of McGregor’s career and both are valued entries.  As is obvious by his casting, they represent age-defining entries as portraits of both his youth and maturity.  The no holds barred energy of his youth mark descriptive foil to his matured and composed aging.  And if anything, his endured diversity proves he has much work ahead of him.

Winged Migration (2001)

            For a film about birds flying, Winged Migration is one of the most memorizing and choreographed pieces of documentation ever conceived.  As a product of human accomplishment, it showcases the much more amazing accomplishments of the natural world.  The yearly migration of millions of birds from across the world is captured in unprecedented intimacy and detail.  It will likely stand as a supreme document of the natural world and shall remain long after many of its subjects have perished.

            The film opens on a river.  It is surrounded by lush greenery only moments after being assaulted by driving snow.  The time-lapse reveals a flock of geese about to commence the titular narrative.  One remains behind, its foot caught in a fishing net, but is saved by a young boy.  It is one of the minor points of misfortune in the film.  The human element, already inherent in the existence of the film, is unnecessary in its content.  Save for the moments of destruction, hunting and oil spills, the birds remain detached from the Homo sapien confines.  For some reason, and perhaps providing a point of connection that for many makes the film worth watching, the filmmakers felt the need to include us.  Regardless, and only aided by the carefully chosen soundtrack, we identify the human characteristics present in the birds, their social and personal behaviors, and ascribe them to ourselves.  It should be no point of contention that we are part of the animal world, and like the bird that devours the young of its fellow avian, we have stamped our own brand of destruction upon their world.

Stay Tuned...

We are not dead, just busy.


             We will have more to talk about soon...

Dancer in the Dark (2000)

            Von Trier seems incapable of not pushing the modern movie making boundaries in any film he does.  The intoxicating carnality of Antichrist is a testament to his depression.  The Five Obstructions has him literally forcing another filmmaker to experiment.  And his co-creation of Dogme 95 is only the beginning.  So the fact that he employed over 100 cameras for his 2000 musical was just another notch on his belt.

            Bjork stars as an immigrant working a dangerous factory job with deteriorating eyesight to pay for an operation so her son doesn't follow in her footsteps.  She also has a love for musicals where the characters break out into song for no apparent reason and plot elements are satisfactorily concluded, at least for their characters.  In this film, the musical numbers are set within the construct of the mind, and in their conclusion, we return to the unchanged diegetic world and nothing has been resolved to the benefit of the protagonist.  Rather, it was just a bunch of singing and dancing existing entirely as escapist fare.

        It was von Trier’s attempt to shoot this musical numbers, with the 100 customized Cinemascope-ish lenses, as a live event.  With this number of cameras running the event would only have to happen once and could be cut in real time.  DVD interviews show von Trier displeased with the failure of his experiment.  The rest of the film is not representative of the failure von Trier talks about.  The harsh elements Bjork encounters only expand to the point of no return.  Von Trier makes the point clear that in his musical, singing and dancing will not overturn the narrative course of events and that even such usually good-natured fun can end sour.

            It is another case of von Trier pushing his female leads to the extreme and on-set relations between the two are notoriously strained.  The film strays from the usual cheery lighting of commercial musicals thus grounding the film a bit further in reality.  In fact, it would be safer to not to call it a musical but rather a dramatic and depressing narrative with self-mocking musical interludes.

The Bad Lieutenant (2009)

            Nicolas Cage carries this movie to such rewarding effect that his is the most exciting thing to watch, and that is a big task for a film filled with enough other visceral thrills that replacing him would have produced a decent enough film itself.  His drug-riddled body supported by his wide stance and sagging shoulders create the most pitiful of characters he has portrayed and, incontrovertibly, the one he was designed for. 

            The context is post-Katrina New Orleans where the dilapidated environment and overcast skies are clearly depressing the local population.  Yet Herzog’s film doesn't simply build a helicopter fly-by of a bunch of shitty buildings then equate these to people’s feelings.  Rather, the humans, so affected by their environment, think and act for themselves amidst the socially crumbling landscape.  A la Aguirre and Fitzcarraldo, Herzog’s characters are victims of their extreme surroundings and if Kinski wasn't twice testament, Cage undoubtedly is.  A cop, basically trying to do the right thing, has developed various drug addicttions as a side effect to his stressful job.

            It has always been my assertion that a film’s opening frames should be one of the most appropriate and pleasing.  This film begins with a snake swimming through the water, revealed to be a flooded jail with one prisoner still locked in his cell.  Two creatures, both out of their element.  Cage enters, soon to splash into the dirty water, another creature that has not found its place.  The final shot finds him, beaten, depraved, f-ed up,

Them (2006)

            It is at least a trifle ridiculous that online forums argue about character development between this French film and the 2008 American remake, The Strangers.  Neither film relies on character development, not even in part.  The closest we get to understanding the protagonist victims is through the repetition of poor decisions that leave them subject to further torture.

            The film here remains superior to the glossier English version.  The opening sequence could itself function as a taut if unmotivated horror short with no explanation and no qualms about being that way. In fact, it bears only minor connection to the tortured stars of the rest of the film, a simple intro to the savagery to come.  This is certainly where both films are on par and is thematically, the source of any and all horror.

            The unmotivated and casual terror employed by the strangers demands an explanation and remains unnerving in its absence.  We can explain very easily the vampire and werewolf and countless other monsters, supernatural or not.  We can explain serial killers and demented minds whose stories develop their abnormality as the point of fear.  And, of course, we can explain the ingenious ability of the human mind to perpetuate

Fearless (2006)

            Long advertised as Jet Li’s final film, it would be an unfortunate conclusion for such a big martial arts star to go out on such dissatisfying battles.  If the posters aren’t enough to alert the observant viewer to tacky dramatics, the ensuing fight scenes should certainly be enough to turn them off.

            The story takes itself a little too seriously, perhaps attempting to be an end all to the generic plot of martial arts films.  One lone fighter must avenge the name of his family by training and defeating numerous opponents in close combat.  Undoubtedly, he must also go up against a buffed up Westerner whose only means of communication are grunts and howls.  I pray the film knows what it is doing in taking these stock characters, pushing them over the top, and letting them play out against one another.  This does not make it any less entertaining, just a bit antithetical to the emotion laden story the filmmakers are trying to develop around it.

            It seems a long time since the intricately choreographed scenes of Jackie Chan’s stunt team where complex hand-to-hand fights are filmed in lengthy shots displaying the actor/artist’s talent rather than flashy cinematic post production.  Many of this film’s epic battles take place in computer-generated arenas that hardly pass as amazing and pass even less as realistic.  This is not to say that the fighting lacks the talent of the countless martial arts films that precede it, there are indeed entertaining scenes.  But judging martial skill is muddled by the improbable wirework and annoying background graphics.  This goes without mentioning the plight of all modern action films in cutting nearly every punch and attack into a different shot.  I would much rather see the fights temporally choreographed than making them appear so in postproduction.

            Per usual, yet not explicitly, the cinematography showcases the foreign landscape while highlighting the cultural connections to it.  Many cases find CG distracting, and the script supervisor must have taken a few days off, but other than these instances the film is enjoyable enough the look at.  It should be known by now that this was not Li’s last film and certainly not the last one he fights in.

Ever Seen It: The Bank Dick (1940)

            Despite the presence of a W.C. Fields book gracing my bookshelf for the better part of a year, this was my first encounter with one of the artist’s films.  In fact, having not read the book, I could have recited absolutely nothing about the comic himself or about his work in general.  This simple 72 minute film seems an apt enough introduction to his style and persona and certainly lends support to an argument for me to see more.

            Fields plays a father who spends every morning at the bar and advantageously fumbles his way through nearly every encounter with another human being.  One morning the fellow human is a movie producer whose director maintains an inoperable state of drunkenness.  Unwittingly, he accepts Field’s assertions that he is a director who has worked with the likes of Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin. He then promptly changes the film in its entirety while working with the same cast and crew.  Meanwhile, he gets his daughter’s soon-to-be fiancé involved in embezzlement with a good-hearted con man.  We are not all too surprised when the finale finds him successfully dodging any and all troubles and coming out unscathed.

            The film, and likely Fields himself, should be categorized alongside Chaplin and Keaton, as well as the Marx brothers.  It combines gags and physical stunts as well as doltish obliviousness and innocently earned outcomes.  His simple screen presence seems both character and caricature.  It is very likely that we will have more to come on this subject manner.

Review: Iron Man 2

IRON MAN 2
dir. Jon Favreau
Paramount Pictures
Rating: 3.5 out of 5

     Marvel Comics is making its way through the collection of Stan Lee's most famous comics and turning them into some of the best action movies around. With the success of X-Men (Bryan Singer, 2000) the company has teamed up with Paramount, Columbia, Universal and 20th Century Fox distribution companies to bring us some of the biggest names in movies all decade: Spider-Man, Hulk, and Iron Man. Other companies followed suit in a frenzied attempt to bring their comics, cartoons, and video games to the big screen in hopes of winning big. But with such a limited variety of superheroes, and Marvel Comic's ever growing greed for money combined with the audiences thirst for more superheroes, it becomes inevitable that every superhero has his sequel (and often third installment) and Iron Man is no exception.
     As Tony Stark declares "I am Iron Man," the crowd cheers and the curtains fall, end of Act I. Two years later, the audience is hurtled back into the world of Mr. Stark and his iron suit for Act II, where they find that not all is well for someone who calls himself a superhero. The government wants the "Iron Man weapon" turned over to the military so that an ordinary civilian isn't the one keeping the world in peace (which has apparently happened in the past couple years). Also in the past couple years, Stark Industries has built a city of peace, technologically advanced, and the site of the Stark Expo, where all of the greatest inventions are displayed before hundreds of people. Of course not only heroes want to show off their goodies at the show.
     Like all great superhero sequels, the film must show a darker side of what it means to have to save everyone's lives. In Spider-Man, Peter Parker began to lose his power and decided to give up the suit for a while. In The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne learns that being the Batman isn't always a reward. But many of these tales are very dark, and bring an eerie side to the joviality of superhero-hood. Iron Man attempts to step just to the right of being that dark sequel and shows the audience a mixture of generic superhero sequels and something a little less gloomy. Favreau himself said in an interview through SuperheroHype.com that they were going for something a little less dark this time around, "We didn't want to make it an exploration of the darkness of the human soul, but we definitely showed Tony's dark side a bit in our words."

     The dark side tends to be childish: Tony Stark's enemy is his competitor Justin Hammer, played by Sam Rockwell, who attempts to outdo the Iron Man by simply mimicking it, a failure waiting to happen. The childish anger that comes with the competition, however, is rather uninteresting. It's a cliche that many low budget action movies seem to suffer from. Instead of a competent and truly sinister opponent, characters in these less than intriguing films are blubbering idiots who mimic what the good guy does and just happens to succeed (but at the cost of himself more than the protagonist). The other villain, Whiplash played by Mickey Rourke, is much more competent, but seems held back. With a limited English vocabulary (his mother tongue is Russian), and "limited resources" he is unable to defeat the Iron Man by himself and requires help from someone with resources. If this character had been further developed, instead of Justin Hammer, the movie might had that "Dark Knight" beauty to it.

     All in all, the movie seemed to be a move away from reality into a more cartoon realm, especially with the inclusion of Samuel L. Jackson's character Nick Fury, the one-eyed man who leads the Avengers in the upcoming film The Avengers in which a group of superheroes from all the superhero movies come together to fight some bad guys. What worked for Spider-Man and Batman Begins more than most other comic-book-made-movies, was the strong foundation the films had in reality, Batman especially. These are everyday people who just happen to be able to help the community with their talents. The villains are also ordinary people who just tend to dislike the current situation they find themselves in and decide to change things by being evil. It is this strong foundation in reality (which I believe The Incredible Hulk (Louis Leterrier, 2008) lacked), that draws the audience to view the sequels. Iron Man 2 loses that tight grip that the first installment had, and lets characters like Nick Fury and Agent Romanoff take larger roles in the story.

     The film does, however, make very good use of its medium. Although rather Hollywood in style, the camera never misses an opportunity to show us what movie magic can do. Favreau frames his characters perfectly in cinescope 2.35:1 aspect ratio, with some of the best CG effects since the first Iron Man. But, was the CG used to enhance the story, or just there to be a spectacle?

Watch the trailer at Apple

Sin Nombre

 Cary Fukunaga, the writer and director of 2009's Sin Nombre (which approximately means "Nameless"), pours our his heart in this hour and a half long story. The movie, with some rather decent actors, revolves around a boy whose heart has been broken, and a girl whose life is about to change. As the girl gets ready to head north of the border (from Mexico to the U.S.A.) she enlists the help of her long lost father, and her uncle. Meanwhile the boy, whose life is split between the gang he fights for and the girl he loves,  makes a mistake that puts a death sentence on his head. Deciding to make a run for it, he finds himself in the company of the girl and her father and uncle.
 The film is an impressively beautiful look into the life of a gang member, employing cinematography and mise en scene to enhance the disparities of life within and without the gang. Shots are reminiscent of 2007's The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford during the train sequences. Massive, single-source lights spill over the crowded rooftops of the train in dense mists, creating a sense of awe and wonder in a gloomy and despairing vista. The train is representative of hope and the future, but its danger looms over everything. There are indeed as many shots of setting suns and distant horizons, as there are of dark places and grimy conditions.
 It may be difficult for me to judge the acting, due to the fact that they are speaking in a different language, but from what I can tell, things seem to be top notch (if not, then just a few notches below). The film is quite well-pulled-off: from beginning to end one feels immersed in the interweaving stories, as much as the intense landscapes and several chase sequences. It's a full movie: love, hope, fear, danger, action, romance all combine in one rather amazing film.