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?