January 1, 2011
These here are some of my favorite lovely flicks from 2010:
(in no particular order)
1. True Grit
2. Inception
3. Restrepo
4. A Prophet
5. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
6. How To Train Your Dragon
7. The Fighter
8. Blue Valentine
9. 127 Hours
Note: Black Swan and Social Network are not on my ‘best movies of 2011′ list. Why not?
I’d love to tell you…
Of course, I haven’t seen a lot of films released in 2010 so I may expand this list later.
December 29, 2010
The Coen brothers make movie making look so effortless.
Their last films, No Country, A Serious Man and now True Grit are so strong that one wonders what other American classics might come out of their creative powers.
The film works because of its strong characters. Everyone has been directed in a way to create full, dynamic, and conflicted characters. In a year of some fine acting from young actresses (Jennifer Lawrence in Winter’s Bone, Carey Mulligan in An Education) I believe that Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross will likely garner an Oscar nom and could take it home. But everyone in this film is well cast and work so well in an ensemble. Jeff Daniels creates another amazingly memorable character yet again. There are few people who could create such a morally ambiguous character that is lovable, comedic, deadly, sinister, and damnable.
The film works because the story feels organic. The twists and turns feel natural and emanate from the characters and not tacked on to serve as plot devices. The little vignettes in the beginning of Mattie horse-trading and sleeping in an undertaker’s as well as the trial where we first meet Rooster all are lovely character building scenes that don’t feel like we are just ‘wasting time’ before the ‘real adventure’ starts. This is a key element of movie making: that we are given reasons to believe in and care about the characters without the movie feeling slogged down.
I laughed and cried and did both at the same time. The movie house I saw True Grit in was well packed and everyone was on the edge of their seats. It seems to me that everyone was thoroughly pleased and riveted.
One story telling device that I wondered about at first but now appreciate was the use of Mattie’s narration in the beginning. I liked it because it allowed us as an audience to know that she (if no one else) would survive. We were let off the hook of worrying about her survival to then be better freed up to enjoy “how” she got through her adventure–not “if”.
I love the moral ambiguity of much of the film.
There are plenty of examples of it in True Grit but there is an interesting sense of justice that occurs. In the first narration Mattie says in essence “justice will find you. You can’t get away with anything in this life.” and she experiences that herself: her vengeance costs her an arm and perhaps plays a part in her life of isolation and loss (never seeing Rooster again either).
Mattie herself is brought into the ambiguity in her desire for revenge and is heightened when we find that Tom Chaney is indeed ‘simple’.
What also works is that True Grit inhabits an American West that is closer to reality than many ‘Westerns’ of late that are really action films set in a fantasy West (think 3:10 to Yuma). In this way, I feel True Grit is not just a great film but reveals that the genre is definitely not dead.
(I place it among recent ‘Westerns’ The Proposition and Appaloosa and less recently Unforgiven)
Oh, and the action sequences are tense, well shot, and don’t pull you out of the experience. Note well, future directors! You don’t need shaky cam! Strong characters, situations that matter, and smart use of sound will carry you through. See also ‘No Country for Old Men’.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/true-grit-2010/
December 21, 2010
Here is a short list of how ‘Tron: Legacy’ failed.
1. In the original, Flynn is a gaming nerd who gets to ‘live’ inside games that would have been pretty cutting edge to him. That was cool. I think that folks could appreciate a snarky video gaming slacker who was thrust into cool ‘games’ of the day. In ‘Legacy’, Sam is a rich kid who has inherited his father’s fortune and lives in a cargo container. He is more Christian Bale in Batman than anything. Look: Being a superhero guy who jumps off buildings and lives on the wharf as a lone outcast is only okay if you are already an awesome hero. The interest of a ‘normal person’ thrust into a new and dangerous world is lost when Sam Flynn yearly….yes, yearly pulls off some corporate hijack stunt.
2. And by the way, why does Sam Flynn need to race at dangerous speeds to the Encom building in the beginning of the film? Wouldn’t it make sense to just obey the traffic laws until you enter the building that as majority shareholder and son of the founder you probably can just walk into anyway?
3. Is it standard practice for taxi drivers to begin swerving dangerously to ‘shake a person off’ their car if someone is on the roof?
4. Legacy’s pacing drags in strange places. As soon as Sam and Quorra come to Flynn’s house the movie goes back into first gear. “Let’s have dinner.” is the first thought when seeing your son in a computer reality? And to sit far away from each other at an antiseptic table does not serve to set up Flynn as a cool, loving dad. Later, on the way to ‘portal’, while on the train thing not only is the train moving seemingly very slow (because their pursuers catch up easily) the dialogue is just like slogging through mud and Sam and Quorra are not given any chemistry or connection and this would have been a good time to set that up.
5. Racism is still not cool, Disney. When we are told about the ‘Isos’ who were ‘naive’, ‘spiritual’, we are shown a few in profile and is it just me or do they appear to be Black? And the only other appearance of a Black person is in the End of The Line Club and he is called “primitive”. What? Racism exists in The Grid? Did Flynn program that in? Why are there no non-White-European programs?
6. Campy, ‘gay’ villains are still not cool, Disney. What is up with Zeus’ over the top camp? To me, he is obviously portraying a stereotyped parody of a gay baddie.
7. The look of the original Tron was more unique and daring than Legacy’s. In fact, Legacy’s special effects are so dark that when you wear the 3D theatre glasses, I was struggling to make sense of The Grid.
8. Legacy makes no sense/Flynn’s powers are upgraded when convenient: So the ol’ switcharoo of the identity disk never crossed Flynn’s mind before? Flynn is scared to make a dash to the portal when he can (depending on the situation and his mood) turn himself into a giant vacuum?
9. There are critical plot failures: It is not Sam’s dad Kevin Flynn who reached out to the real world, but CLU. Why? “To get a new game piece on the board!” Okay. So Sam’s very presence and involvement in the Grid is based on a stupid and flawed ruse. Also, we are to believe that CLU and the rest of the computer programs will be able to exit the portal into the real world. Is it just me or is that a big jump of believability? Did they know that Quorra would be able to do it? Where did her flesh come from? The camera in the basement can create living things from programs? I bought that it could translate living things into programs so…Okay, I’ll let that slide. But I felt that the stakes of “rescue the people being turned into slaves” and “get Dad back home” were fine and when they added the “CLU is going to invade Los Angeles next!” thing, I just wanted to see that happen–and I didn’t get that.
10: The action sequences did not even match my limited imagination and I am not paid to think about such things. I was waiting for interesting uses of the Light Bikes, The Light Jets, and their light constructs…But no. I wanted to see a Light Jet slide down a construct like a rail. I wanted to see someone open a Light Bike in an enclosed space to crush somebody. Nope. I wanted to see someone’s identity disk ‘hacked’ to see if a person’s memory or identity could be tweaked. Nope. Even in the standard fight scenes, they were especially standard.
11. How come the bombs CLU set in the End of The Line Club took like 15 minutes to go off? Giving CLU and his baddies enough time to enter and fly away in their ships–but not enough time presumably for Zeus and his albino lady friend to exit? Lazy.
12. Why is this movie even called Tron? Oh yeah. He is a guy named Tron and he and Flynn destroyed the Big Bad in the first film. Now he’s some ninja guy in a dark suit that only ‘comes back around to being a good guy’ when it is most convenient to the script and then immediately dies. What? Why not allow Tron (who the movies are named after) some redemption, man? Why not give him motivation to change other than “I’m going to shoot at Users one second and then protect them the next. Because…I fight for Users!?”
13. Sam has no arc. He is a badass in the beginning and is pretty much the same guy all the way through. He is not even given anger at his father he must overcome. Why could the story not be that Sam is corrupted by the money and fame of his position and his father Flynn teaches him about sacrifice and freedom? Stupid! Whoever wrote this needs to rethink their career path. And what reasons are we given to connect with Sam? He has a dog…and that’s about it.
14. The movie is incomplete because Sam is not able to show us his triumphant return to the Encom company and step up to his role of positively affecting change there and giving the evil CEO guy a piece of his mind.
Overall, it is poor movie making. If you want a movie that is more fun and just as interesting to look at, go rent “Speed Racer.”
UPDATE JANUARY 30th 2012:
I felt that I needed to insert a good response by Critical Eye here that was originally posted as a comment below.
My thanks to Critical Eye and all the other helpful commenters–
Below is the comment in its entirety….
Just read your blog on your opinions about Tron:Legacy, and will have to respectfuly disagree. Why? I’ll go point by point;
1)Kevin Flynn wasn’t a man who got to “live inside video games” as you stated in the first film – he was a wronged computer programmer/turned video game creator, trying to hack into the ENCOM 511 to get proof that he was wrongly fired and that his work was stolen by his former boss, Ed Dillinger. When the MCP (Master Control Program) detected this, the MCP sucked Kevin inside the Game Grid (NOT the same system in TRON: LEGACY) in an effort to kill him, much like those who were thrown into the Roman Colisseum in ancient times; also, WHY did Sam pull the stunts he did – to prove to ENCOM that they were again STEALING Kevin Flynn’s work, which is clearly shown in the boardroom scene;
2)Why does Sam speed down the road on his motorcycle?? Hmmm. . .if YOU were pulling a corporate stunt, wouldn’t you want to do it WITHOUT POSSIBLY BEING DETECTED??? Hence the reason why he was speeding. Also, at that point, Sam was reckless and didn’t care, much like a young Kevin Flynn;
3)The taxi driver swerving to get Sam off – yes, this was a little over-the-top, however I’ve seen it done in PLENTY of other films, and no one seemed to have a problem with it before;
4)The “train” thing is called a SOLAR SAILER and as far as a chemistry between Sam and Quorra IT IS THERE if you watch carefully, starting when she rescues him from the light cycle grid on through the end of the film. As far as, “Let’s have dinner”, this was an attempt by Kevin to reunite and catch up with his Son. How would YOU have re-united with your long-lost father?
5)The ISOs and Racism – I partially agree with you on this one, and I put this on BAD WRITING (when you hire the writers of the TV series, “LOST” to write a film script, you’re bound to end up with serious flaws). Ironically, in the TRON: THE BETRAYAL comic book, and in the TRON: EVOLUTION videogame, all the programs, BASICS(non-ISOs), and ISOs come in many different colors. I too, would have loved seeing Bartik (the Black ISO with the slash in his face) not be reduced to a “primitive” revolutionary with unfufilled revolutionary ambitions, as well as more non-white programs in the film plotting a revolution against the forces of CLU 2.0; I agree with you a huge deal on this point, and that’s why I’m writing my own TRON fanfic. Instead of just getting mad about things like this, we must create our own to counter it;
6)The “overly gay” baddie – this isn’t exactly true. We don’t know if ZUSE is gay, especially since he had the Siren named GEM, with him. The actor who played him, Michael Sheen, based him on David Bowie’s ZIGGY STARDUST character. Why do I say this? Read here: http://www.contactmusic.com/news/michael-sheens-bowieinspired-character_1155197 AND here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/jul/25/michael-sheen-tron-david-bowie. I hated Zuse/Castor, too, because he was an ISO in denial, and he sold out Sam, Kevin, Quorra and all the other programs, but I understand why he was over the top;
7 & 8)Legacy vs the first TRON film – that’s because TRON (1982) took place inside the ENCOM 511; Legacy takes place inside a DIFFERENT SERVER, a secret, isolated server in the basement of Kevin’s arcade (sources: http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2010/03/05/tron-legacy-director-we-are-on-a-new-server-now/ AND http://io9.com/5697228/building-the-grid-a-conversation-with-tron-legacy-director-joe-kosinski AND http://guitarsandmoviesblog.com/2010/12/interview-with-tron-legacys-director-joseph-kosinski/ AND several others);
9)Though Kevin has been missing for 20 real-world years, time in the Grid goes much faster; therefore, Kevin feels he’s been stuck inside the Grid for over 1,000 Years due to something called TIME DILATION, which the writers should have explained, but it is explained here: http://disney.go.com/tron/html/codex/tron-universe.html. Therefore, wouldn’t someone’s mental faculties be a little wonky after 1,000 years????;
10)These were cyberversions of the ancient gladiatorial games from the Ancient Roman Empire, that’s why the games were as they were in the film; however, you did see discs being hacked, i.e., when Kevin was fixing Quorra;
11 & 12) Agreed, and agreed again – I, too, hated how TRON/RINZLER was minimized in the film, however, they do hint at the end of the film that Tron isn’t dead, as we see his circuits change color after falling into the Sea of Simulation; again, bad writing (those DAMNED “Lost” writers!!!!);
13)Disagree – Sam does develop, although, due to bad writing again, it’s not completely obvious. He is angry at his Father, hence why he pulls the sutnts he does, and hence, his disrespectful comments towards Alan Bradley when Alan comes to his apartment. He also hasn’t reallly taken his position at ENCOM seriously, therefore he wouldn’t have been corrupted by it. While he hates his Dad’s disappearance, he hates ENCOM, because just in the first film, they again are stealing his Dad’s work. Once Sam is in the grid though, and after LEARNING the situation, his goal then becomes to free his Dad, get rid of Clu, and afterwards, take control of ENCOM with the help of Alan Bradley as Chairman. At the end of the film, Sam has reached some level of maturity;
14)I agree to a point – I too, would have loved another board room scene where Sam and Alan show up, and lay the corporate smackdown on Richard Mackey, and the top brass at ENCOM.
*One final point – how was Quorra able to materialize into a human? Basically, when one is digitized by the Shiva Laser (the “camera” as you called it) their biological makeup is turned into molecular material which is stored in one of two canisters at the base of the laser, while said person is in the GRID or inside the ENCOM 511 (from the first film); the other canister contains carbon and water. In the computer, the person is reconstituted as code. However, when Quorra and Sam came out, Sam was reconstructed with his biogentic molecules, and Quorra pulled from the carbon and water from Kevin Flynn’s biogenetic molecules. This is explained here: http://www.scifitv.com.au/blog/?ReferenceID=2011/04/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-tron-legacy/. Again, the script should have explained this.
In the end, Tron: Legacy was a great SEQUEL concept marred by bad writing and pacing that could have been much better. It also would have been much better if it pointed out that it was a WOMAN who pioneered the laser that transported people back and forth between the real and digital worlds, a character known as DR. LORA BAINES-BRADLEY, and her digital counterpart was YORI. Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Best Regards,
Critical Eye
December 21, 2010
How can it be that Aliens Resurrection is rocket science compared to this movie in terms of ‘splicing’ and issues of maternity?
Are misogynist interpretations of Adam and Eve right?
If you buy into ‘Splice’, they are.
In this domestic drama in ‘horror’ film clothing,
Elsa is Eve…and Woman is the root of Man’s trouble.
What a bore. Even Clive, a scientist, says ‘mankind’ rather than ‘humankind’ and Clive blames his girlfriend for cheating on her with her daughter.
Who are we to like in this film? Even if a film has despicable characters, can it not at least be fun? Or be revealing something about ourselves and not just reveling in women hating idiocy?
It feels like a script written by a stunted man with ‘mommy issues’ and comes across as loathing of women. How else can one account for the Elsa character’s choices which can only range from conniving, manipulative, abusive, power hungry, idiotic, and self deluded?
In the scene where ‘Dren’ (the splice) is tied down to a table and the camera lingers on her exposed breasts, we get a sense that this woman also is only here in this twisted male fantasy to be abused, gawked at, mistreated but without feeling of complicity. When Clive has sex with Dren, essentially his girlfriend’s autistic and imprisoned daughter, we’re again to just a deeper level of family dysfunction and abuse that does not fall into any category other than ‘meaningless sociopathic drivel’.
This film is like a grab bag of annoyance.
Chock full of baby crying sounds and slaughter house animal squeals. Annoying also is a ‘family’ drama without likable or believable or empathetic characters.
When, in the last act, the film does turn into a straight up horror type film, it is a ‘dark chase around in the woods with murky sequences’. Yuck.
Even more ‘yuck’ is that the horror act is literally an Oedipal playhouse. Dren transforms into a ‘male’ for its vengeance (I guess women must remain femme fatales who will only hover their poison-tails over you while you have sex–no avenging angel/monster for them!) and rapes its mother and kills its father figure. Literally. In the span of a minute.
What absolute head shaking repugnance. This could have been a B film that didn’t take itself seriously and gone for a ‘bad campy’ feel and maybe would have been worth it. But in this over serious film in only dreary, poorly lit sets, with horrible dialogue and a script originating from the mind of a mommy-hating 16 year old–everything is a mess.
October 20, 2010
In the Halloween spirit, I recently watched Predators and Twilight.
And I got to thinking about villians.
To me, a true villian is one who operates in a different but consistent moral frame than the mainstream.
A good villian is as three dimensional of an antagonist as the story’s protagonist.
To me, an important part of a good villian in film is their choices, yes–and also how they come to those choices.
In Predators and Twilight, we get ‘villians’ who I would suggest operate more as “forces of nature”.
And forces of nature are interesting, and their stories are important, but I got to wondering:
which is more scary? a force of nature or a villian? or are they just ‘different types of scary’?
Let me explain how I see forces of nature by citing some examples: Aliens, Jaws, Moby Dick, Zombies, Terminator, some Vampires.
So to Twilight. It is a horrible film. Why can’t anyone make eye contact? Why is the camera swinging around people in some vain effort of ‘gravitas’? It is a mumbling dreary Chilean mineshaft where unlike reality, no viewer comes out alive. Anywho…
We’re set up to believe that Bella is like the prime rib of humanity. She “smells good” to the point of being some panty sniffer’s Golden Calf. And that’s all we really know about Bella in the film other than she mopes, shakes her head and shoulders to convey every emotion, and has only her dim wits in a drearily witted school and ‘new kid on the block’ cred to keep her socially afloat. (I digress)
But James the Big Bad in the film is primarily attracted to her scent. It is only by the tacked on motivation of “upsetting Edward” (a fellow James presumably just met) that James is going to enjoy mowing down on some tasty Bella vittles.
He is a force of nature. He is a vampire, he wants blood, he wants the tastiest blood around.
Do bears poop in the woods and ride tricycles at whip cracks? Naturally.
Predators is a movie again where the Big Bads are just an alien species who likes to hunt.
You can almost imagine them thinking, “Sorry, ol’ chap. But I just got to admire your skull upon a stake.”
Predators are to skulls as Ash Ketchum is to Pokemon.
Are these folks no different than Jaws? Just folks out doing what they do…and it just so happens that what they do is munch on you. Does that make them more scary, less scary, or just different scary?
And what is the characteristic that is missing from a ‘force of nature’ antagonist? Maybe that they cannot be reasoned with. By that measure, was Jack in The Shining a force of nature?
NPR carried a story recently about cinema’s function of creating and reflecting our fears:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130437185
August 5, 2010
Of the 1,001 interpretations of Christopher Nolan’s great film, I throw my hat into the ring.
What films is it like?
Memento: A fellow (cop?) chooses to build a lie to find peace about his wife. A story of loss, memory, grief, construction of person. Directed by Nolan.
Shutter Island: A fellow (cop?) chooses to build a lie to find peace about his wife. A story of memory, grief, construction of person. Starring DiCaprio.
Its “cousins”: Dark City, The Cell, The Matrix, The Sixth Sense, Vanilla Sky, What Dreams May Come…others?
I think that the film was crafted in a way so that there could be multiple untanglings that ‘work’ but what is the film about really?
It is at its heart a love story, a lover’s journey to free their lover completely.
To love someone who meant so much to you and then accept their loss to save yourself is a tragic irony of loss and grief. Love comingles individuals, drawing them together in an intimate partnership. This connection can be life affirming and lifesaving and yet powerfully dangerous when one is lost.
This is the heart of the film and its only real “action”. The ‘caper’ plot is in fact a doubling of the main theme and is actually a ploy to achieve the resolution. I’ll explain further below.
So is the whole movie about how a couple comes to terms with death, change, loss? Yes, and I do say couple rather than just ‘Cobb’ (DiCaprio).
This is what I think ‘happened’:
Cobb and Mal join in a dream state and double back and forth in each other’s dreams, creating an exponential and recursive reality/personality. Whether or not anyone else has ever dream-shared is speculative. What we do know is that they’ve become nearly symbiotic and have spent decades perhaps hundreds of experienced time together in their reality.
Mal believes this reality to be the true one and Cobb remains aware that they have entered a deeply shared dream.
He finds and manipulates her totem, the spinning top. This I feel is quite remarkable for unlocking my interpretation: he has manipulated the one solid point of her reality. The rules are all out the window. We as viewers cannot trust whatever the Top Totem does or anything that Cobb says for he then has the Top Totem for the rest of the film. We know that Mal’s Totem has been taken and lies.
Cobb convinces Mal to lay on the train tracks with him. It is integral that she is runover by the train first.
She then enters into a place that the movie would call “limbo”. Due to the connection between she and Cobb, the whole entirety of the film occurs in the space of the time that it took the train to crush her and crush Cobb.
The idea is that two fused ‘souls/minds’ become detached and Cobb must process the loss of his wife before he can exit limbo to get to the ‘heaven’ of his home with his children.
After ‘Lost’ should it be surprising that a story about exiting limbo could be so exciting, meaningful, and compelling?
Some will say that there is a ‘reality’ part of this film and check out this infographic that gives a more standard depiction of the film:
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/An-Illustrated-Guide-To-The-5-Levels-Of-Inception-19643.html
There is no reality in this film and here’s why:
The caper plot is all a telling of Cobb and Mal and their process of loss and Cobb’s process of grief.
Fischer is a facet of Cobb, a metaphor for his own journey.
Cobb must release the idea of guilt, shame, and ‘find his own self’ coming to a place of peace after his wife’s death.
Fischer must release the idea of guilt, shame, find his own self coming to a place of peace after his father’s death.
Cobb must find that he can have a family without his wife, carry on in his own way, that he is capable.
Fischer ditto only in regards to his family business.
What is the ‘totem’ that Fischer finds at the end? A pinwheel.
What is Mal/Cobb’s totem? A top. The ‘spinning toy’ double is not a mistake.
But why all the trouble for Cobb/Mal to send Cobb on this wild mission? Because it will help him process in a way that will feel natural, that will feel like he’s come to the idea himself.
We’re given all the clues we need in the film. We just need to look beyond the covers, the tricks, to see what the magician is doing. After Nolan did “The Prestige” we should expect some magician’s tricks. Think of “Memento” too.
In the ‘reality’, the children’s voices are different over the phone and confused through the photos, images, memories.
Also, in the so-called reality world note how Cobb is being chased by gun-toting folks (projections) and is racing through a maze like city that has seemingly shrinking alleys. Ariadne as a name and character also is a giveaway–she most likely is another type of shadow of Mal.
I think that when Mal stabs Cobb and Ariadne shoots Mal, it is the final release of the couple. Their combined dreamlife is finally extinguished and Mal is able to rest in peace and Cobb begins his journey to ‘heaven’.
The heaven tropes are the airplane ascension, St. Peter/Customs officer, heavenly host/welcoming crowds, the idealized memories of a homelife with children.
So why “Inception”?
Inception, the creation of a truly unique and novel idea is difficult and rare. In the context of a close love relationship, there is again that symbiotic type mind that can occur with finishing each other’s sentences and seeming to have remote perception of the other.
Given that there is no reality in the film and the Caper Plot seems to be a message to Cobb to go through his own journey and with Ariadne/Mal his ally, we have to wonder how much of the film is the Mal portion of the fused mind.
Love: losing yourself, finding yourself, giving all, keeping self….
So there’s my take on it. Rebuttals and rebuffs welcome.
June 12, 2010
Against many interpretations, I hold that Lynch’s brilliant Inland Empire is a statement about the possibility of hope. This is at a purely philosophic level a retreatment of the way we speak of time but holds a personal spiritual element of how one faces life.
The ‘time’ that I feel Lynch forwards here is not about sequence of events calculable, measurable, and linear but wholly spawned through the relations of conscious beings and the self-conquering of those beings’ ego illusions.
The film begins with Future watching the parade of Samsara’s cycle of suffering. The illusion is that ‘time’ is changing, but from the view of anticipating newness and true freedom unlocked from ego, the human experience and history is a sham of repeated failures and cycles of violence and corruption.
We are told in a number of ways, with one prophetic character stating as much clearly that the film is ‘about time’. It is a tale of one hero’s journey (Dern) through pasts, total commitment to the present through her art, and finally through her renunciation of the cycle of ego she releases an opportunity for change–a true future.
I see Dern as awakening to the reality that everyone is synonymous with another in terms of their imprisonment in Samsara. A key moment may be when on the sound stage with her director (Irons) and fellow actor (Theroux) they learn that their project ‘has been done before’ and ‘ended in murder’. It this transitional moment that our Hero later returns to and revisits.
In a promotional interview for the film Dern states that she may be playing ‘three characters’ or ‘all of them’ and hints at a support for this interpretation.
Another key element is the green watch. Here we have the time message repeated with the color green perhaps standing in one of its mythic meanings corresponding to the Green Knight of medieval literature. In one story, Gawain takes on the Green Knight’s challenge to kill him, with the warning that if he does not succeed the Knight will have a free swipe at Gawain with an axe before New Year’s. Well, Gawain of course can’t kill the Knight and when the tables are turned as the deal prescribed, Gawain gives his neck freely only to be released.
So too does our Hero give all to her art (in this case acting) despite all costs and in the face of immanent mortality only to be released into newness.
Another key is a moment in the Rabbitsverse where we see again the livingroom of the rabbits and one dressed in a gown brings in two candles. I take this to be an allusion to Shabbos, a ‘suspension’ of time, a transformation or divine time for even in the next scene we see the Hero meeting for the first time with God.
This God figure may seem irreverent in its silence and seeming lack of care or attention to the plight presented by the Hero. God stands mute to her, speaking only over the phone as if within the Heavenly Council or among God’s angelic host. However, it is this ‘Mute God’ that eventually leads the Hero towards her culmination, her great triumph. This occurs in the movie theatre scene where she follows God’s beckoning up a staircase to meet The Phantom/Ego.
The Phantom/Ego has been a mysterious figure up until this final moment, also wearing Green and leering in shadows. The Hero ‘kills’ The Phantom/Ego and is allowed to face the burgeoning/anticipating Future. The woman the film opens with, Future, embraces The Hero and the Hero Past/Present/Ego dissipates and unlocks what unfolds next: A mythic ‘reunion’ where Future embraces an idealized family (using heteronormative and nuclear family structure which are mythic tropes that shouldn’t be taken to be prescriptive for a Hero) and we then see a celebration/curtain call/Apocalyptic Age Turning through the credits where everyone has stepped back and seen the ephemeral and illusory nature of existence (soundtrack is Nina Simone’s “Sinnerman”).
Of course there are huge statements about the exploitation of and violence against women especially through a critical eye on class, but Lynch keeps the journey open enough so that many forms of violence and social injustices are within purview including race.
As a whole, the film is beautiful, touching, challenging, and ultimately requires a personal investment and invites to a personal transformation. It is a spiritual film speaking in the language of myth and archetypes that gently nudges its viewers to give capriciously, generously, and without fear to their art while removing themselves from ego. A transcendent and enduring film of great detail and nuance, it evoked from me a trancelike state through much of it that, like the best of spiritual literature, was singly horrific and divine.
May 27, 2010
The Coens have made the most plainly and accessibly theological American film in a number of years with A Serious Man.
By theological, I mean to say that it rests in the theological mood, one of pious questioning rather than of dogmaticism or creedalism. Certainly we have seen the rise of the true cinematic powerhouse Tyler Perry whose work is rife with faith, celebration of the Christian tradition, and stirring testifying of the Gospel, but Perry’s work and Christian bookstore oddity Fireproof (starring off-the-deep-end Kirk Cameron) are of the creedal type rather than theological.
The Coens pay homage to their Judaic tradition of ‘wrestling with G-d’, of questioning the One Who Isn’t Obliged To Answer. I for one have always felt more attuned to this stance in life and is in part why I was so attracted to this film.
It is a modern depiction of a ‘Job like trial’ surely, but it also poses the question that arises from the tension in the Tanakh, the Jewish Scriptures. Does the sins of one generation impact the judgment of the next or not?
“…I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,” –Deut. 5:9
or
“…The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”–Ezek. 18:20
We find this tension immediately after the Yiddish ‘Prologue’ where the editing is done so that we are made to believe that the son and the father are one. The camera trains on close ups of their ears–awakening the audience to ‘listen with their spiritual ears’. The Son (Danny) and Father (Larry) are closely aligned in the film: both are facing hardships and are on a spiritual path–one on his way to Bar Mitzvah the other caught in the labrynth of day-to-day life and the conundrums that accompany it.
Many have found similarities between A Serious Man and the Biblical portrayal of Job.
I would say that the Coens have creatively stepped back from the Job story.
Whereas in Job we are told that Job’s problems are indeed the result of a wager between the Accuser and the Lord, in Larry’s case we never know.
The question of Job is “why do bad things happen to good people?” to which God answers essentially “none of your business! I’m in control around here so quit yer yappin’.”
The question we’re presented in this film is “Can we ever know if God is involved in our lives at all?” and the answer is essentially “nope.”
Whether God is involved or not, you are left in a double bind.
This is set-up in the ‘Prologue’ which is made to feel like an ol’ Yiddish tale from the shtetl was in fact written by the Coens and though they have said in interview that the story has no connection to the film, it plainly does.
The double bind as presented in the Prologue is this:
If the man is truly a dybbuk the family will experience hardship because it is a supernatural curse.
If the man is not a dybbuk, the family will be cursed because they just killed a man.
Bottom line: you’re screwed no matter what choice you make and you’ll never know if God or supernatural influence had any part in it.
This is the double bind of Larry, and I would offer of many alive in contemporary society.
Life seems miserable. Is it God’s doing? Is there something we should change? Do our choices matter? Are we reading meaning into common everyday occurrances to find a ‘something more’?
Whether you believe in God or not, you are given no answers and no solace is found.
In fact, there would seem to be a simplicity in not trying to find the answers. In their previous film No Country For Old Men Sheriff Ed Tom Bell is troubled by the seemingly increasing violence of his world. In the opening voiceover he gives what could be the final words of the film:
“…You can say its my job to fight it [the crimes of Anton Shigur and the evils he represents] but I don’t know what it is anymore. More than that, I don’t want to know. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He would have to say: Okay, I’ll be a part of this world.”**
It is perhaps easier to turn away from the darkness, the realities of the human condition but to do so, by Sheriff Bell’s telling, you’re not a part of the world. Another double bind. You must face evil or turn away from it and be lost to yourself in a new type of horror: isolation, solipsism, passivity, vanity.
The film balances on a hinge point of decision: Larry’s changing of Clive Park’s grade at the end.
Earlier, Larry had told Clive that there were consequences to what occurred in his office. ‘Not just academic. Moral!’
He took the moral highground then, but later succumbed. (This is an interesting pattern in human experience where it is when one is through the hardship that they let their moral guard down–things are going good, ‘somebody up there must like me’.)
It is at that moment that we see the tornado threatening the son Danny.
(Job 40:6, “God answered Job from the whirlwind saying…”Do you think you’re as in control as I?”)
Was it a judgment upon Larry? Or was it coincidence?
The answer won’t come to Larry from God. Will we give it?
**No Country For Old Men Adaptation by Joel Coen and Ethan Coen based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy
As an aside, I got a kick out of the three Rabbis we see in the film. The first and youngest is full of zeal and answers. The second is full of words that amount to little. The last and oldest, Marshak who we see in the above clip, wisely intones: “Be a good boy.”
May 26, 2010
Much has been written about Antonioni’s 1966 Blow-Up, but many analyses miss what I feel he was truly trying to convey in the film: a critique of Western artists’ inability to launch an effective response to the era’s violent upheavals the Vietnam War among them.
Many reviewers note the film’s stark portrayal of the listless Swinging London Town, full of moping faces and sense of ennui but fail to mark how the ‘hero’ of the film (Thomas) and the action are speaking to the zeitgeist.
Thomas is an Artist, a producer of pop culture and implicitly a narrator of the times. As he sees, he aids to inform others how to see themselves, others, the world. Despite all the power that is rightly or wrongly given him, he chooses to be powerless. His true impotence and fragility in the face of life is masked through his bullying, his sadistic treatment of his models, his ‘rockstar’ front complete with top-0f-the-line sportscar.
Thomas speaks of his ‘wife’ and though it is not clear exactly if she is partner, love interest, or wife , we can assume it is perhaps an ‘open marriage’. We see the theme of Thomas’ frustration where he sees her enraptured in making love to another. We see his confusion and his hurt as he exits the room. His energies and pathos we can imagine are poured into his other sexual adventures–famously a trio where full frontal nudity was first shown in England.
There is another hint at Thomas’ theme of potential that is lost to capricious aethesticism: his purchase of an airplane propeller. Just as his art is all the Mod rage and affords him groupies as expendible sexual experiences but does not further London’s society in any tangible way in the sense of values, justice, or artistic depth, so too does he own a symbol of flight without the power (or more appropriately interest) to do so.
The Spirit of the era bookends the film. We open to a band of revellers, a literal truckload of chaos swinging through the (eerily quiet) London streets. The city seems a blank slate with the Young staring at it, dreaming of what to do next. This Merry Band will close out the movie but I’ll get to that later…
The film operates as a suspense or mystery but cleverly undermines both in their conventions. There is no ‘payoff’ to either genre’s expectations, but as in many mysteries the ‘hero’ is explored as much as the crime. In Blow-Up, not only is Thomas searched out, but he is ‘solved’–that is, he comes to a conclusion.
His peers are seen to be as equally irresolute and aimless as Thomas. The antique shop worker wants to go away to Asia where there will be ‘no antiques’ in a quest for the new for the sake of newness. When Thomas goes to seek counsel about his photographs and to search for the mysterious woman in them, he is brought to a joyless music concert and an ornate mansion that has become a hollowed out drug den. The ‘scene’ is exactly that: flat and unconvincing scenery that appears not to fulfill or satisfy.
At the concert, Thomas receives a piece of the band’s recently smashed guitar. Though he is suddenly mobbed by the crowd as though zombies going after brains and must fight his way just to get out of the concert hall he drops the guitar neck on the ground–what had been priceless and sought after one minute was garbage the next. What of their culture was lasting, worthwhile, truly valuable?
The ‘blow-up’ and the event it chronicled (crime or no?) are really a background to the ‘action’. This is a great trick of mystery films–a red herring to get the audience to look one way while under their noses the story’s hinge points go unnoticed. The park’s events and players whatever they are, can only be a point of conjecture (and I’d love to hear yours!) but we can make some solid statements about Thomas, which is The Who of what the film is about.
He does not call police or any authorities’ help. It is a project of the ego for him and more than that, an artistic endeavor. I see him not trying to ‘solve’ a crime, but seeing the potential ‘artistic’ value to a possible crime. He stares at what might be a new Zapruder film, a story of passion gone wrong. I see him more likely than not selling the pictures to a glossy magazine for the shock factor and whether or not the ‘case is solved’ is of no consequence to him. Surely he could be motivated by a distrust in authority but I venture it is an artistic ego that stands in the way of acting socially responsible.
The only way Thomas does act upon the filmed event is to use it as leverage to gain sexual adventure. Make no mistake, his blackmailing Jane into sex over the pictures places Thomas low on the moral spectrum and is another hint that the film’s subject is not the ‘Park Event’ or the pictures. It is Thomas as he functions as a critique of culturally inactive and morally bankrupt Artists of the late sixties.
The final ‘conclusion’ of Thomas comes when he is confronted by the MerryMakers, the same truckload of mime-painted clowns we saw in the beginning. They meet in the park and the mimes take to a tennis court ‘playing tennis’ without ball or rackets. They are Chaos personified, the tide that sought to overwhelm the age, with antics that while high in gaiety and art were low in meaning, relevance, prophetic voice to their struggling culture.
He gives in to the chaos and plays by their rules as he ‘picks up’ the tennis ball and throws it. The magic takes over as the imaginary ball makes a noise–the dream has become reality and we the viewers have in a sense also crossed over with Thomas.
Any ideas about the Peace Protesters and the “Go Away!” sign?
May 11, 2010
Themes:
1) Father/Son legacies. Both Whiplash and Tony have inherited baggage–technical, emotional, moral–from their fathers. What I like is I’m not sure what to make of Whiplash’s intentions and his father’s dying statement: “That should be you.” Did his father hold a bitter grudge or was he merely saying “You are destined for greatness too, son.” Not that the two are mutually exclusive but I wonder if just like Tony, Whiplash has gone off track from his father’s wishes.
2) The misuse of power and ability. Tony’s chest reactor has amazing powers. Imagine what energy problems around the world could be solved with this technology. But Tony’s heart is corrupted–that was established in the first film and this one rachets that up even more. He assumes that only he could responsibly use the Arc Reactor–all the while withholding it from others. Of course we can read ‘nuclear power/weapons’ all over these films. Tony mirrors the message America is currently sending to some countries: “We have nuclear weapons and bombs. We can manage both just fine. You cannot do either.”
3) No one can ‘go it alone’. This plays out in Tony’s romantic reaching out to Pepper and Rhodes. His change of heart is propelled by his heart problems and immanent death. His alliances and friendships are a source of strength for him because there is mutuality and trust. Whiplash and Hammer on the other hand have an alliance that was never fair, trusting, equal, and they both lost in the end.
Filmic References:
1) Top Gun: War Machine’s fly by the tower.
2) Terminator: Rhode’s at the party–”Get out”
3) (…more?…)
Tony Stark:
Tony Stark is interesting because he is beyond the ‘dark’ superhero ‘with flaws’. He is hardly a hero at all. His power comes from his being ‘self serving’ in a very real sense. His Arc Reactor saves his life and is a glorified pace maker. He is a Capitalist whose ethical system is about money, ease, fame, ego. In the first movie he makes an important decision to rectify his company’s weapons dealings and war profiteering. Even when he did that, he failed as a true ‘superhero’ by killing people rather than using his tech prowess to find less than lethal ways of achieving his goals. In the second film, he’s facing down those who are jealous of him. He’s not battling for Truth Justice and The American Way or solving crimes or protecting the weak. He’s fending off Playa Haters who are aimin’ at his game. Its Corporate War. A hostile takeover with a touch of Ghosts of The Past Seeking Revenge. That’s why I’m interested in the Avengers. When there is a team involved and larger issues than just Stark Industries, how will Tony act?
Alchemy:
The hidden and esoteric arts were never really just about turning more crude matter into gold. It was about the perfection of the spirit and attainment of the secrets of God. This was more to do with righteousness and angelic mediators and divine science than potions and wizened hermits trying to get rich. And Iron Man 2 has a bit of alchemy in it also. Tony’s life is literally and relationally saved by his father Howard’s love. His father reaches out to him saying “You are my most important creation.” and also hands him the secret to unlocking Tony’s heart troubles.
Using this knowledge as key, I’m going to offer an analysis that you may or may not agree with:
The circle chest icon on Iron Man’s suit may be thought of symbolizing “oneness”–appropriate for the lonely ‘Rambo’ style of Tony at first.
The triangle chest piece, a gift of his father and a very tangible sign of his father’s love, appears at a time when Tony shows love for Pepper and accepts Rhodes’ help. This triangle can be seen as a ‘trinity’. A sign of community, shared love, and equality.
Scarlett Johansson:
An unfortunate casting in an otherwise well cast film. Every other leading actor here is charismatic and plays off each other well. Scarlett seems a dead weight. Was it that her character wasn’t written well? Perhaps. Was it that she was so cinched into trusses and corsets binding her up that she was unable to breathe let alone move and act like a natural, comfortable person? Most likely yes. If you watch her in the Monaco scene where she greets Tony and Pepper and then stops to speak to someone else, her body is bent into an unnatural posture–most definitely because of her costumer. I love people with curves. In my mind, if you’re going to cast Scarlett, let her be the beautiful woman she is. This is an issue that should have been hammered out between director and costumer.
She also is wooden and unnatural by her own accord. I hope she doesn’t appear in any more Marvel movies.
Happy Little Moments:
1) The way Gyneth Paltrow says ‘struwburries’.
2) The Army Drones feet that clamp unto the ground when firing their ‘tank’ rounds.
3) Whiplash’s great villain entrance as his disguise burns away on the Formula One track.
4) Tony and Rhodes talking in their suits with their masks up before the final fight. They play well and make it a believeable “surrounded cowboys in the OK Corral” feel even though they’re in Arc Reactor powered suits.
Sources of Frustration:
1) Music choice for Tony’s introduction in the movie as he is dispatched from the airplane. With a different score, we could entertain better the idea that he’s being launched into battle–which would make sense to how it is shot and intended. It would have been a nice ‘gotcha’ to have a dramatic sound leading us to believe that rather than fireworks, he’s flying through flak.
2) Scarlett Johansson (see above)
3) Too busy of a movie to have a singular thread that builds or allows characters to have much depth. There’s no tension in this movie. The most threatened we feel is on the racetrack until Tony’s in his suit. There’s no rising threat. Only at the end to we have an almost exact replica of the first movie where Tony blows the shit of the bad guy and it endangers Pepper and she’s the damsel in distress.
4) Much too much is going on. There’s no sense of ‘arc’, finality, or real character growth/depth.
5) The Bonus add-on after the credits seems really arbitrary. The New Mexico setting allows for either Hulk or Cap options–were they trying to throw us off? My guess is no. The creative team probably just didn’t know what Marvel movie to script for so they most likely made a setting that could be believeable for a number of movies and shot different “gasp” shots….Mjolner, Cap’s shield, suspended Banner…whatever movie got finalized first got into the bonus shot. Anywho, it just feels “stock” and impersonal.
And…I tremor with delight that I saw them film the shot where Tony drives his Audi down the PCH near Malibu.
Tremor.
|
