Inglourious Basterds: Cultural Edition
So my friends, I have now seen Tarantino’s latest film twice, in the United States, and here in Scotland.
Now, if you have not read it yet, I would like to direct you to Ben Creech’s analysis of the film. His words do a better job than mine:
http://www.facebook.com/search/?q=ben+creech&init=quick#/note.php?note_id=125778207609&ref=mf
The quick review is that the film is better than “Kill Bill” but still not able to eclipse the elephant in the room that is his best film, “Pulp Fiction.” So go see it.
But to get to business:
As I stated, I’ve seen the film twice now in two different countries. Each screening, however was a different experience. Before stating that it is exclusively a cultural difference, another variable could be culprit: While in the States, I saw it in a smaller indie theater (Baxter), as opposed to seeing it at a commercial theater in Edinburgh (Omni). This alone could mean that different audiences (indie vs commercial) offer different experiences.
If this variable were to be eliminated, however, I would estimate that it is a cultural difference that elicits different reactions.
For instance: The film’s entire opening scene, with Landa being so accommodating and polite, came off quite ridiculous to the Baxter crowd, leaving only laughter until the BIG reveal. Here in Scotland, the only thing that got a laugh (and I was going to be concerned if it didn’t) was when he pulled out that redonkulous pipe.
Item 2: Our introduction to Aldo Raine, with Brad Pitt doing his best George Bush, Texas swagger also had Baxter patrons rolling in the aisle; any time he opened his mouth someone was laughing. Here in Edinburgh, barely a peep.
This may be due to seeing the film in Kentucky. Raine could be any number of people we’ve met, just turned up to 11. So his ball clanging bravado tickles us. Or, he’s the ultimate American caricature, and it’s hilarious. Since the Scottish patrons may be unfamiliar to folks of Appalachia or even Raine as a caricature of Americans (as Raine may accurately reflect Americans they encountered ), they didn’t see much to laugh about.
However, Edinburgh folks did laugh throughout the scene between Mike Myers and a British soldier Lt. Archie Hilcox, whereas the Baxter crowd was quite mum. Given Scotland’s proximity to England, they have plenty to recognize. I believe the caricatures we’re familiar with will bring laughter because we see both the grain of truth and the ridiculous embellishment of the caricature in question. So if we’re unfamiliar with the truth of the caricature, we can’t get to laughing about the embellishment.
What was the crowd like for you?
Funny People: Quick Review
A lot has been made of this film, as it’s Judd Apatow’s third film, following his successes with 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up, and there’s a lot worth praising. As usual with his work the film walks a fine line between being a comedy or a drama, leaning more for the emotional punches that just happen to be funny.
Yes, it is dark, it’s about an asshole comedian as he deals with being diagnosed with leukemia, but that doesn’t make it bad. Adam Sandler knows the right balance to make us love/hate the guy, while Seth Rogen gets to be our moral compass, calling shenanigans on plot points that would otherwise be acceptable in the rom-com genre. Thus, don’t expect everything to fall neatly into place like The Proposal playing in the next screen.
I’ve heard complaints about the film’s dark tones and length, but the time flew by and I left the theater really feeling the story. Apatow’s best, ignore the haters.
*If you like this and are feeling adventurous, check out Adam Sandler’s first dramatic role in Punch Drunk Love. Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson (Boogie Nights, Magnolia, There Will Be Blood) it’s more artsy and challenging, but I found it mesmerizing. Keep your eyes peeled for Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Ten You Missed
We are a rather fortunate bunch. Our grandparents only had two chances to see a film: either when it came out in theatres or if it popped up on television, which is what made the annual television screenings of The Wizard of Oz such a big deal. It was not until VHS revolutionized the industry and films could be watched whenever we desired. Combine this with the communication powers of the internet and a film that never got past screenings in New York can suddenly make a ton of cash and notoriety.
With such fortunes, I find it our job as film enthusiasts to promote our favorite smaller films as a counter-weight to the advertising juggernauts that rumble across our cultural plains.
After my previous blog entry on blockbusters I figured the natural companion would be a list of ten great independent films that may have missed your radar.
This is not a definitive list by any means. These are merely some of the best independent films that I have seen over the last decade. I would love responses with your own list as I’m always wanting to add to my own.
Tideland (2005)
I was hooked from the beginning to Terry Gilliam’s crazy tale about a little girl’s adventures with his bold, balls of brass introduction of awesomeness to the film.
Most of Gilliam’s work is polarizing and this is definitely another of those. One would immediately use words like “creepy” and “messed up” to describe the film. However, this comes from the film’s ability to walk in both the worlds of adults and children.
While watching the film you’re childlike, until the adult bursts into your brain carrying the fear of a danger that never comes. Gilliam plays our adult brains like fools, shooing us away while saying, “Go away mom, we’re just playing!” It’s what really makes the film.
The Machinist (2004)
It’s hard to talk about The Machinist without mentioning that it stars Christian Bale and he lost 62 pounds for the film, stopping at 120 pounds even though he wanted to drop to 100 (he then gained all the original weight back, plus 40 more for Batman Begins).
That type of dedication helps the film, as Bale’s emaciated zombie-body blends with the film’s moody atmosphere about a guy who says he hasn’t slept in a year. Better call Guinness about that.
Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (1999)
Before Forest Whitaker gained notoriety for Last King of Scotland, one of his best performances came from a little known film by Jim Jarmusch.
Ghost Dog is a hitman for the mob who uses the Hagakure: The Book of the Samurai as his handbook, but things go awry when the mob turns on Ghost Dog when he leaves a witness after a job.
This is a very simple, quiet film, paced by readings of the Hagakure and the RZA soundtrack. The themes of tradition being overlapped by new upstarts and duty to others make this a wonderful little film that doesn’t sacrifice itself on the altar of “CRAZY ACTION will make them buy tickets, right?”
*See also Leon: The Professional
Waking Life (2001)
There’s a lot to be said for Waking Life, but it really does speak for itself. Following Richard Linklater’s stories of conversations (see Before Sunrise), this film is all talk, with the main character becoming engrossed with on philosophical conversation after another. Combine the mental head trip with the crazy rotoscoping visuals and you’ve got a lot to think about for the day.
On a personal note, I found that watching it all the way through can make you miss things in the latter half simply because you’re overworked. After you’ve seen it once, re-watch it from the middle and get your enlightenment on.
*See also A Scanner Darkly
Mister Brooks (2007)
Since Kevin Costner practically did two apocalyptic films back to back (and both tanked), we haven’t seen a lot of him except for the random throw away comedy. His turn in Mr. Brooks as a serial killer tortured by his addiction brings him back into our favor.
Also re-surfacing is Demi Moore as the detective on his tail, reminding us why she was heralded as such an asset to presentations of women in cinema (that is until she did Striptease).
And finally, William Hurt, who continues to randomly pop up in great supporting roles (see A History of Violence) appears as the little devil on Brooks’ shoulder.
Combine all three of these great veteran actors and this film comes to life like Robin Williams in the 1970s (yes, that was a drug reference). Costner does the role justice and offers meditation on all types of addiction. Though everything is a little more interesting when people are being killed.
Brick (2005)
Every year Hollywood churns out another crop of comedies, some trying to cash in on high school experiences, never reaching the level of John Hughes intelligence and wit – that is until Brick.
Though not a “comedy”, this neo-noir set in the world of high school is funny, serious, endearing and overall fantastic. The film keeps the interest via the writing, which is dripping with cool and firing off like a tommy gun. When’s the last time writing kept you engaged with a film? It’s also hard to believe that the star of the show was that long haired kid on 30 Rock From the Sun.
The Fountain (2006)
This is probably one of the most polarizing films in the last ten years, one upped only recently by Synecdoche, New York. I would wager that this distinction is what either draws or pushes away prospective viewers. However, I would encourage everyone to try it.
Even if the quiet (and confusing) commentary on death and acceptance may not be your cup of tea, the amazing visuals (no CGI here folks) and haunting score by Clint Mansell will make you feel something. Each will walk away feeling differently.
*See also Sunshine and Pi
The Descent (2005)
At this point I think a lot of my friends see me as a prophet for this film. I happened to catch it on late night cable, was blown away, and continue giving people my copy to watch.
The film focuses on a group of girls who go spelunking, only to wind up lost and trapped with some vicious inhabitants.
Now from this synopsis you’re automatically thinking, “Oh yeah, dumb girls find themselves in peril and scream throughout rest of film. End.” Amazingly, that’s incorrect! The creatures don’t monopolize the film’s creepies, but the ways in which the characters react and change to the situation provide the real goods.
This is one of the few horror films in which women are portrayed strong, smart, and by people with acting chops, not just good looks. Also, be sure to watch the international version, as the ending is different for the US (surprise, surprise).
*See also Aliens for strong female characters
Children of Men (2006)
True, this film had a rather large budget for me to title it as an “indie.” However, it never got a great showing around town and most have still not heard of it.
Set in a future in which women can no longer give birth, the world is crumbling as the populations grows older and extinction seems closer. When a young girl is discovered pregnant it becomes the task of Theo to escort her to the Human Project, which urban legend has it, is a group of scientists who have been trying to cure the infertility problem.
I saw this on the big screen three times and it’s no wonder: Alfonso Cuaron’s limited use of CGI, immersive sets, and mesmerizing long takes make you feel the world in your bones. The film’s apocalyptic landscapes put the recent Hollywood attempts to shame (I Am Legend, Terminator Salvation) both visually and narratively.
This may just be the best dystopian film ever made (if anything compares, please tell me) and I consider this my absolute favorite film, right next to Fight Club. If you’ve seen Blade Runner and enjoyed The Road, you’re sure to love this film.
*See also Blade Runner, 28 Days Later, and Blindness
Half Nelson (2006)
When I think of indie films that beat the shit out of any summer blockbuster with a 200 million dollar production budget, I think of Half Nelson – because all the CGI in the world can’t get me as glued to the screen as damn fine acting with a well written script.
Sure, a lot of people know Ryan Gosling for The Notebook, but fans also remember him in The Believer (playing a Jewish Nazi….yeah, that’s not hard on the parents) and The United States of Leland. Gosling as drug addicted high school teacher, Ryan Dunn, spins between being the cool teacher you knew in high school, to being kind of a dick or just pitiful. Kind of like all of us when you think about it.
The film could just be another cautionary tales about drugs, but it lets Requiem for a Dream keep that position and focuses on the relationship between Dunn and Drey, who is also struggling to keep away from drug dealing after her brother’s sent up to jail for such a crime.
I will pretty much swear by this: there is not ONE thing wrong with this film. Camera work is personal, the music counts where it needs to, and the film’s ability to highlight the type of love and help these characters require remind us of our own frailties. You HAVE to see this movie.
Mentions:
A History of Violence/Eastern Promises
Both made by David Cronenberg and starring Viggo Mortensen. Fantastic stories about relationships and the damages of violence.
Collateral
Don’t bother with Public Enemies, just re-watch Mann’s best since Heat
Gone Baby Gone
Casey Affleck as a legit badass.
The United States of Leland
Another Gosling film with a ton of other great actors. If you liked The Perks of Being a Wallflower, you may like this coming of age film.
Pontypool Review
Teaser poster for Pontypool.
Since George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead, all of the great zombie films have provided us an undead lens through which a facet of human civilization is focused upon: Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead tackled race and conspicuous consumption, respectively; Danny Boyle used our fear of disease to look into the heart of man in 28 Days Later, only to find the “Rage Virus” within all of us. Pontypool continues in this vein as the best zombie* film since Boyle’s resurrection of the genre, utilizing the fear of the unknown to look at the power of language.
Pontypool opens with Grant Mazzie (Stephen McHattie), the new voice of Radio 660, The Beacon. Mazzie takes no prisoners: at six in the morning, he’s spiking his coffee with hard liquor and mixing fact and fiction with the local news, much to the chagrin of his boss, Sydney Briar (Lisa Houle). Shit gets crazy when traffic correspondent Ken Loney describes to Mazzie a riot at the office of Dr. Mendez, only a few miles from the radio station. Holed up in the station, Mazzie and Co. are left to wonder what the hell is going on as communication with the outside world comes to a halt.
Director of Pontypool, Bruce McDonald.
Based on the novel, Pontypool Changes Everything, director Bruce McDonald (The Tracey Fragments) pulls all the right elements together to form this piece of original work. Stephen McHattie is a delight, maintaining humor and lightheartedness, even as the world is coming down. As this is a movie about a radio dj, it’s worth noting McHattie’s voice (and face) is almost a story unto itself, raw and worn from real living, making him the perfect guy to lead us through the chaos.
Stephen McHattie as Grant Mazzie in Pontypool.
On a stylistic note, the blue filter used for the film gives it a black and white look, muting the color palette, and providing a good atmospheric touch: it feels just as cold inside as it does outside. This choice provides a visual “pop” highlighting both Mazzie’s eyes and the liberal amounts of blood. However, the film does not rely only on gore and special effects; it draws its real power from special effects of the mind. In a creative nod to the War of the Worlds radio broadcast, the radio station is (ironically) waiting for reports on the mayhem going on outside.
SPOILER ALERT
Riots and mayhem aside, the main “wow” factor is the concept that the “zombies” are people infected with a virus transmitted through the English language. When this theory is proposed by Dr. Mendez to Mazzie, his incredulous response matches our own. If it were not for Mazzie’s reaction, the film might alienate the audience by asking for too much suspension of disbelief. However, the film’s acknowledgment of the outlandishness of the theory gives us license to move on and ponder, “Well…what if he’s right?” The scariness follows the “what ifs”.
A disease you can catch through your ears, and specifically the English language as the mode of transmission, offers a plethora of allusions: the power of words, the destruction of other languages and cultures via imperialism and cultural colonialism perpetuated by English speaking nations, and the politics of Canada, in which a huge rift exists between the French speaking Quebecois and the rest of the English speaking country. Such allusions are what push this film past the “good” and into the “great.”
SPOILER ALERT OVER
Bigger does not always mean better, and as apocalyptic Hollywood pictures continue to inflate both in narrative scope and budget, these films suffer for their crimes. In the case of Pontypool, it’s nice to see a film go back to the basics, where we can root for a few characters as we hunker down with them in hopes that we’ll all be okay in the end.
This film is top notch and delivered by professionals. The scariest thing to man is not knowing, and Pontypool will keep you guessing for the entire ride.
*Though both Pontypool and 28 Days Later are not exactly zombie films, they definitely pull from George A. Romero’s canon and have helped renew interest in the undead. As the director of Pontypool put it, “They’re cousins of the zombie.”
Giallo Review
Poster for Dario Argento's latest film, Giallo
The basic expectation of any director with the degrees of power and prestige afforded by such an audience following is that subsequent films will not be crap. Argento’s latest, Giallo, doesn’t succeed at being a serial-killer thriller, but earns watchability points for its campiness.
Giallo follows a serial killer who leaves the mutilated remains of foreign models for Inspector Enzo Avolfi (Adrien Brody) to decipher. When model Celine is abducted, her sister Linda teams up with Avolfi to find her before she’s bodybagged.
The film begins along well worn paths, as we see a female victim killed more for her stupidity than the antagonist’s malice. The relationship that develops (if you can call it that) between Avolfi and Linda deepens the film’s inanities, as Avolfi easily allows Linda to be privy to the details of the case, bloody photographs and all. (If this were a better film, this lack of professionalism would be rewarded with a plot twist in which Linda’s really the killer; too bad it’s not).
Adrien Brody as Inspector Enzo Avolfi and Emmanuelle Seigner as Linda, sister to abducted model, Celine.
Whether it’s due to a shoddy script or awkward directing (take your pick), the acting is forced and uninspired. Emmanuelle Seigner as Celine’s sister must have been pulled from the soap opera talent pool as she busts out her intense eyebrows of doom through the entire film to show her frightened, worried nature. Even Adrien Brody, who was great in The Pianist, Hollywoodland, and The Darjeeling Limited, is weak here, groping so tenaciously for the embodiment of hardboiled film noir detectives of yesteryear that we’re forced to laugh at his earnestness.
One such piece of earnestness took the film from Okay Thriller Ville, straight into Camp Town:
SPOILER ALERT
In a relationship development scene between Avolfi and Linda, he tells her why his boss, Inspector Mori, finds him well suited for his job: Avolfi saw his mother murdered by a bald, scar-faced man as a young boy. Following her death he was sent away to his uncle’s in New York. Avolfi returned to Italy years later and found the killer working in a butcher shop. In the flashback, the young Avolfi beats the sinister man with a club, and proceeds to stab him with a butcher’s knife repeatedly with a savagery reminiscent of Lord of the Flies. When he looks out the butcher shop’s display window he meets the gaze of young Inspector Mori. Avolfi sums up: “I explained everything to him.”
(audience laughter*)
“He seemed to understand.”
(more laughter*)
“After that…I was never the same.”
Rinse and repeat till credits.
SPOILER ALERT OVER
Combine the issues with the story, the script, the acting, the effects, the cheap score (you can almost hear the two pennies they paid Marco Werba), and Argento’s archaic, at times just bad, camera work, and the only thing left is laughter.
The first half of the film is fairly disturbing, featuring mutilated girls and an unseen face behind the pruning sheers. However, with the escalating awkwardness of the film’s various elements (see list above), Avolfi’s flashback scene pushes you over the proverbial edge; crippled by the drop from such heights of absurdity, you’re unable to take the rest of the film seriously.
The only question that remains is how Argento and Brody got involved with such a picture (much less why Brody would want an executive producer credit after reading the script). Recently Argento made an appearance at the Fangoria Convention in New York, with fans quoting Argento as unhappy with the picture and unsure of its release. Maybe Argento himself is wondering how the hell he got involved…
So round up some friends, pass the drinks, and have a good laugh. Giallo will go down as the most recent definition of true camp: attempts at earnestness in the face of a film’s self-constructed absurdity. If you’re looking for anything else, you’re better off trying to discover fine sushi in dog shit.
*this is not writer’s interjection, this is how the audience genuinely reacted to the premiere at the Edinburgh International Film Festival
Darren Aronofsky: In Person
Darren Aronofsky (left) and the Unknown Interview Lady (right).
Worth highlighting are his thoughts on 3D, music from his films cropping up in shitty trailers and sports events, and why some people hate The Fountain towards the end of Part 6. Please leave your thoughts at the bottom.
Anyways, here it is: Darren Aronofsky.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Aronofsky: [on a John Waters film in 3D] I think it has that kitsch value. That’d be great to see what he’d do with that; see Pink Flamingos in 3D, that’s what I’d want to see, not Star Wars.
Interviewer: It was interesting, yesterday… [audio indecipherable] was looking at 3D sports, and seemed to think that’s where the technology might be revolutionary.
Aronofsky: I saw that reel, with that same 3D stuff. You see the players in the foreground, totally sharp, and then the people in the crowd all the way in the back are the sharp. So the whole time I was staring at the different people watching it, so I don’t know, maybe I’m just not used to it. I just thought when you’re watching the guy on the field, or a woman on the field, your focus is there, so it might just be about training yourself to do it. I’m not sold on it.
Audience Question: Two questions: One is all of your films seem to deal with obsession, that seems to be the key theme, the personal theme to everyone. Are you as obsessed with the filmmaking process or that film at that moment as your characters seem to embody? And my second question is a rather cheeky one, what did you think of the Watchmen movie?
Aronofsky: Well the first one, I never realized they were about obsession, you think that’s what they were about?
Poster for the film adaptation of Alan Moore's Watchmen
The second question, I loved the Watchmen film. I thought it was great. I mean I’m a big fan of the graphic novel and for me I had a huge smile on my face the whole time and thought as a fan and a geek of the comic, I thought what could be better? He just brought it to life. To have that type of freedom to make it rated R, I really enjoyed it. I know everyone else kind of disagrees with me or a lot of people have problems with it, but I thought it was great.
Audience Question re-stated: In your films are you as obsessed with them as your characters are?
Aronofsky: Uuum, I don’t know. I can’t remember. I don’t know. I got to pay you to answer that question, like a therapy question.
Interviewer: Are you exploring the same themes, then?
Aronofsky: Unfortunately, yes.
Interviewer: Do you think you’ll get out of that?
Aronofsky: I’m waiting, I’m dying, if anyone’s got a script with something else besides obsession, I’m all for it.
Interviewer: Are you interested in other people’s screenplays? I mean The Wrestler, obviously…
Aronofsky: Yeah, I am. I’m reading other people’s screenplays all the time and always looking for material. It’s really hard to make a film and to really put your heart into; it’s got to be made a certain way. There’s been a few scripts that have come my way that I thought were amazing, that I wanted to do, but they went better – more successful directors.
Audience Question: What was your experience like working on the Batman script and what was it like to work with Frank Miller on that script?
Aronofsky: I never really wanted the Batman film, but it was kind of a bait and switch. I got the phone call while I was working on Requiem for a Dream that Warner Bros. wanted to talk about Batman. At the time I had this idea for this film The Fountain, which I knew it was going to be this big movie and I was thinking, “You know, is Warner really going to give me 80 million dollars to make a film about love and death after I come off a heroin movie?”
So my theory was, if I can write this Batman film and they perceive me as a writer for it, then maybe they would let me go ahead, which worked out okay, until Brad Pitt quit. I didn’t really ever get to the place where I was trying to make it, I only wrote the script, and when I went in, I said, “I’ll do this, but I want to work with Frank Miller on it.” They were really against it. This was before Sin City and all of Frank’s later success, but I told them that Frank is the expert, he’s re-invented Batman, twice, I’d like to work with him.
Frank Miller's cameo appearance in Sin City, the film adaptation of his graphic novel series of the same name. Also pictured, Mickey Rourke as Marv.
They said okay and we had a pretty good time writing it. It was fun; we’d walk around the city, geek out, talkin’ about Batman, and how to make it cool. We just really wanted to re-invent it and it was very different, it was really in response to the Joel Schumacher Batman, because that was what was fresh in people’s mind. So it was even more realistic than what Chris Nolan did, it was, no super powers, the Batmobile was a Lincoln Continental with a bus engine dropped in. That was the whole concept, like total duct tape version of it and they were like, “Lincoln Continental? You’ve got to sell toys.” I was on The Fountain, I wrote it, but it was kind of a half – spirited thing to try and get The Fountain made.
Audience Question: The film’s you’ve made previously have involved subject matter you’ve really cared about and that probably shows in the films, just the effort you’ve put into and the rest of the crew. What kind of concept or subject matter would you really, really like to do regardless of what the budget would be or who else would support it?
Aronofsky: I hope I can find material that’s as similarly inspiring and it’s hard to know what that is. You read it and it kind of just… it just gets you, for me, it’s somewhere north of my stomach. When you make a film, basically, people say no to you for two years and so you’ve really got to love the characters and love the story. To wake up every day is pretty hard when you know you’re going to be beaten down and have to make compromises. So it’s got to be something that connects deeply, for me.
Audience Question: You were just saying about problems of filmmaking and the pitfalls and things like that, I was just wondering what keeps you inspired? Is it other people’s films, scripts you read, what keeps you going on a day to day basis deep down?
Aronofsky: Good question. It’s a lot of different things. I get really inspired by music because you find a lot of musicians who are just doing their thing and don’t give a fuck that much, because they’re able to do that album a lot cheaper and easier to put together than movies. So I think whenever I get to see demonstrations of artistic independence and integrity, true voices being expressed passionately, whatever form that is, a book, even good news reporting, to a dance piece, to a performance arts piece, to painting, that’s what gets me going.
Interviewer: You immerse yourself in a lot of…
Aronofsky: I try to see as much art and other stuff as I can. Music’s hard. Any tips, anything great coming out of Scotland?
Audience: Withered Hand
Aronofsky: Does that get seconded by anyone?
[no one responds]
Aronofsky: Well then –
[audience laughs]
Audience: Frightened Rabbit
-The Phantom Band
-I second that!
Aronofsky: I like Frightened Rabbit, that’s a better name.
Remington Smith’s Question: I just wanted to ask: In all of your films, there’s a very clear voice and I think that you have gathered a cult following because of that; regardless of what you’re going for, you’re going to go for it. I think because of that distinct voice, I was wondering if you’ve been courted by studios who want you to do a film to give it some cred, or, if you’ve gotten some popularity and they offer you ridiculous films. What’s it like behind the scenes?
Aronofsky: The sellout question?
Remington: I wonder if people have tried to make you offers to try and do that.
Aronofsky: I’m always looking for material. It’s hard to continue to generate material on a speed… If I decided to take off 2-3 years I imagine I could refuel… I really want to work a little bit faster than I have the last few films if I can find material, so I keep looking for stuff. I’m curious to do a piece that I didn’t author just to see what that experience is like. Hopefully it won’t be miserable. It would be fun just to take something that is well crafted by a screenwriter and cast it, shoot it, and see what happens.
The Wrestler we developed, my company, it was my idea; we developed it through many, many, many drafts over years and years. Ultimately it was an outside writer who brought a whole different type of aesthetic to it and I went into it really relaxed and tried to be very present in the moment, like how Mickey [Rourke] approaches his acting.
I actually went to set pretty unprepared for how I usually go to set. I just went by instinct: I saw what Mickey was doing and I saw the limitations of what the crew was and tried to make the best decision in the moment and I had a great time doing it. It was kind of like the first time I was improvising as opposed to really constructing. I really like that way of working, so if I can find other material that I can create like that, I’d be excited to approach it. I don’t know where the road’s going to go.
Interviewer: When you started drafting, and as you said it was your idea and it was your company, was there a conscious decision to try and work in that way?
Aronofsky: The original idea: I just always thought it was really curious that no one had ever made a film about professional wrestling. The more I looked into wrestling the more interesting the characters were.
Mickey Rourke in Darren Aronofsky's latest film The Wrestler
It came out, probably, because no one wanted to give it money with Mickey Rourke. I had six million dollars, which I know sounds like a lot of money, but it just somehow disappears. All of my films have been made with limited resources. The whole style of Pi came out of the fact that we couldn’t afford to make the color look good. Black and white actually costs more money than color, but we saved money in so many other ways, or I should say we saved the film by being able to stylize it that way. I’ve never had the type of money I’d wanted and I have to create boundaries and rules within it to work.
Audience Question: [audio not discernable; recall the guy telling Aronofsky that he only shows The Fountain to certain people because there are a select few who will get it. Overall he gave Aronofsky props for the film, eliciting the following reply]
[audience applauds]
Aronofsky: There’s a lot [sic] of Fountain haters out there, so keep spreading the word.
Interviewer: Do you understand why?
Poster for Aronofsky's most discussed film, The Fountain.
Aronofsky: Yeah, because the film’s about, “Hey, its okay that we die and we should come to terms with it.” Of course people are like, “I don’t even want to think about that!” so why would people want to pay money to sit for 90 minutes and have a meditation on losing someone they love, and coming to terms with it, as well as coming to terms with their own death?
Everything is about denying that in Western Culture. There are some people who are open to experiencing that and there are many, many people who don’t want to approach it. I think that’s the reason.
I also think because it’s dealing with death it’s [an] incredibly earnest film. At the time it came out it was smack in the middle of Paris Hilton time. There hasn’t been this serious turn on what’s…people starting to realize the party’s over, finally, so we can stop thinking about the culture of superficiality; start [to] remember there are other things going on.
Although here in England, you guys –
Interviewer: Scotland
Aronofsky: I don’t know what it’s like here, but watching TV in England its like, “Oh wow, in America we still have a lot to learn about how superficial you can get.” Sorry, it’s just the TV, I don’t know about the people.
You did have that reality TV star who died. Did she die on camera? We read about it in America.
Interviewer: She lived and died on camera.
Aronofsky: Did she actually die on camera, did they capture the moment?
[audience laughs in a horrified manner]
Interviewer: No
Aronofsky: That’s why I didn’t direct it.
[more horrified laughing]
Audience Question: I was fascinated by the guy who played the steroid dealer in The Wrestler [whom] was subsequently arrested for steroid dealing.
[audience laughs]
Aronofsky: Facing 25 to life right now.
Audience Question continued: Did it not occur to him that playing himself in film would be probably a bad idea?
[audience laughs]
Aronofsky: It’s a funny story: I was down in Miami with Mickey, “night clubbing” with Mickey, and I saw that guy across the way. I was like, “That guys awesome, let’s get that guy,” and Mickey just went up to him and basically picked him up. He became good friends with him.
I never really knew what he did, but it was clear he did steroids, but I didn’t know he was also in the dealing end of it. He came in and we actually wrote that scene the morning of. We sat there and I showed him what the production designer had created as far as steroids and we kind of put a package together. We kind of just scripted it and wrote it right there, it was great.
He actually comes off really well in the film, and not to speak ill of people facing 25 to life, but he was terrible. It was all editing that stitched it together and made everything great. Mickey saw that scene and said, “You know, that’s the first time that anyone has stolen a scene from me.”
Audience Question: I was just curious why you and Matthew Libatique [director of photography on his previous films] didn’t work together on The Wrestler? Was that a timing issue or a stylistic choice?
Aronofsky: Uuuuuuh…he was busy. At the time.
[audience laughs]
Audience Questioner’s Reply: Okay, cool. Thanks.
Audience Question: Will you continue to do anti-Hollywood endings?
Aronofsky: Sure, why not. I mean, I don’t know, we’ll see what comes. I actually want to do a Hollywood ending now…
Audience Question Continued: Do you deliberately… [audio indecipherable; question about the ending to Requiem for a Dream]
Aronofsky: I don’t think that was the intention. When I read the novel, when Harry gets his arm cut off in the novel, he had this weird vision. I wasn’t sure if he died or not.
I went to Harry Hubert Selby, Jr. [author of the book Requiem for a Dream] and I said, “Does Harry die at the end of the book?”
Hubert Selby, Jr., author of the book Requiem for a Dream. Selby was also co-writer of the screenplay for the film adaptation by Darren Aronofsky.
And he went, “No!”
And I was like, “Well why are you so emphatic?”
And he said, “Because has so much more to suffer.”
[audience laughs]
That I understood was the intention of the book, to show the suffering. After the screening at the Cannes Film Festival, the head of the studio, Bill, who was also the guy at the screening for Pi who offered me the Polanski job, said, “Well you’re not going to release the film this way.”
I said, “Why?”
and he said, “You can’t put this film out this way, you’re going to have to cut it back.”
I said, “The entire purpose of the film is to go as far as we can. To do any less is undermining the whole purpose of the project.” So it was an aggressive portrayal of addiction versus the human spirit and there couldn’t have been any panels.
Interviewer: Thank you all, Darren, for that. Thank you very much.
Aronofsky: Thank you very much gentlemen.
Makers of Moon
Here is the conversation that took place with the filmmakers after the premiere at the Edinburgh International Film Festival:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Moon Review
With this intriguing trailer, a score by Clint Mansell (Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain), and Sam Rockwell starring as technician Sam Bell, I will admit to having some expectations. I would also say that most people intrigued by this film are going to be sci-fi nerds familiar with notable scif-fi movies.
Therein lies the problem with Moon: if you’ve seen Blade Runner, you’re just getting a rehash. Yes, the set design and CGI are great, especially when find out they did with a 5 million dollar budget. Clint Mansell’s score adds depth, tension, and excitement. Sam Rockwell playing two different characters: wonderful, he does a great job.
However the story falls flat after the first twenty minutes as you then predict the entire plot of the film and it doesn’t help that they reveal the whole clone thing in the trailer.
SPOILER ALERT (scroll down till you hit SPOILER ALERT OVER to read the conclusion)
Because after I saw the trailer I immediately predicted the film’s twists based on my knowledge of Blade Runner: Rockwell plays a clone created by a mining corporation who have implanted false memories of a life he’s never lived. The film further rides the Blade Runner band wagon when Sam looks sickly and starts coughing up blood… Surprise, surprise, the clones have a shelf life of three years!
The only part of the film in which you benefit from seeing previous sci-fi films is the send up to 2001: A Space Odyssey. During the film you wonder if the Kevin Spacey robot, Gerty, is going to be another whacked out HAL 9000: is he trying to hide the truth from Sam? Will he kill him for knowing too much? The filmmakers play with this expectation and is an upside for the film’s story. Since it is not the focus though, it still can’t make up for the Blade Runner fleecing.
And on a final spoiler note, the ending felt weak: as Sam Bell (at least one of them) is re-entering Earth’s atmosphere we hear radio broadcasts of his story being told.
One, the audience doesn’t really need to know if he got to Earth safely to feel good about the film. The fact that he escaped the Moon base at all is the payoff: he got free and there’s hope. So to clarify the point, and to do so with such casual briefness felt like both a disservice to the audience and the character.
SPOILER ALERT OVER
If you’re just getting into sci-fi movies, this is a great introduction. I will admit, even if you’re a veteran, it isn’t necessarily horrible either, as I mentioned the acting and technical achievements are evident. Just don’t expect any surprises.
I looked for a Moon poster and this was all I got. :shudder:
Re-Visiting: The Intruder
Roger Corman is not well known amongst our generation, lost with our parent’s memories of low-budget genre films (the monster, gangster, horror, biker movies) that made the drive-in circuit. That’s one of the pitfalls coming into this world a century after filmmaking began: you’ve got a lot of fucking movies to watch.
Corman’s The Intruder is one of the older films we whipper-snappers should re-discover (along with the usual suspects: Casablanca, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Citizen Kane) considering its social commentary. Hell, if for nothing else you should watch it to see William Shatner play a bad guy. After seeing Shatner play Adam Cramer I was disappointed he didn’t choose to revisit the Dark Side – he may have been better at it than playing noble Captain Kirk.
So what’s it about? Well, Cramer is an outsider who visits a small town to rile up the locals against the recent integration decision. With Cramer’s white suite, black sunglasses, good looks, and snake like charm, this is how you’d imagine the devil would look like.
Totally the Devil.
Shatner’s evilness aside, the film’s analysis of mob mentality and the voice that stirs the hornet’s nest is timeless. As Cramer delivers fiery, slippery slope, dubious speeches, only one man has enough critical thinking skills to question the validity of his accusations. With men like Adolf Hitler and Joseph McCarthy available as real life candidates for the Worst Rabble Rousers of the Century, we can see Cramer’s character within a realistic, historical context. Even the last eight years have seemed like such a Cramer speech, with only one man willing to investigate such chicanery.
It also pays to know the background on The Intruder’s production process: Corman and Co. shot the film on location in East Prairie, Missouri in three weeks; during the shoot they were thrown out of town by the sheriff for being “communists”.
The Intruder was the only film by Corman that lost money and when you watch it you can see why: no one wants a drive-in movie to call them out for hating “niggers”. For this reason it becomes a historically important film as it had the balls to call those of the “racist persuasion” by their true name in the middle of the Civil Rights movement. Evidently it was “EVIL ASS CRACKERS!” or something like that.
Studio Fatigue: What Summer Blockbusters Should Have Learned From The Dark Knight
July 14, 2009 at 4:09 pm (Commentary, Essay)
I’ve been thinking over the summer films that have hit cinemas so far and have only been disappointed with the rundown (except for Star Trek, that wasn’t too bad):
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
crap, but expected to be
Terminator Salvation
disappointingly crappy
Public Enemies
Though a non-mega budget/hyped film, this one suffered due to a lack of supporting story elements that would actually make you care about the character and the type of technical issues you’d expect from a student film, not a 100 million dollar feature starring Johnny Depp.
So I got to thinking about the major issues with the Summer Blockbuster Genre that has emerged, and how The Dark Knight managed to be one without being shit. Maybe Hollywood will keep these things in mind for next summer.
The Script
By all accounts, what carries The Dark Knight, is the script. Batman Begins did a great job of setting up characters the audience could care about for further development in a sequel. Though there is action throughout the film, action does not carry it. The weight of the film is found in the Joker’s monologues or the final scenes between Gordon, Two Face, and Batman.
However, if you look to X-Men Origins: Wolverine or Terminator Salvation, interactions between characters are merely setup for another action scene. Without the spectacle of violence there isn’t much to care for, and no interaction with the audience. A large part of this problem is with scope.
Both of the aforementioned titles come from franchises built years ago (or in the case of Terminator, decades). What drew people into the story in the first place was a concisely crafted film that connected with a character or a small group of characters. With each sequel, both story and budget are inflated to meet some audience expectation. Several major franchises have followed this pattern in recent years: The Matrix, Terminator, X-Men, Batman etc.
It’s possible to successfully expand in scope, but it has to be gradual. Otherwise you get the Matrix sequels or Wolverine, which only seemed to care about bigger fight scenes and which introduced new characters for spin-offs, not for specific purposes relevant to the story (see also Venom’s rushed intro in Spider Man 3.
If Terminator Salvation for example, had just followed Marcus Wright, only had John Connor show up towards the end, and not even bothered with Kyle Reese, the film would have held together better. Now, I choose Marcus because he was the one character that seemed best developed because we spent the most time with him (scope, again). However, since Marcus gets (SPOILER ALERT) whacked at the end, you could do the same with John Connor: JUST follow him. The schizophrenic jumps gave us little time to care about anyone.
A film like Wolverine holds the baggage of being pulled from comics, another beast entirely; some comic series are spread out over hundreds of issues, with multiple writers and companies swapping the film rights with no restrictions. Due to the plethora of history to mine from, studios become unfocused in their efforts to capture a story on celluloid. When the film hits cinemas, the stories are over packed with new villains or favorite heroes, presumably because studios fear audiences’ ire if “so and so” isn’t in the story. Ironically enough, this worry pushes viewers away.
In contrast, by maintaining the focus of the film within a narrow narrative scope and the type of run time that allows for character development, The Dark Knight made us care about the story instead of longing for the next piece of action.
The Crew
The best thing that any Summer Blockbuster could have on its side is a director outside of the Hollywood System. I stress system because Hollywood films are meant to be churned out like Chinese goods from Walmart. This type of mass production film process doesn’t always help a film: studio executives are hired to make the company make money, not to present what has the most artistic integrity.
Due to the flaws of this system, it comes as no surprise that if you look around you’ll see a lot of talent cultivated instead by indie films of awesomeness: Darren Aronofsky, Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan.
Why are the indie guys the ones you want? The first thing you need is a good script; only then can you get the second ingredient, passion; and only these guys have it. Receiving little to no pay, they grit their teeth and get through the difficult, lean, process of filmmaking due to a passion for the source material. Do you think Michael Bay would have made Transfomers 2 without the 75 million dollar payday, plus 8% on the merchandise? Hell no, and that’s why you need the indie guys: people who don’t look at filmmaking as just a job. That’s what made The Dark Knight so damn good and kept it from coming under the control of studio executives. Combine directorial passion with a great ensemble of actors, and The Dark Knight stands apart from the rest of the summer fare.
Special Effects
The Dark Knight is the first major Hollywood film to be produced with a minimalist stance towards CGI, using practical effects in its stead. That semi flipping ass over end? Done for real. Batman whipping around in the Batpod? Done (mostly) for real.
Why does this matter? Because stunts or environments artificially created are just as much of a character as the leading gal/guy. We all saw how the Star Wars prequels turned out, and yes, some of it could have been script issues. However, throwing your actors on a giant green screen and expecting ace performances doesn’t help the picture either.
Actors need to interact with something real and so does the audience. We’re more inspired by real sets and stunts than something whipped up on a computer. In the real world there are obstacles to be overcome, and when a film is able to overcome these restraints (money, time, gravity), that’s when you’ve really got the audience’s attention (hence the moniker “Movie Magic”). CGI should be like makeup: you shouldn’t be able to tell that it’s there.
Unfortunately for Wolverine and Terminator Salvation, blemishes were very apparent in silly background shots or CGI work that seemed incomplete. In some areas it was just lazy filmmaking: in one scene between John Connor and Barnes (Common) it was obviously shot in the day, then converted into night using a filter from Final Cut.
These are simple things that could have been done using practical effects (aka, shoot the damn scene at night). However, because they relied so much on the post-production computer work, they just make the film look cheap, alienating the audience when we’re supposed to be engrossed with the film. The Dark Knight on the other hand, escapes these tropes and keep the audience further engaged and grounded via a heavy use of real sets, stunts, and effects.
In Closing
In the end, the biggest reason The Dark Knight is the best Summer Blockbuster is because it managed to get the support of a major Hollywood studio, yet escaped the usual cliche one-liners and plot points. It’s hard to recall another mega budget film that killed off the female lead, was full of political allusions, contained social commentary, and let the bad guy win.
The film is daring in presenting audiences with the good, the bad, and the grays in between. Almost every hero movie shows us our protagonist tempted by the dark side, only to come back to the light. In The Dark Knight we see the hero torture a mob boss for information. When’s the last time we saw a major Hollywood produced hero with ambiguity like that?
Yes, maybe I’ve seen too many independent films to ever enjoy a summer movie again. However, maybe if the studios worked on their stories they would watch their profits balloon over a full year, as with the The Dark Knight, instead of settling for a two week cash grab, followed by dumping the unwanted pregnancy in the five dollar DVD bin at Walmart.
Permalink 5 Comments