Saturday, February 04, 2006

Writing About Film

Yesterday, I talked about how the simultaneous release pattern pioneered with Bubble could effect the way that the industry does business, and how people view films. So, the basic concept there was the idea that the simultaneous release could create an increased cultural dialogue around art films, because it would mean that anyone who wanted to see it would be able to see it when it came out.

The current film climate is currently entirely based around the opening weekend, a film opens and then fades, both in terms of box office and in terms of cultural prevalence. The vast majority of writing on a film occurs before it comes out, and this means that the writers of the article have to walk the line of talking about the film without spoiling the plot points. There are two primary types of articles on films right now, one is the behind the scenes piece, talking with the actors or director about the upcoming film and the process of making it. Then there's the review.

If you look on the internet, there's tons of film reviews, but I usually find it tough to find really meaningful, interesting writing on films. The reason for this is that most reviews are still targetted at whether or not you should see the film. This means that half of the review is spent going over plot stuff. As a reader, if I'm actually interested in seeing the film, I'm not going to read this part of the review, because I want to preserve the surprise of seeing the film for the first time. I don't need a summary of the plot, just a brief teaser of what happens is enough.

Before I see a film, I'll usually skim the reviews, to get the basic idea of whether it's positive or negative. Other than who the director is, the critical consesus is the primary thing that determines whether or not I see a film. I know a lot of people actively disdain the idea that you should follow the critics, but I think it's a good guideline. There's some films where I disagree with the critics, but most of the time, it's a good guideline for whether or not to check a film out. Of course, a personal reccomendation from someone whose taste I respect trumps the critics, but with new films, most of the time no one I know has seen the film.

So, as a person who hasn't seen the film, I'm really only interested in the person's opinion of the film, not in specific observations on scenes or directorial decisions. The reason for this is that I like to go in with as much of a blank slate as possible with a film. Usually all I want to know is that some people think this is a great movie.

But once I have seen the film, then I love to read discussion and analysis of it. The problem is that because almost all the writing on a film is in the "thumbs up, thumbs down" catergory, you wind up with people skirting around deep discussion of what occurs to avoid spoiling it for someone. And at this point, any summary of the plot is pretty much pointless. It's great to refer to specific scenes and plot details, but I don't need to know the basics.

I guess what I want is reviews that are more about analyzing the film than just giving an opinion. You can definitely intertwine the two, but I'm much more interested in watching people uncover layers and themes within the film, provide their interpretation, than just say it was good or bad. Now, obviously this is easier with some films than others. There are a ton of articles about Mulholland Drive, because it's a film that demands to be analyzed. The narrative content is so ambiguous, connecting the pieces is almost like a Rorshach test for the viewer.

However, it's not only "puzzle" films that can benefit from analysis of the kind given to Mulholland. I'm much more interested in articles targetted at people who've already seen the films and even if it is a review, it's much more effective to discuss the film assuming that your audience has already seen it.

When I write stuff for this site, I usually write the reviews assuming you've seen the film, hence there's always a lot of "spoilers." It differs from film to film, but usually, the more I like a film, the more I'm going to analyze it rather than just state an opinion. And a lot of times, the very act of writing about a film can reveal a lot of depth that I didn't realize was there. This happened with Star 80, a film that turned out to have a lot more layers than I would originally have thought, once I started digging through it.

So, writing an in depth analysis of the film is actually an important step in the critical evaluation process. If a film gets better the more you think about it, that's a sign that it really is a great film, whereas a film that dazzles, but has little to talk about might not be as strong.

Obviously there's certain films that don't really lend themselves to analysis, but are still great. However, on the whole, it's always going to more interesting to hear an in depth discussion of what worked and what didn't in a film than to just hear, "It's pretty good." Plus, as a writer, I'm much more interested in really engaging with the film than just letting you know if it's worth seeing.

Anyway, what the simultaneous release pattern could do is make it easier to have really in depth discussion of art films because it would let everyone see them. You can write an article that engages with a film like Revenge of the Sith a week after it comes out because it's so widely available that anyone who wants to see it can. And now, anyone who wanted to see Bubble can, so you can write a very deep article examining the film.

Ultimately, I think it's a lot more interesting to read about a film after you've seen it than to try to avoid the spoilers and discern an opinion before you've watched it. There's certainly validity to writing a traditional review, but I'd like to see some more people doing analysis rather than just giving an opinion.

Friday, February 03, 2006

The Bubble "Revolution"

The big news in film this week was the release of Steven Soderbergh's new film, Bubble, in the theater, on TV and on DVD at the same time. For some, this is a harbinger to the apocalypse, signalling the potential end of film viewing as we know it. If Revenge of the Sith, or even something like Fantastic Four, was released in this pattern, it's quite possible that we would be looking at a potnetial major seismic shift. However, Bubble isn't the sort of film that would be seen by a lot of people anyway, so it's not going to change the way the major studios do business.

For the major studio releases, there's really no incentive to get this direct DVD format going. They are still making a good chunk of money off of the theatrical release, and I would agree with people that with a small number of exceptional films, releasing the movie on DVD simultaneously would effectively kill the theatrical market. It's already hurting it with the reduced DVD window. I know in my case there's movies that in the VHS era I would have gone to see in a theater, however, now I wait a couple of months and I can buy a movie for what it would have cost to see it in the theater. This is particularly the case with arty movies that only get released in New York City, it's cheaper for me to buy the DVD when it comes out than pay the train and ticket.

I feel bad about not supporting smaller movies in the theater, because that does mean that a lot of really good movies end up not getting released here, however it's tough. First of all, a lot of the stuff I really want to see, I import. I saw 2046 in January 2005, it wasn't actually released here until August, and I've had Clean and Sympathy for Lady Vengeance for a while now, and neither of those have been released here. So, the really devoted foreign film audience, the people who would see these movies in the theater, are ahead of the studios. This means they need to adjust their release patterns and get these films out faster.

But, it's also pretty clear that with a few exceptions, most foreign films do very badly. I consider this a chicken and the egg thing. Martial arts movies have made money in the past, so the studios give them a bigger push and they end up making more money. I think Oldboy could have gone over as well as Hero, yet it was only released in a couple of theaters in the whole country. It's a film that's got a lot of cult acclaim, and with a proper release, I think it could have gotten at least a $20-$30 million gross.

But, what this reflects is the changing marketplace for art films. Because it's so difficult to see art films in the theater, the entire market has shifted towards the DVD. So, the grosses for even really acclaimed films, like 3-Iron, are laughable, and I'd imagine many more people have seen the film on DVD than did in the theater.

This change in film viewing is something that's been moving forward my entire life. I was born right as the VCR was becoming commonplace, and it's actually hard for me to imagine a world before the VCR. You can't expect the theatrical marketplace to be as vibrant as it was pre-VCR because back then, it was either see the film in the theater or never see it. Once it's gone, it's likely you'll never get a chance to see the movie again. So, if you were sick the week that Casablanca played at your local theater back in 1942, you would have missed it, and barring a revival, that's it. You've missed arguably the greatest film in existence at that point in time.

TV changes things in the 50s, but commercials change the experience, and even with the VCR, there's the pan and scan, only with DVD does the home experience become arguably superior to the theatrical. So, that leaves theaters with the advantage that they show the movie first.

This journey through history leads us to Friday and the simultaneous release of Bubble. This is something I'm very supportive of, and think is worthwhile, even it may hurt theatrical film viewing. The reason for that is the fact that the simultaneous release plan makes it possible for an art film to return to the status of cultural event. When a major studio films comes out, there's the buildup, articles on the making of it, ads and reviews, all centered around the film's opening weekend. So, by the time we get there, I'm really psyched to see the film. It's a part of the cultural dialogue for that weekend, and once you've seen it, you can be part of that cultural dialogue.

With artier movies that only get a limited release, you read the articles and revie, and then have to wait a month or so for the film to come out, such that by the time the film actually makes it to the theaters nearby, it feels like its moment has passed and the cultural dialogue has moved on. There's some exceptions, the big Oscar contenders continue to be culturally relevant, but with films that don't have that buzz, they just disappear from the cultural radar.

On the whole, we've been moving away from shared cultural events. People are tivoing TV shows, or just waiting for the DVD, rather than watching them as broadcast. In music, albums are leaking and being heard before they're "released." In movies, more people are seeing a film on DVD than in the theater, which means that there's no moment when a film is in the cultural spotlight, it's a gradual roll out.

I would argue that the Bubble release pattern, rather than expediting these trends, actually returns a film to a cultural event. As I mentioned before, the typical art film rollout means that you have to go through a lot of trouble to actually see these acclaimed films, and if you live outside of New York or LA, you're basically out of luck. So, what releasing things in the Bubble pattern does is make it possible for everyone to participate in the cultural dialogue surrounding the film. Rather than going to the theater with a bunch of friends, chip in $5 each and buy the DVD, or rent it. Then, it's possible for everyone who wants to to see the film at the same time, and participate in the cultural dialogue surrounding said film.

I'm not sure if this true or not, but I get the sense that back in the 70s, foreign and art films were much more culturally significant, and it's possible that this release pattern would bring back some of this love of artier films and perhaps even start a new Hollywood Renaissance.

Is something lost from this? Yes. As a filmmaker, I loved getting my stuff shown in a big cinema with a large audience, but at the same time, I'd rather have something on DVD for everyone to see than showing in one theater in Manhattan.

In the short term, I don't think Bubble is going to cause a major change. It's likely that the same audience that would seek out the film in the theater got the DVD. But if Soderbergh were to get some of his more famous friends involved in one of these simultaneous release films and make something as good as The Limey or Traffic, we could be looking at a major change. In the not too distant future, a studio is going to try this release plan with a major blockbuster, and I think it'll end up being successful.

Now, in the long term, will this be good for the art? I'im not sure, I don't want to see theatrical venues disappear, nor see them reduced to merely mainstream stuff. But if it's a choice between paying $25 to travel to New York City and see the film, or to get the DVD for that same price, I'd get the DVD.

In the followup to this article, I'm going to discuss the ways in which simultaneous release could improve the way we write about film, as well as have some pretentious discussion of my own goals with this site. So, prepare for that tomorrow.

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Star 80

A few weeks ago, I saw Bob Fosse's autobiographical opus All That Jazz, and loved it. I watched the film again earlier this week and it prompted me to bump Star 80 and Lenny, his preceding and subsequent films up on the Netflix queue. And that led to me watching Star 80 earlier today, a film that goes to an even darker place than All That Jazz.

First, something that really annoyed me is the fact that this movie is only available in a pan and scan format. It appeared to be one of the first DVDs ever produced, the menu was just the Warner Bros. logo, and there were no special features whatsoever. I'm glad that the film got out early, but at least have the respect to put it on in the proper aspect ratio. So, hopefully we'll get a reissue of the film sometime soon.

So, the film chronicles the rise and fall of Dorothy Stratten, who goes from working in a Dairy Queen to posing for Playboy, and on to a career in film. Even though she's at the heart of all the events of the film, she remains an enigma. The most fully realized character is Paul Snider, the man who "discovers" her and goes on to manage her on her rise to the top. Paul is a motivated guy with a lot of drive, but little actual talent.

This film, regardless of its own merits, was clearly majorly influential. It uses a lot of documentary style interviews within the narrative, a device I hadn't seen in a film made before this, this was one year before Spinal Tap popularized the format. The film it struck me as most similar to is Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story, a film that could function either as a parody of Star 80, with its swapping of flesh and blood protagonists for Barbie dolls, or a strong companion piece to the film. I would say companion piece because both films have a similar message about the pressures that a rapid ascent to fame place on a woman. Both films end tragically, and even though I found Superstar a more affecting film, I think Fosse lays the groundwork for the genre that Haynes builds on in the laterwork. If I had to guess, I would say that Haynes is a big Fosse fan, since his film Velvet Goldmine has a lot of stylistic similarities to All That Jazz, as well as similar themes as are present in all of Fosse's work.

Here, the documentary stuff isn't the primary driving force behind the narrative, it's more an exposition device. The opening credits give us snapshots of Stratten, along with soundbites, which are rendered forboding by the ominous music and intercutting of the black titles. The knowledge that the film is adapted from an article titled "Death of a Playmate" certainly doesn't make things seem any better. The effective thing about the opening is the way it sets up the public image of Stratten, someone who's bubbly, joking about what it means for her to pose, and seemingly control of her own image despite the way she's allowing herself to be molded into what Playboy thinks she should be.

The film is built on the assumption that the viewer is already familiar with Dorothy's story, and that gives even the good times at the opening of the film a menacing air. Snider is someone who seems utterly determined to make it to the top, but we don't see this as a good thing, he's someone who uses people as stepping stones, and when he meets Dorothy, she sees in her his best chance yet to make it big. Paul is the kind of person who needs to be in control of things, he needs to be the big man and leader, that's why it would have worked out better for him had he stayed in Vancouver. There, working a car show or running a wet t-shirt contest, he'd be the entrepreneurial genius, whereas once he gets to L.A., he finds himself humbled, no longer to give off the impression of being the big man, the leader in town.

The film is more concerned with portraying Paul's story than Dorothy's, thus there's little emphasis put on Dorothy's initial decision to pose. We never even see her making this decision, presumably Paul pushes her into it, and it's Paul, not Dorothy, who argues to her mother that it's a good thing to do. Dorothy is his in, and Paul plans to use her to get contacts and find a place in the business.

The basic irony of the film is the fact that Paul wanted to use Dorothy as the gateway into a life of power and luxury, it wasn't personal affection that drew him to her, it was her potential to be a star, however, in the end it's Dorothy who uses what Paul has, his connections and drive, to put her on the path to stardom. Rather than him using and discarding her, it's she who uses everything he has to offer and then moves on. Paul is all about being in control, and once Dorothy doesn't need him anymore, he finds himself completely without purpose in life. In the past, he was able to work hard because he believed that if he just kept pushing ahead, eventually he'd find success. However, as he tells Dorothy at the end of the film, he's not going to become a big director, any dream that he had is over.

So, the film is about the fallacy of the American dream, and both main characters tie into this. A central tenet of American philosophy is based around the protestant work ethic, the idea that if you keep working, you'll be rewarded. However, Paul's experience shows us someone who works as hard as he can and winds up nowhere. The most depressing scene for him is the "well hung" men show, where he goes to all this effort, seems to be very successful and winds up with little money. So, even the means he used to use to support himself aren't enough, he's become completely dependent on Dorothy.

The basic myth that both America and Hollywood propagate is the idea that if you work hard enough you can end up rich and famous. That's why in the 50s, the studios presented these stories of people being discovered at drug stores and soda shops. It's to humanize the stars and build up the myth of the movies, if you believe that you too could be up there one day, you'll continue to believe in the illusion they're selling.

So, Dorothy does achieve the dream of becoming a famous movie star. This is what she comments on in the movie's final line, saying the excitement she receives from being asked to give her autograph. In all these sound clips, she's saying what she's supposed to, the line that is designed to forward the agenda of Playboy or the studios. So, here she's bringing herself down to Earth, saying that being recognized by fans isn't just a thrill for them, it's a thrill for her. A number of times in the film she talks about how Playboy is looking for wholesome, "naive" girl next door types. The use of the world naive is likely not something the publicists would have wanted, because while it has no innate negative characteristics, it implies that the girls posing in the magazine are being used by people who are more aware of the world than they are. For the viewer, use of the word naive has a menacing connotation because it reinforces the idea that Dorothy has no control, that she gets used by various people and it's her naivete that will eventually lead to her death.

Despite the fact that in theory she's the film's main character, Dorothy remains something of a blank slate throughout. As I mentioned before, we never see her making the crucial decisions that determine her character's fate, it's always just something that's been made for her. As the film progresses she's molded by a series of men to match whatever job they have for her. So, Paul turns her from Dairy Queen waitress into sexy girl next door model. He pushes her on the next step of her journey, to the Playboy mansion, and once she gets there, she doesn't need him anymore. If she had just cut him off at that point it would have been cruel, but in the long run, it would have been better for her.

Under the guidance of Hugh Hefner, she becomes a Playmate, modifying her behavior to fit the image of what he wants her to be. This is evidenced in the scene where she's a waitress and picks up the glass the wrong way, so she redoes it, using the bunny drop. The conflict for her comes from the feelings that she has for Paul. Now, I'm not sure whether this is genuine love for him, or if it's a sense of obligation because he gave her a start. I would suspect it's more obligation, a view that would be reinforced by the final scene. More on that later.

Paul creates conflict for her with Hef because he views her as an in to this world. Hef is so fond of Dorothy that he'll put with him when she's around, however when he goes there without Dorothy, it quickly becomes apparent that he's not welcome and is only useful as an appendage to Dorothy. That breaks his self confidence because it's one of the first times he realizes that he's no longer in control, Dorothy has the access and the contacts, and even though he feels he has the talent, there's nothing he can do about it. This is evident in the scene where Paul and Dorothy talk after their first visit to the mansion. Paul is angry at her for not talking to the b-list actor, and even contemplates pimping her out to him as a way of getting an in.

This conflict comes to a fore in the scene where Dorothy tells Hef that she's going to go ahead and marry Paul, even though he doesn't want her to. This is one of the few moments in the film where Dorothy definitively asserts herself, it's a bluff that pays off because she still gets her spot in the magazine and gets to marry Paul. However, later, when she's doing interviews, she doesn't have the confidence she displayed there, and looks to the publicist to guide her on how to answer the press's questions.

Her association with Playboy leads to a film career and a relationship with Aram Nichols. Again we see someone who views Stratten as a blank slate on which to create his own fantasy woman. In their first meeting Aram just stares at her, apparently so wowed by her beauty that he casts her without a reading. He plans to turn her into a "real" actress, and she goes along with this, doing everything she can to help him facilitate this transformation, in the same way she did for the two previously influential men in her life.

Here, the problems in her relationship with Paul come to the fore. Now that she has a new male guardian and lover, she doesn't need him anymore, yet she is still tied to him and feels indebted to him. It's Aram who forces her to confront Paul about this, she's still unable to muster the courage to initiate divorce precedings on her own. So, even as she's trying to dismiss one authoratitive man in her life, she's doing it to please another.

This all culminates in the final sequence, where Dorothy goes to Paul seeking a divorce. I love the way the scene was staged in front of a giant picture of her, reinforcing the idea that to Paul, and all the men in her life, she's just an image, a fantasy, rather than a real person. We see those images of her so much that we gradually lose sight of whether there's a real person under there, and that's what the blank slate characterization of Dorothy reinforces, the idea that she was only a beautiful vessel that people would use to their own ends.

This scene shows us Paul behaving in the same way he was in the bathtub scene earlier, when she was first planning to go to New York, but this time Dorothy is aware that she has no need for him. Thus, he can't merely apologize to her and expect her to stay, he has to threaten her with a greater level of physical violence to keep her. By this point, his faith in the American Dream is broken, he knows that he'll never make it big, and Dorothy is his only chance to do anything with his life.

Dorothy offers him a very small amount of money, which he knowingly rejects. The basic question of the scene is whether Paul really does love her and want her to stay or whether an offer of more money would satisfy him. I would say that the money here was just an excuse to be angry at her, as we see in the detective scene, he's not really concerned with getting any evidence or suing her, he only wants her. He's aware that she has more value to him than any money because she has the connections and fame that can get him ahead.

I don't think either of them love each other. Paul is in love with her image, but has little concern for the real person beneath. Dorothy merely feels indebeted to him for what he did to her. She knows that without him she'd have never made it to L.A. He not only took the initial pictures, he instilled the confidence in her beauty that allowed her to proceed. When the downstairs scene breaks up, Dorothy is given the chance to leave, and instead chooses to go to Paul and stop him from killing himself.

Regardless of whether or not she would actually have pulled the trigger when she left, she's aware that leaving him would kill Paul, leave him with nothing. However, she still feels indebted to him, even after all this time. That's why after he attempts to rape her, she allows him to have sex with her. This is her attempt to finally pay the debt, give him what he wants one last time and then move on. That's why she goes along with it, not out of love for him, but because she feels like this last act will clear the slate and make it even between them, thus ending the relationship.

I get the sense Paul feels this way too, and that's why he kills her. He knows that if she walks out she'd never come back, and he'd be done. So, rather than letting someone else possess her, he kills her. The crucial thing here is the fact that we don't see her actual damaged face, we just see the blood on the poster of her. So, it's the destruction of the image that's more important than the destruction of the real person.

From here, Paul kills himself and we're left with the haunting image of their two dead bodies in the apartment. From an emotional point of view, I'm not sure about the decision to end on the clip of Dorothy talking about the autograph. It's clearly thematically appropriate, but I felt like some of the other clips would be a better capper on the action. However, the move from the real dead body to the immortally frozen, happy image is appropriate. Dorothy was a construction rather than a person, and when she wanted to reconstruct herself, she found that Paul was not willing to let her do this. He'd rather see her dead than serving someone else's dream.

I know Fosse is primarily known as a choreographer, but the man was a phenomenal film director. Both this and All That Jazz are emotionally apocalyptic portraits of both showbiz and America in turmoil. He's very inventive in terms of how he constructs and shoots his films, and his films are full of challenging, disturbing material. He definitely belongs in the pantheon of great American directors.

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

My Oscar Nominations - 2005

So, if I was the one choosing the Academy Awards, here's what they would be. Before I begin however, I want to say that Oldboy and 2046 were in last year's awards. If they were around this year, they'd be omnipresent, however, I'm not bringing them back. The time has passed. Also, some of these films weren't even released this year here, so they couldn't be in the real awards. It's just the stuff I saw that was either made in 2005 or released in the States in 2005.

And another side note, I didn't think this was the best year for film. In terms of visual media, by far the best accomplishment was Six Feet Under's last season. If that was eligible, it'd be dominating the acting catergories, and the final run of episodes was more satisfying than any feature I've seen this year.

Anyway, on to my nominations...

Best Actor
Joseph Gordon-Levitt – Mysterious Skin
Terence Howard – Hustle and Flow
Heath Ledger – Brokeback Mountain
Bill Murray – Broken Flowers
Michael Pitt – Last Days


These were all amazing performances because the actors completely inhabited the character. There was no sense of acting, it was like this is who they are. However, I would give the award to Heath Ledger because his character had the biggest emotional arc, and watching him was emotionally devestating.

Best Supporting Actor
Jake Gylenhal – Brokeback Mountain
Ludacris – Crash
Ian McDiarmid – Revenge of the Sith
Nick Nolte – Clean
Keanu Reeves - Thumbsucker


This catergory has a wide variety of actors. Ludacris was the best thing in Crash, really funny, shining above the film's clumsy preaching. McDiarmid went way over the top, leaving teeth marks in the scenery but always remaining true to the character. Reeves finally returned to the stoner character everyone wants to see him as. However, my choice here is Nick Nolte, who's so sympathetic as a grandfather who knows he has no real right to the boy he's raised as a son. He's a calm presence navigating a complex emotional landscape. This performance redeems him for the mug shot.

Best Actress
Maggie Cheung – Clean
Q’Orianka Kilcher – The New World
Ji-Min Kwak – Samaritan Girl
Yeong-ae Lee – Sympathy for Lady Vengeance
Naomi Watts – King Kong


Comparing this bunch of actresses to the actors, it's pretty clear that American film isn't offering many good parts to women, and even though they're accused of misogyny, Korea's extreme directors are offering more challenging parts to women than just being "the girlfriend." However, the choice here is easy, Q'Orianka Kilcher creates the emotional anchor for The New World. Watching her over the course of this film is watching the course of America during its first few years of colonization. She goes through much and through it all we see a truth to the character. It's astonishing that she pulled off this performance, carried the entire film, at 14.

Best Supporting Actress
Maria Bello – A History of Violence
Maggie Gyllenhal – Happy Endings
Yeo-Reum Han – Samaritan Girl
Tilda Swinton - Thumbsucker
Michelle Williams – Brokeback Mountain


This was the toughest of the acting catergories to fill. There's a bunch of good performances here, but the one that stands out is Tilda Swinton. She gave three great, wildly varied performances this year, but Thumbsucker was her best. She wasn't the main character, but she was fully realized and the character could have easily carried an entire film.

Art Direction
Mirrormask
Revenge of the Sith
Sin City
Sympathy for Lady Vengenace
The New World


These were all great looking movies, but I'm going to give the edge to Revenge of the Sith. There's such a variety of environments in the film, I admire the way they simultaneously contributed a lot of new stuff to the Star Wars world, while at the same time tying stuff together with the previous trilogy. Well done.

Cinematography
Domino
Mysterious Skin
Sympathy for Lady Vengeance
The New World
3-Iron


This one's easy, The New World was so well shot, both in terms of what was shown and how it was shown. It was a uniquely cinematic story, like nothing that's come before. Not to get nasty, but if you weren't able to appreciate the cinematography in that film, why are you even watching a movie, maybe you should stick to books.

Costume Design
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Mirrormask
Revenge of the Sith
Sin City
Sympathy for Lady Vengeance


Mixing it up a bit here, I'm going to give the award to Lady Vengeance. It's not the most dramatically inventive work, but in terms of defining character, it's absoultely critical. Her outfit is the character, and that's what good costume design does, sell the world to the audience.

Editing
Clean
Domino
Revenge of the Sith
Sympathy for Lady Vengeance
The New World


There were two movies this year that showed me a new way of storytelling through editing, one was The New World, which used its editing to give a hypnotic rhythm to its visuals, however the best editing was in Domino, which was the only film I've seen where the most exciting part of the movie is watching the editing and seeing how far they can push the medium. It pushes the film beyond narrative to the point that it's a near avant garde visual experience.

Foreign Language
Clean
3-Iron
Samaritan Girl
Sympathy for Lady Vengeance
The Bow


It's pretty clear here that this was the year for Kim Ki-Duk, dropping three of the five films here. Of these three, the best is 3-Iron, an achingly beautiful story of two people. Kim takes words out of the vocabulary and instead creates a film which uses visuals to maximize the emotional impact of events. It's great work and the final moments of this film are some of the most haunting I've seen.

Makeup
Mirrormask
Revenge of the Sith
The New World


Sith grabs the award, if only for the stunning work on Anakin's scarred body after getting drenched in the volcano. It's disturbing stuff.

Song
“Hard Out Here for a Pimp” – Hustle and Flow
“Whoop that Trick” – Hustle and Flow
“Move Away and Shine” – Thumbsucker
“Down in the Light” – Clean
“Veruca Salt” – Charlie and the Chocolate Factory


A catchy bunch of tracks here, it is hard out here for a pimp, but I'm giving the award to Thumbsucker. The Polyphonic Spree are one of my favorite bands, and "Move Away" is one of their best songs. It's also really crucial to the film, providing the emotional conclusion.

Score
Brokeback Mountain
Mirrormask
Revenge of the Sith
The New World
Thumbsucker


These are all fantatsic scores, but I'm giving the award to The New World, a film where the score was absoultely crucial to defining the film. It's not a strictly narrative movie, so the score has to do more than just support, it has to define the rhythm of the film, and it does so admirably. James Horner has done some decent work in the past, but this goes way beyond.

Visual Effects
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
King Kong
Mirrormask
Revenge of the Sith
Sin City


Yoda in Sith was real. I know he's CG, but he feels like a real dude, and that's the best compliment to visual effects, that you could pull of so challenging a character and make it feel seamless and real. So, that earns the award.

Adapted Screenplay
A History of Violence
Brokeback Mountain
Mysterious Skin
Revenge of the Sith
Thumbsucker


Yes, nominating George Lucas for best screenplay is a bit weird, but I'm looking at the overall story construction, not the dialogue there. However, the award here goes to Greg Araki for Mysterious Skin. This was a really well written film, balancing two fully realized characters and a strong process of gradual revelation as it proceeded. Great stuff.

Original Screenplay
Broken Flowers
Clean
Samaritan Girl
Sympathy for Lady Vengeance
The New World


I'm giving this one to Chanwook Park for Sympathy for Lady Vengeance. Park builds a complex, sympathetic, yet disturbing central character, and there's a bunch of great twists throughout. This is a better written film than Oldboy, even though the movie on a whole doesn't quite match.

Director
Olivier Assays – Clean
George Lucas – Revenge of the Sith
Kim Ki-Duk – 3-Iron
Chanwook Park – Sympathy for Lady Vengeance
Terence Malick – The New World


These were all films that worked because of very strong direction, unique films that used the medium in incredible ways, however, the best direction was Terence Malick's for The New World. In the film, Malick builds a world that's completely believable as the past, yet has an essential humanity that makes it feel contemporary. It's the rare period piece where you get the sense of real people living these events, and that's largely due to the wonderful performances from everyone in the cast. And beyond that, just visually, the film is astonishing. It's like nothing else I've ever seen.

Picture
Revenge of the Sith
3-Iron
The New World
Sympathy for Lady Vengeance
Clean


There was one film this year that took me on an incredible emotional journey and at the end left me feeling completely satisfied, even after waiting for the film for virtually my entire life, and that's Revenge of the Sith. It's not perfect, but it achieves so much, and is full of rich thematic development on a scale rarely seen in movies. It's incredible visuals used to create an emotional effect in a way that only film can do, and that's why it's my best picture of the year.

And just to tally everything up, here's the winners:

The New World - 4
Revenge of the Sith - 4
Sympathy for Lady Vengeance - 2
Thumbsucker - 2
3-Iron - 1
Clean - 1
Domino - 1
Brokeback Mountain - 1
Mysterious Skin - 1

The Oscar Nominations

So, the Oscar nominations were announced today. I've seen the vast majority of films nominated, and it's not quite what I would have nominated. First off, it was probably wasn't going to happen, but 2046 should have got some nominations, at least for cinematography and production design, it's one of the best looking movies ever made. But, the thing about the awards is that it's more about the buzz than the actual quality of the film. That's why a film can be "hot" going into the awards, while some are cooling. So, you're not going to see out of nowhere nominations. But here's my thoughts.

Best Picture
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.
CRASH
CAPOTE
MUNICH


The biggest surprise here is Munich getting the nod. I've seen everything except Capote and while they're all, to varying degrees, good movies, but other than Brokeback, they're not the best movies of the year. How Crash has stuck around boggles the mind, and I felt like Good Night and Good Luck was an utterly sterile, emoitonless experience, more a history lesson than an engaging emotional story. But, that's all moot because Brokeback will be picking up the award.

Actor in a Leading Role
Philip Seymour Hoffman, CAPOTE
Heath Ledger, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Terrence Howard, HUSTLE AND FLOW
David Strathairn, GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.
Joaquin Phoenix, WALK THE LINE


I'm glad to see Terence Howard get the nod here. That's the biggest surprise here, I'm hoping Heath picks up the award, but I haven't seen Capote, so I can't really evaluate. But Hoffman's certainly worthy of an Academy Award based on his previous work. I'd guess that Hoffman will end up getting the award.

Actress in a Leading Role
Felicity Huffman, TRANSAMERICA
Charlize Theron, NORTH COUNTRY
Reese Witherspoon, WALK THE LINE
Keira Knightley, PRIDE AND PREJUDICE
Judi Dench, MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS


I haven't actually seen any of these films. Both Mrs. Henderson and North Country seemed like pretty weak movies, but it's a good bunch of actresses. I think Reese will pick up the award.

Best Director
Steven Spielberg, MUNICH
Ang Lee, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
George Clooney, GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.
Paul Haggis, CRASH
Bennet Miller, CAPOTE


Of all the directors here, I'd actually like to see Spielberg pick this up, because that was the most adventurous movie in terms of the filmmaking. Brokeback was more a triumph of script and acting, it felt like Ang was just trying to stay out of the way, not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just Spielberg made some bolder choices. Clooney's another one where his direction was all about staying out of the way. However, I think Ang Lee can make some room for the Oscar on his shelf.

Actor in a Supporting Role
Paul Giamatti, CINDERELLA MAN
George Clooney, SYRIANA
Matt Dillon, CRASH
William Hurt, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
Jake Gyllenhaal, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN


To be honest, I barely remember William Hurt doing anything interesting. I haven't seen Syriana or Cinderella Man, so I'd say Jake definitely deserves the award. However, I'm thinking that Clooney will end up winning.

Actress in a Supporting Role
Rachel Weisz, THE CONSTANT GARDENER
Frances McDormand, NORTH COUNTRY
Michelle Williams, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Amy Adams, JUNEBUG
Catherine Keener, CAPOTE


I've only seen Gardener and Mountain and I thought Weisz was ok, but she's clearly someone who's caught momentum and is likely to win just because she's been pre-approved. Michelle Williams was great, but I'm not sure if her role was big enough for the award. Weisz will end up winning.

Best Original Screenplay
Woody Allen, MATCH POINT
George Clooney & Grant Heslov, GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK
Paul Haggis & Bobby Moresco, CRASH
Stephen Gaghan, SYRIANA
Noah Baumbach, THE SQUID AND THE WHALE


I haven't seen Squid or Syriana, so I'd probably give the award to Crash. I wasn't the film's biggest fan, but it was more ambitious and emotional than Match Point, which was a strong film, but wouldn't be in contention if it wasn't by Woody Allen. I think Crash will get this award as a consolation prize. This is usually the catergory where the exciting hipster indie film gets an award, but other than Squid, all these are pretty standard.

Best Adapted Screenplay
Dan Futterman, CAPOTE
Josh Olson, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
Jeffrey Caine, THE CONSTANT GARDENER
Tony Kushner & Eric Roth, MUNICH
Larry McMurtry & Diana Ossana, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN


I was really unimpressed by Gardener. Coming off the incredibly pop, riveting City of God, this felt utterly conventional. Brokeback should, and will, get the award.

Best Original Score
Alberto Iglesias, THE CONSTANT GARDENER
Dario Marianelli, PRIDE AND PREJUDICE
Gustavo Santaolalla, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
John Williams, MUNICH
John Williams, MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA


Brokeback is the only score out of these that really stood out to me, and it'll probably win.

Best Animated Film
WALLACE AND GROMIT: THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT
THE CORPSE BRIDE
HOWL'S MOVING CASTLE


Despite being a huge Burton fan, I thought Corpse Bride was utterly uninspired. Wallace and Gromit will probably win.

Best Art Direction
MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA
PRIDE AND PREJUDICE
KING KONG
GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK
HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE


I haven't seen Geisha or Pride. Of the ones I saw, Good Night was the best. Kong had some really strong visuals, but it was let down by some awful greenscreen. This is where 2046 really needed to get nominated. I think Geisha will end up taking the award.

Best Cinematography
Rodrigo Prieto, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Robert Elswit, GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK
Emmanuel Lubezki, THE NEW WORLD
Dion Beebe, MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA
Wally Pfister, BATMAN BEGINS


Batman Begins? Shouldn't David Fincher circa 1995 share the nomination? At least the Academy gave one nomination to The New World. That film is so well shot it towers over the other films here. Good Night and Brokeback are pretty, but the camera doesn't do anything that interesting. Begins on the other hand seems to think just shaking the camera on random stuff constitutes a well shot fight scene. New World deserves the award, but Good Night will probably get it.

Best Costume Design
MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS
MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA
CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY
PRIDE AND PREJUDICE
WALK THE LINE


I've only seen one film here, Charlie. I'm guess Geisha will get the award though.

Best Film Editing
CINDERELLA MAN
THE CONSTANT GARDENER
CRASH
MUNICH
WALK THE LINE


I always find it weird that the same movies nominated for best picture usually wind up in the technical catergory. Now, obviously good editing is a part of a great movie, but a bad movie can certainly have really strong editing. For example, the editing in Domino was pushing the medium in a new direction, so even though it wasn't well received, shouldn't that achievement be recognized. It's certainly more interesting editing than the conventional stuff in Gardener or Crash. I'm predicting Crash will win here.

Best Makeup
THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE
CINDERELLA MAN
STAR WARS, EPISODE III: REVENGE OF THE SITH


At least there's one nomination for Sith. I'm thinking Narnia will pick up the award.

Best Sound Editing
KING KONG
MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA
WAR OF THE WORLDS


This is a catergory I can't really evaluate, but War of the Worlds sounded pretty cool, though I think Kong will get the award.

Best Sound Mixing
WALK THE LINE
MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA
WAR OF THE WORLDS
THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE
KING KONG


Again, what constitutes sound mixing? I don't know, but I'd guess Kong will get the award.

Best Visual Effects
THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE
KING KONG
WAR OF THE WORLDS


Now, this catergory is a joke. Sith has some of the best visual effects ever in a movie, you believed in the digital characters, in fact you don't even consider them digital characters, as opposed to Narnia which was a bunch of kids interacting with cartoon beavers. I think Kong'll grab the award.

Best Original Song
"In the Deep" - CRASH, Music by Kathleen "Bird" York and Michael Becker; Lyric by Kathleen "Bird" York
"It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" - HUSTLE & FLOW Music and Lyric by Jordan Houston, Cedric Coleman and Paul Beauregard
â€Å“Travelin’ Thru” — TRANSAMERICA, Music & Lyrics by: Dolly Parton


I'm really happy to see the nomination for "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp." Will it be performed on the show? I hope so, if only for the awkwardness. Though I'd imagine the Transamerica song will win.

So, if you think that's a bunch of complaining, coming up next is what my nominations would be if I was the one choosing everything.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Thumbsucker

This is a film I've been wanting to see for a while, primarily because it has a soundtrack by The Polyphonic Spree, one of my favorite bands. Now that I've seen the movie, it's clear that that's only one of the good things this film has going for it. It's directed by first time director Mike Mills, who I know from the Air song that's named after him. It's a great song, and his direction lives up to the song.

Narratively, the film is a fairly standard high school teen angst dramedy. The main character's extistential angst about finding his purpose isn't something new, this doesn't necessarily mean it's not good, it's just that the film succeeds because it goes a bit beyond this. The title literally refers to Justin's continuing addiction to sucking his thumb, a hindrance now that he is seventeen years old. However, thematically, the title refers more to clinging to childhood, to the safety of the familiar. The main characters are trapped in their behavior patterns and are unable to grow up.

Justin is someone who's searching for an answer to his problems, a cure all that will resolve his issues and set him on the right path. So, over the course of the film he continually looks for quick fix answers to the issues that are plauging for him. When things go south with Rebecca at the beginning of the film, he blames it on his thumbsucking, and as a result looks to Barry for some answers. The hypnosis succeeds in getting rid of this problem, but he soon finds himself even more troubled, and finds another solution in the ADHD medication.

The film takes an interesting position on prescription drugs. The initial events surrounding them would suggest that they are a cure all, Justin is motivated and takes control of his life, rising to the top of the debate team, however, in taking the drugs he loses sight of the essential self that he is trying to seek. The drugs transform him into someone else and as time passes, he begins to realize that that indentity is a charade that he cannot maintain forever. Because they are a drug, the same as any illegal one, they will eventually affect the way he thinks and acts, so that the qualities that at first seemed desirable, the increased competitiveness and leadership drive, soon begin to hurt him in his interactions with people.

When he stops taking the drugs, Justin seems to slide off the path, and by the end he recognizes that ultimately he just has to stand up for himself, he can't be scared like he was at the beginning of the film. The drugs were a necessary step along his journey, but they weren't the ultimate destination.

The entire film is about this personal evolution, abandoning childhood and maturing into more fulfilled people. Justin's arc isn't the only one where this happens. His mother clearly has the same feelings of inadaquecy and self doubt. At the beginning of the film she looks to this fantasy figure, Matt Schram, as an escape from the monotony of her everyday life. Dissatisfied with the state of her marriage and family she seeks this fantasy escape into the glamourous world of a star.

As the film progresses, she sees that his life isn't particularly glamourous, he's got problems as well, she doesn't need him, it's ultimately he who needs her. I thought one of the best scenes in the film was the conversation between Matt and Justin, where Justin gets to see a new side of his mother. He always saw her as an authority figure, but through the conversation with Matt he understands that she's human too, she's scared and flawed, and when he insults her aspirations it really hurts.

Throughout the film there's a weird semi-incestuous vibe in the relationship between these two. It's most apparent in the scene where she's trying on dresses and is looking to Justin to see if she's hot enough to impress Matt. This puts him in a very weird position. When he tries to stop her from going with Matt, there's this sense that he's almost jealous that she would desire anything beyond what they have. This vibe is increased during the scenes that intercut Justin's sexual exploration with Rebecca with scenes of him and Audrey together, as well as Audrey wondering whether Justin has ever had sex.

This all ties in with the title and the essential theme of the film which is about Justin and Audrey separating so that they can both grow. Keanu talks about how the thumb is the substitute for the mother's breast, so Justin at first rejects the way he'd been brought up, goes off on his journey through drugs and at the end of the film returns to the love that she gave him.

So, it becomes a metaphor about creating your own identity. Justin has to throw off the ties to his childhood, try things on his own, find himself and then he can return to the family unit. As for Audrey, she too has to give up Justin, but she recognizes that it's what she has to do so that he can grow.

Barry himself sums up the theme of the film in the speech he gives at the end. The basic idea is that everyone's looking for a cure for their problems, but this very notion is a fantasy because we'll always have problems, rather than trying to become a perfect person, you just have to be comfortable with who you are. So, whereas once Justin was ashamed of his thumbsucking and saw it as a major hindrance, when he's on the plane, he's not shamed by himself, instead he gets over it and speaks to the girl next to him. So, don't try to be something you aren't, your flaws are a part of you. That seems to be the film's basic message.

The film had a lot of other strong stuff I didn't mention. The score was fantastic, though more underplayed than you would expect from the Spree. But it definitely fit with the tone of the film and I loved the final moments with "Move Away and Shine." I think this was Keanu's best performance in a long time, largely because he was playing the Keanu that everyone imagines him really being like, and it was nice to see Vince Vaughn outside of the persona that he's been using in every role for a while now.

The film was well shot, and though I think the dream sequences with the purple/pink stage were a bit cheesy, all the the rest worked well. I loved the way the narrative had a lot of episodic elements without compromising the strong throughline. Scenes that could have felt like tangents, such as the hotel room bit, worked because they were essential to the characters and were funny in their own right. I guess a lot of that is that each of the characters felt fully developed even if they didn't get much screentime. So, Mike could have been a stock disinterested dad, but you got a whole sense of history and emotion from him without knowing all the specifics. Though in that case the similarities to Unbreakable may have helped a bit. One of the little things I really liked was how Audrey mentioned that she didn't fall in love with him until he stopped playing, and he says that he stopped playing to be with her, yet neither of them could quite make the connection and convey these deep feelings they had for each other. Perhaps they will in the time following the film.

So, it's a really successful film that's thoroughly enjoyable, and also brings to the fore a lot of interesting issues. Over the course of Justin's journey, he tries to medicate a problem when it ultimately turns out there was no problem, it's just the difficulties that everyone faces. I think the most important thing to understanding the film is the line Justin reads out of the rehab book which is don't judge your interior based on everyone else's exterior. Everyone thinks they have it worse than they do, and you just need some perspective to move beyond that.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Review Revue - January 2006 (II)

I signed up for Netflix, which means I'll have a steady supply of new films coming in while I'm at school. This will allow me to catch up on some of the obscure and foreign stuff I wasn't able to get earlier. So, this post will have the first batch of those films, as well as a bunch of films I watched when I was still on break.

Spun - This was the first film I got from Netflix and it was not a good start, film wise or disc wise. I saw the censored version of the film, so I feel a bit uneasy about criticizing the film, since the impact was dulled by beeps and blurs, but from what I saw, it was pretty clear that this wasn't a particularly good movie. Jonas Ackerlund has done some good music videos, but here he stretches out his dirty, quick cut style to an entire film and it just doesn't work. I love a lot of quick cut excess movies, like Domino, but what that movie had that this lacks is a sense of fun. The whole film seems so dire, with nasty people going around doing pointless things.

I'm not saying that your characters need to be likable, but other than The Cook, there's no one here who's even interesting. They're all caricatures taken to excess and as a result, the whole film feels like it exists in a cartoon world. Most of the quick cut stylistic stuff was done better in Requiem for a Dream, and a lot of the film seemed designed solely to shock. There was no core humanity to the film, and that made it an empty viewing experience. That said, I did enjoy the Billy Corgan score and Mickey Rourke was excellent.



High Art - This was a movie I went in knowing virtually nothing about. I read that it featured Patricia Clarkson as a former Fassbinder actress and that was enough to get me interested. It's a really well done, engaging film that creates a wonderful sense of atmosphere. The most interesting place in the film is Lucy's apartment, where everything seems to move though a drug induced slow motion stupor. The lighting and acting draws you into what they're feeling, and over the course of the film, the viewer, like Syd, gets drawn into the world, starting as an outsider, but gradually becoming a part of their circle.

Clarkson is quite different from the other stuff I've seen her in, and I enjoyed the references to Fassbinder's stuff. Not to be prejudiced, but there's definitely a different feeling you get watching a film directed by a woman, particularly in terms of the way it defines relationships. Syd's boyfriend was just that, the boyfriend, he had very little depth in and of himself, a twist from the typical Hollywood way of doing things where it's the female character who's defined solely by her relation to a man. In this film, that definitely fit with the story, and I don't think you needed any more depth in that guy because he's meant to stand in for the safe, typical relationship she would expect to find.

The ending is a bit jarring and falls in with the typical art film cliche of having the main character die. I suppose that creates a more ambiguous ending, and removes the need to provide a concrete resolution for Syd and Lucy's relationship, but still, it felt like a bit of a copout. However, on the whole, it's a really strong film that I enjoyed watching, and definitely brings to the fore the fact that there's too few female directors working in film.



Lilja 4Ever - This film is shot in the handheld, jump cut, verite style that I've seen in a lot of recent films based around poor people in underdeveloped countries, most notably City of God. It's a style I really like, and in this film, it works really well. The film opens strong, with a really strong music track and a powerful image. I'm not usually a fan of the start at the end and jump back film structure, but it works here because the opening moment is so strong.

The film is a chronicle of Lilja's tragic fall through the dark corridors of human existence. The film is successful because it shows us what could be a really maudlin tale of woe in such a way that it's entertaining even as it's disturbing and tragic. The soundtrack is a constant pulse of club beats, befitting the false glamour that Lilja takes on when she goes out as a prostitute. Lilja goes through a litany of indignities, but things don't get really bad until the scenes in Sweden. The sense of claustrophobia and draining of life as is she gets further and further trapped in the life of a prostitute is devestating. The most powerful sequence is the montage of clients seen from her perspective.

The ending is very strong, I like the intrusion of fantasy imagery into the otherwise realistic, verite world of the film, in the real world, Lilja and Volodya could never find happiness, but it seems that in death, they're finally able to transcend their limitations and realize their full potential.



Malena - This was a film I really disliked, and even though I saw Miramax's cut version for US release, I don't think that would have changed my opinion. In film theory, there's discussion about the concept of the male gaze, the idea that the way the film is shot places the viewer in the role of a male observer. The idea that this is true of every film is ridiculous, but in the case of this film, it's inescapable, and the film is rather disturbing as a result. The basic premise of the film is that Renato lusts after Malena, a woman in his village, all while Italy is involved in World War II. I'd imagine there's some kind of allegorical statement about the corruption of Italy during the war, but the primary thread of the film is this kid's voyeuristic obsession with this woman.

The film reminds me of Fellini's stuff, in the way it shows these neighborhood kids ogling a beautiful woman, but at least he had some other stuff going on in his movies, and pointed out some of the flaws in this situation. Here, Renato's spying is basically condoned, and his love for her is positioned as purer than that of any of the real men she's with. So, the film starts out by creating this idealized vision of Malena, a woman in need of male protection, and then over the course of the movie gradually destroys, first turning her into a prositute, then having all the women in the village beat her in the middle of the square. And our hero after idolizing her the entire film just stands there and watches. He's pretty much a bastard, and that makes it difficult to care about what happens to him. As for Malena herself, she's a construction more than a character, a shallow male fantasy.

Monica Bellucci is someone I deeply respect after seeing her in Irreversible, that was a film that used her immeasurable beauty to serve the story, and enhance emotion. Here, it seems like Tornatore wanted to film her, so he created a story around which to do so. And the way the film is shot, it's pretty clear that he's still the same pervy kid he was back in the war years.

Match Point - Woody Allen is a filmmaker who's been in decline for most of my life, so I don't have the same high opinion of him that the previous generation had. Yet, stuff like Annie Hall and Manhattan is still great, and I'd heard that Match Point was a 'return to form.' It's actually more of a departure, it has very few of the traditional Woody Allen trademarks, and outside of the alphabetical order credits and scratchy record soundtrack, it'd be tough to tell it was his. However, that doesn't make it a great film. This is a movie that's got some really strong twists and emotional hooks, but ultimately takes too long to tell his story, such that by the time we get to the good part, it's tough to remain fully engaged.

I'm noticing that I've been saying that a lot lately, that a film is too long, and I don't think it's a reflection on a diminished attention span, rather it's films that move slowly without providing really strong visual or emotional moments. Because the filmmaking here is so conventional, everything is dependent on the actors and the writing, which puts you at something of a handicap. Wong Kar-Wai could shoot a trip to the grocery store and make it riveting and emotional, something most directors cannot do.

So, beyond those flaws, this is a nasty movie. I was aware of some of the twists, but the places it went in the end were very surprising and put the audience in a weird position. The main character in the film is a difficult guy to really like, yet he's surrounded by characters that we do like. So, no matter what he does, he's going to end up hurting someone. Seeing his wife and her family's affection for him, I didn't want him to screw up their lives by going off with Nola, yet at the same time I felt Nola's pain as Chris' hypocriscy. What happens in the end makes things easy for him, but it's a bit more troubling as an audience member, because it points to the fragile balance on which we live our lives. Chris has gotten away with a huge crime, and outside of his conscience, there's nothing that can incriminate him. So, he'll live a life with Chloe, but in some respect it will always be a lie.

It's a film that's way beyond all of Allen's recent work, and it's heartening to see someone branch out of his comfort zone. It's also another top notch performance from Scarlett Johanson, who's piling up an impressive list of credits despite being only twenty-one.

Broken Flowers

Back in the early and mid 1990s, the name Bill Murray did not garner respect. He definitely was considered a funny guy, but a funny guy on the decline. However, starting with Rushmore, Murray completely revitalized his career, to the point that now the presence of Bill Murray in a film is a near guarantee of quality. This is largely due to the creation of a new 'Bill Murray' character.

Now, star image is a very important thing in film, going back to the 1910s, but it's sort of faded away, and more importantly, it's generally considered to be at odds with 'real acting.' If method acting is all about completely becoming another person, star image is more about just being yourself, or at least the public perception of yourself. So, regardless of whether or not he's acting, in his recent films, Murray has created a very strong star image. The basic idea is that he's a guy who is extremely passive, so laid back that he almost disappears and most of the humor in the films with neo-Bill Murray comes from watching other characters struggle to penetrate the silent, ambiguous mindscape of our hero. 'Bill Murray' the character is generally despressed, at a point in his life where he struggles to care about anything, though over the course of the film he finds that perhaps there is something worth living for.

So, if Lost in Translation was 'Bill Murray' in Japan, and The Life Aquatic was 'Bill Murray' on a boat, Broken Flowers is Bill Murray on a quest for his kid. While the films may have a similar main character, I don't really mind because Bill Murray's acting in all of them is phenomenal. He does so little, yet always completely holds your attention. At the beginning of this film, there's nothing to really make you like the guy, but Murray makes him a captivating figure anyway. In the simple action of watching the Don Juan film, you can see Don contemplating his entire life.

I really liked the slow build of the film's beginning. You see this guy who has created a very comfortable, easy existence for himself, and claims that this is what he wants. Yet, when face with Winston's passion and fire for life, he allows himself to break away from the easy comforts and take a risk, to search for a deeper emotional connection beyond just material comforts.

So, he's off on his quest. Normally these quest type structures cause a movie to drag a bit. It's usually a bad sign when you see a movie that's set up more like a videogame, where you've got a set number of objectives to achieve, because it means that the entire film will just be variations on the same thing. However, Jarmusch makes each stop along Don's journey unique and interesting, each interaction revealing to Don a facet of his personality that he'd forgotten.

I liked seeing Frances Conroy outside of Six Feet Under. That segment was notable for some really great awkward moment comedy. Throughout the film there were these incredible silences, where you were just wishing someone would say something. And then Don's hinting around the issue of his son was good for some more laughs.

I don't really have too much to comment on the journey. It was all solid, funny stuff, but I think the film's real strength is in its final scenes. Up until those scenes, there was a more conventional film than the typical Jarmusch movie. All his stuff has a high level of ambiguity and frequently ends on a note of mystery. Most of the film was fairly straightforward, and while I've heard some people say that nothing happened in the film and it was slow, I thought it was constantly engaging, much more so than Stranger than Paradise or Dead Man.

Anyway, as the film progresses, Don begins to think that his son must be trying to get in touch with him, and as a result, he begins to think that anyone who's around twenty must be his son. The scene where he speaks with the kid, and tries to reach out to him is phenomenal, full of ambiguity and emotion. At this point, Don has become attached to having a kid, and despite the fact that Sherry's letter almost definitively proves that he never had a son in the first place, he's still searching for him. So, when he sees this kid, he decides that he must be his son, his desire overwhelming his logic. It's almost painful to watch Don reach out and then get rejected. He'd constructed this fantasy and is quickly brought down to reality. And at the end, Don has deluded himself, trying to construct an emotional bond to fill in for the fact that his life is ultimately empty.

The ending moments of the film were fantastic, and I'm glad that we were left not knowing exactly what happened. The letter was just a mcguffin, it forced Don to assess his life, and after symbolically reliving his past, he fails trying to create his future.

Even though I really liked the film, it did have something that always annoys me in a movie and that's when a character watches an old movie or cartoon that comments on the action in some way. I think the whole Don Juan comparison was made a few too many times at the beginning, but besides that, I don't think that many people watch old movies or cartoons. This crops up in a lot of films though, probably because old stuff is public domain and therefore is a lot easier to use.

But that doesn't obscure the fact that this was a really strong, funny and emotional movie. I think it's Jarmusch's best.

Monday, January 23, 2006

Veronica Mars

Over the past few weeks I watched the first season of Veronica Mars. This is a show that's gotten a lot of acclaim, as well as a lot of comparisons to Buffy, even from Joss Whedon himself. In terms of the basic premise it's certainly got a lot of similarities, but going through the season, it became apparent why Buffy is a truly great series, while Veronica is only a good one.

If Buffy is taking typical high school angst and putting it through the lens of a horror film, Veronica does the same but uses the crime fiction genre instead of horror. Both shows feature a blond, perky yet cynical heroine, who used to be in the popular crowd, but was pushed away by her commitment to fighting evil, yet remains conflicted about her decision to exile herself from the easy, happy life of the typical popular high schooler. And ultimately both shows are about showing an empowered girl proving that she can be more than just a pretty face.

Both shows also started out with a case of the week format, where some new problem arises, usually from a person at the school, and then is resolved by the time the hour ends. The thing is, Buffy quickly abandoned this format, recognizing its limitations and by the second season, became a serial. Veronica has some serial elements, but remains fairly strictly tied to its case of the week format, the case is always resolved within the hour and though there are some characters who return and build, the majority of them don't factor in later.

This limits the show because it means that Veronica will always succeed. She always ends up solving the case, and her father is there to stop her from getting in any real danger. Giles filled that role to some extent in Buffy, but he wasn't as strong a fighter as her, so things ultimately fell to her, whereas Veronica has a safety net. When Chris Claremont took over X-Men, he depowered Professor X, because in the original series, any really dire problem could always be solved by Xavier coming in and using his mental powers to save the day. It's not quite the same with Keith Mars, but one of the problems with the series is you never get the sense that Veronica is in any real danger. One of the reasons the season finale was so effective was because both Veronica and Keith were no longer above everyone else, they were actually in danger.

Now, having Veronica in mortal danger from every case obviously wouldn't work, but I'd like to see some more negative consequences for Veronica herself. One of the interesting things about the series is the way that Veronica semes to leave many lives destroyed in her wake, but she'll still never compormise her morality. It's a very strict moral line, most evident in the episode with the popsicle video. She feels like taking revenge on this guy is something that has to be done, she can't consider that maybe ruining this guy's life won't actually help Sabrina, it will only lead to a cycle of escalating traumas for all involved.

So, even as I admire the show for making the protagonist make the tough decision, I wonder how they feel about what she's doing. At times, Veronica seemed almost like a mary sue in the way that the creators make him this super-detective, who can simultaneously work as a near full time detective and still be one of the top five students at her school. Obviously, being a detective show, part of the fun is seeing her solve the crime and take down the criminal, but here she was so good, so far ahead of the criminals, that it seemed a bit beyond belief. I would have liked to see an episode end without her solving the case.

I feel like the show is building up to a moment where Veronica breaks down and really questions whether or not it's worth it to be so cold and calculating in her relations with people. While she does let some people in, other than a select few, she seems to view everyone else as a pawn for her to maniuplate. Eventually, she'll use someone in the wrong way, and not be able to keep her cynical cool about everything, and it'll all come crashing down.

Now, it's sort of difficult to assess the show in comparison to something like Buffy, because if you were to take the first twenty-two episodes of Buffy, it'd be a good show, but not great. It wasn't until Surprise/Innocence that Buffy really took off, and Veronica may make a similar jump in its next season, and fix some of the problems that I mention.

However, I think the show is trying to do something different than most of the shows I really like. Buffy or Six Feet Under are shows that become almost exclusively about character, the plots exist to move the characters into different situations that will expose new parts of their psyche. Veronica is a much more plot driven show, there's some character development, but it's primarily about the progression of each episode's narrative, as well as the overall mystery arc.

The overall mystery arc was entertaining, but in some respects, the show has the same problem as Lost, in that so much of the show is about revealing what happened in the past, that things don't particularly move forward in the present. This is more noticable on Lost, where the flashbacks feel completely disconnected from the main narrative progress, on Veronica it's done better, but I can't help but wonder what the show would have been like if it started with Veronica's life in the popular crew, and then proceeded to show all the stuff that happened in flashback as the first season of the show.

The problem with that would be the show wouldn't really have a status quo. People who tuned in to watch a show about a bunch of wealthy popular kids probably wouldn't be as interested in a show about a girl who investigates murders, but that's one of the problems with episodic television. There's been more a move towards thinking of the entire series as one piece, rather than just a bunch of episodes, but there's still the need for some kind of status quo. So, even though watching everything from the flashbacks unfold over the course of a season would be riveting and surprising, it wouldn't provide viewers with any sort of stable order. Yet, watching it now, you get the sense that the really interesting stuff happened in the past, and though we see pieces of it, we don't have the sense of discovery that would have been possible.

Most of the episodes were really well done, and they came up with a nice variety of cases for her to cover. However, there weren't that many really standout episodes. However, by far the best two that they did were the last two. The episode in which she tries to piece together what happens the night that she was raped was really powerful, and in those flashbacks you saw Veronica's past like she did, wondering how she could behave like that. It works both as Veronica interrogating herself in terms of being drugged up, but also in terms of Veronica interrogating the old version of herself, the popular girl living a normal life. The alien behavior that she is unable to comprehend is a consequence of both.

At the end of that episode, I was like "damn" because they had revealed that Veronica was not only dating her brother, but in fact had had sex with him. Six Feet Under flirted with it, but never went there, but Veronica had done it and I was very impressed. It was a great twist and the scene where Duncan reveals what he had done was probably the best of the series.

So, I was a bit disappointed when we find out in the next episode that they aren't actually brother and sister. It feels like Jean's ressurection, you could say that the original power of the scene is intact, because they believe it at the time, but it's in fact very dulled. I can understand not wanting to go down the road, and I figured they wouldn't, but it was precisely that subversion of expectations that made it so powerful.

However, other than that, the end of the season was great. Aaron being the murderer was a great twist, and I really liked the way they revealed it. Throughout the whole season, he's been struggling to keep his family together, even as his actions sabotage this, and murdering Lily was the ultimate extension of this. He presumably justifies the murder to himself by saying that he had to do it or else his family would be ruined by the revelation he was sleeping with Lily, and this empowers him to do something criminal and vile. So, he brings about his own destruction, and having him be the murderer works better than having anyone else be it.

So, I think it's a successful series on the whole, with the potential to be great. I'll definitely be checking out season two down the line.

Saturday, January 21, 2006

Brokeback Mountain

It's the film that's virtually a lock for best picture when the Academy Awards go down in a couple of months, and after seeing the film, it's pretty clear why. The best picture winner usually takes a classic Hollywood formula, but twists it in a modern way. In talking about the comics audience, the general wisdom is that the audience wants the same, but different, and it's the same here. Gladiator was a sword and sandal epic, a classic genre, but with modern style and effects. A Beautiful Mind was a throwback to classic biopics like The Life of Emlie Zola and Brokeback is a fairly classic Hollywood melodrama love story, with the twist that the love is between two men.

It's a really strong film, not my best of the year, but certainly a satisfying, emotional filmgoing experience. Heath Ledger becomes the character, and it's his struggle that dominates the film, choosing between his own desires and the life that society suggests for him. The initial mountain stuff is obviously necessary, but I think the far more interesting part of the film is the middle section, where both Ennis and Jack struggle to put their experience behind them and truly engage in their new lives. Watching Ennis with his wife and kids is difficult because you're always aware of the fact that he's not fully there. He's just playing a role, and that's ultimately the film's primary theme, how the masks we wear, the lies we take on obscure our true desires.

The film reminds me a lot of Wong Kar-Wai's stuff, particularly In the Mood For Love/2046, both men have the same problem that Chow did in 2046 when they try to move on from this mythologized love, but both are held hostage by it, unable to commit to anyone else. It's also similar to Before Sunset, in the way the characters have an almost antagonistic relationship, holding up that brief moment as the best time in their lives, and troubled by the fact that they can never recapture it.

However, what makes this different is the sexual orientation issues. When Ennis is unable to make a life with his wife, is it just because she's a woman or is it because she's not Jack? In Jack's case, it seems clear that he's using Lureen as a shield for the outside world, and part of why he's so annoyed with Ennis is the fact that he's much more open with his sexuality. Lureen seems to pretty much go along with whatever Jack's doing, she's much more independent than Alma. Ennis is someone who seems unable to initiate a relationship, always finding an excuse to not pursue something further. The only reason he is with Jack in the first place is that Jack opened up to him, similarly Cassie practically had to drag him onto the dance floor to start their relationship, and after a while, he let her just drift away.

Ultimately, Ennis is held back by his fear. He struggles to admit to himself that he loves Jack, the only moment we see him being emotionally open is when Jack first turns up at his house after the four year absence, there the emotions overwhelm him. But other than that, he always remains guarded, right until the end when he refuses the chance to make a real life with Jack. At the end of the film, the news that Jack was thinking about fixing up the farm with another guy hurts Ennis because it means that Jack was able to do what he never was, and move on.

However, by doing so, Jack also brought about his own death. The tragedy of the film is that these two people are trapped in a society that won't allow them to do what they want, but they're tormented by the memory of a place where they were free enough to do anything. In some ways, the end of the film basically excuses Ennis for his refusal to emotionally commit. His fear of being a target of violence turns out to be valid. So, there basically was no solution to Ennis' problems, he did the safe thing, and he still ended up broken.

Another thing I really liked in the film was the score, which used a lot of variations on the same basic theme, the closing swell of that theme was very powerful. However, on the whole, this was a film where the filmmaking was basically invisible. It was all about just telling the story. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't think the film reaches the emotional or visual heights of 2046. This isn't a movie designed to work in that style, but I feel like 2046 does a better job of wrapping the viewer in a world of regret. I guess the difference is Brokeback Mountain is like witnessing real events, while 2046, with its jumbled chronology is like experiencing a memory, the perception of events rather than the reality.

But, it's still a great movie, and one I'd be perfectly happy to see pick up the Academy Award.

Sunday, January 15, 2006

X-Men 244-254

After the flawed, but undeniably epic Inferno, X-Men crashes to Earth with the weakest period since the first Cockrum run. Up through Inferno, there was always a strong sense of purpose and moving forward, the plot and character arcs were constantly progressing and there was a sense of some ultimate destination. Looking back, it seems like, in a lot of ways, Fall of the Mutants was the climax of Claremont's run, with that storyline he said basically everything that needed to be said, and wrapped up the primary thematic question of the book, as the X-Men finally proved themselves to be heroes in the public eye.

If Fall of the Mutants was the thematic resolution, Inferno provides the resolution for a lot of the lingering plot points left over, and when Inferno is finished, there doesn't seem to be that much left to do. If X-Men was a TV show, I'd imagine Fall of the Mutants as a perfect series finale, and then Inferno is the movie. But, it's not like that, the series goes on, and things are suffering a bit here, primarily becuase the book no longer has a strong sense of direction. This is the result of a number of factors.

The first major one is that the original Claremont characters, the most well developed in the X-verse have been spread thinly around the universe, meaning that there's barely anyone left in the book actually called X-Men. This is another case of the business needs messing with the creative, Kitty and Kurt were shipped off to make Excalibur a viable book, but that hurts the flagship title. In the 230s, Claremont put together a pretty solid new team, but with this series of issues, he goes around systematically dismantling it. Wolverine is always missing, in 247, Rogue is sieged perilously, then Storm is 'killed,' Longshot leaves, and eventually the remaining four X-Men go through the Siege Perilous and vanish from the book. By Inferno, Claremont was starting to make the new team pretty interesting, but they're ripped apart before they can really gel, and by 254, we're left with a bunch of random people, the core cast is completely gone.

I feel like Marvel was taking advantage of the fact that people are going to buy the book called X-Men, even though X-Factor or Excalibur had more of the characters who were with the X-Men in their glory days. But, I can't just blame this on corporate, Rogue didn't go anywhere, and Claremont still wrote her out. I guess what they were doing here was setting things up for the introduction of a new team, but it wasn't a wise decision to get rid of the book's entire cast, except for Wolverine.

Tracking back a bit, on an issue to issue basis, this run is pretty weak. After Inferno, Claremont does two comedy stories about the X-Men taking a night out. They're decent, but it feels a bit contrived. It's partially because even when the X-Men are trying to take off, they still wind up fighting various evil factions, so the whole point of the issue is undermined. It would have been better to give them some real time off, and let us get to know the characters better. The thing I did really like from 245 was the 'Jean Bomb,' a parody of all the Jean-related issues from Inferno.

246-247 has an arc where Nimrod comes back and gets turned into Master Mold. This arc brings things back to the human/mutant anxiety, which is good, but the death of Senator Kelly's wife feels like a plot device more than a real emotional moment, because it comes about so quickly. Plus, Claremont once again places a female character in the kinky maid outfit of the Hellfire Club. He's definitely got a specific taste when it comes to women's attire. This little storyline was pretty strong on the whole though, the best of this run of issues.

248 is one of the worst issues in a long time. The Nanny robot from way back in 118 or so returns and takes control of the X-Men, terrorizing them in their base. 249-250 is another bomb, no surprise considering it takes place in the Savage Land. I don't think it's possible to write a good story set in the Savage Land, and this one is no exception to that rule. The whole plotline doesn't make much sense, and it just seems to be a series of weak action sequences. This storyline also introduces the bizarre gimmick where Lorna Dane somehow becomes a giant, not good.

251 at least brings some focus back, as Wolverine returns and is attacked by the reavers. The issue also sees the other X-Men go through the Siege Perilous, an odd choice because it means that we're down to one X-Man left in the book. I guess the point of this run of issues is to completely dismantle the current team of X-Men to pave the way for rebuilding later. It's an admirable idea, but in 251 and 252, it means too much action that doesn't really go anywhere. The reavers aren't particularly interesting, and have all the hallmarks of bad 80s design work. They don't really have any character development, so it's not interesting to watch the X-Men fight them. Also, because of their cyborg nature, they can take huge amounts of damage and still come back, a problem with a lot of recent Claremont villains. When he decided that the marauders could be ressurected, Claremont completely undermines the moral and dramatic tension of fighting them.

So, with all the characters gone, and after a weak string of issues, the book wasn't looking that good. The whole experiment in making the X-Men dead led to nothing but having them teleport all over the world battling people, with no agenda or development, and none of the long running character arcs that were once Claremont's trademark. I think having the X-Men dead could have worked well, but there was never any exploration of what it did either to the people they knew or society as a whole. And having Gateway meant that there were no consequences of being isolated in Australia. Claremont gave them too much power, and because they didn't have to struggle, it meant that there wasn't as much dramatic involvement as in the Byrne or Romita era. The era from about 200 to Fall of the Mutants was fantastic because there was a sense of complete chaos and constant danger. The X-Men had no control over their situation, they were just trying to survive, now they're in no danger, they've become too good at what they do.

That may be why Claremont saw the need to reset things and send the X-Men away, leaving the title pretty much vacant. This allows us the chance to meet up with some characters who hadn't appeared in a long time, most notably Moira. She hadn't been in the book since the end of the Massacre and it was good to check back in. Once again, there's some bizarre Claremont wardrobing, like her leather miniskirt and halter top outfit she wears when doing tests on Lorna, but on the whole, her and Banshee feel much more human and developed than the X-Men had in recent issues. It's good to see Banshee back, he had been out of action for roughly 130 issues, so he's no the finely tuned pro that the X-Men were.

I guess that's the big problem with the Australia era, the X-Men had become a perfectly efficient, almost military unit. They'd lost the messy humanity of the early Claremont years. While Jubilee was clearly brought in to create a dynamic similar to early Kitty, it's notable that when Kitty came, the X-Men welcomed her as a family member, while Jubilee sneaks around their complex, scared of the X-Men. They're no longer a welcoming group, they've become hardened by the years of battle. I'd suspect this was influenced by the popularity of Wolverine, they made all the characters, most notably Havok, like him. However, that ignores the fact that the joy of Wolverine is watching him deal with more emotionally open people, to recognize his savage side with his human side, so if everyone's like him, there's nothing interesting about him.

The other really cool element of 253-254 is the return of Forge. He was there for one of Claremont's finest hours, Lifedeath, and he's still one of the best characters that Claremont developed. I love how Mystique is now essentially good, rebelling against the government's orders that she collaborate with Forge, the man who killed the X-Men. Her relationship with Destiny is also really interesting, I wish Claremont got to play out the idea that the two of them are Nightcrawler's parents, with Destiny as his mother and Mystique as his father. Watching Mystique's anger at Forge here is one of the first times we see the emotional impact of the X-Men's death on those who loved them, both for Mystique and Forge.

So, at the end here, things are looking up. In the 230s and 240s, things got so bogged down with big action storylines that Claremont lost sight of a lot of the book's supporting cast, and it's good to see them return. The book has a momentum it hasn't had since the buildup to Fall of the Mutants.

I'd be curious to understand what led up to all the X-Men getting sent through the Siege Perilous. It's pretty risky to write out every single character, it raises the question of whether X-Men is still X-Men without any of the main characters. Stepping away from the business end of things, I think it was a mistake to completely separate the core of Kitty, Storm, Wolverine, Kurt and Colossus. Even post Mutant Massacre when most of the team was split up, the presence of Wolverine and Storm made it feel like X-Men, you just need two of those five together to keep that feeling of team. However, by splitting them all up, the book lost any sense of emotional core, while Claremont did make some good characters since, no one's matched those five. That's why the Mutant Massacre was so momentous, more than the death of the Morlocks, it was the death of the X-Men as they were. The core family unit was broken in that conflict, and ever since then, things haven't been the same. As much as I admire Claremont for continuing to push things forward, in this case, that new direction has lost sight of the book's emotional core.

Friday, January 13, 2006

All that Jazz

All that Jazz is an extremely ambitious film that does some incredible things with the medium of film. Bob Fosse was best known for his choreography work, but watching this film, it's clear that the man was doing much more than just trying to capture his dance on film, this is a movie that takes full advantage of what you can do with the cinema to tell a story.

In the 70s, right around the time this film came out, Scorsese and Coppola both had monumental failures when they tried to create dark, more reality based musicals. While New York, New York and One From the Heart both have their merits, both films falter on account of the fact that they're trying to recreate 30s musicals with a dark spin, rather than just using the musical form to service a darker story. That's what Fosse does here, it's a very dark film, and the musical numbers are designed to fit within the universe of the film, rather than to rebel against it.

This is one of those films that works wonderfully on screen, but clearly had a lot of trauma behind it. Gideon is a thinly veiled version of Fosse, and creating a film this personal must have been difficult. Where does Gideon end and Fosse begin? I don't know enough about the man himself to really assess that, but it's not essential to enjoying the film. The film's been called self indulgent, and in some respects, it is a bit narcisistic to think that the world needs a film about your life, but in this case, it really does work. Fosse is not easy on himself, the character is presented unsympathetically, and in the end, his personal flaws ultimately overwhelm his artistic genius. Ironically, by making such a great film, Fosse avoided this fate, though he would die of a heart attack a few years after the release of the film.

What makes the film so effective? There's a number of things, one is the basic character arc. This is a really engaging portrait of an artist, showing both the joy and difficulty of creating art. Gideon is at a point in his life where he's been successful, and in many ways that's the worst thing that could happen to him. It builds up a level of expectation for everything he does. This is most apparent in the scene with the television review of 'Stand Up.' After the massive success of 'Cabaret,' there was nowhere left to go, and critics are almost inevitably going to turn against his next film in reaction.

Similarly, on stage, he's struggling to come up with something original, dealing with the pressure of his deadlines. Gideon is so in demand that he has no time for his daughter, no time to forge meaningful connections in his personal life, so he is unable to really embrace his relationship with Kate. He's clearly stretched himself too thin, which is what ultimately leads to his heart attack, and eventually his death.

The story itself is interesting, but it's in the execution that the film stands out. One of the coolest elements is the fantasy sequences, featuring Joe reflecting on his life in the company of 'Angelique,' who we eventually learn is the angel of death. Using these fantasy sequences gives us deep insight into Gideon's psyche that isn't necessarily evident from the real world stuff. The fantasy stuff comes to the fore at the end of the film, and those sequences are absolutely stunning. Besides, being narratively important, the fantasy scenes are aesthetically remarkable. The hyped up neon stages are a great representation of the excess in Joe's life.

Throughout the film, there's a lot of really interesting choices. I liked the repetition of the taking pills and shower wake up montage, and it's possible that this film may have been an inspiration on the similar sequences in Pi. After a quick check of the net, I see that Aronofsky 'presented' a screening of the film in New York a few years ago, and you can definitely see a connection between the two films. The eye closeups prefigure stuff in Requiem for a Dream, and the Tappy Tibbons fantasy sequence at the end of the film could take place in the same neon world as Joe's hallucinations here.

The choice to mute all the sound except for Joe's breathing during the script readthrough sequence was another inspired moment. Another really cool thing was the repetition of the standup comedy routine throughout the film, which worked really well as a comment on the action.

The musical is a form that I think has a ton of untapped potential. I loved Buffy's 'Once More With Feeling,' and in some respects, Magnolia is an Aimee Mann musical. I'd consider the integration of visual and music the 'purest' cinema, so that would make the musical the purest, most cinematic genre. And yet, there's very few films that really use the musical well. This has instantly become my favorite musical film, because it's one of the few completely successful serious musicals.

Like the other aforementioned 70s musicals, this is an update of a classic genre trope, the backstage musical. This film does to the backstage musical what Watchmen did to the superhero comic, completely deconstruct its tropes and bring out the darkness of the themes inherent in the previous films. A movie like 42nd Street says that all it takes to put on a great show is hard work, what this film does is take that message, but show the reality of what doing that work can do to a person.

And yet, much like in Watchmen, you still get the traditional pleasures associated with the genre. The musical numbers here may be offbeat, but they're even more visually interesting than the work in the more traditional Cabaret. The opening 'cattle call' sequence features a stunning pullback as you gradually realize just how many people there are on that stage. This sequence also features some pretty ugly 70s clothes, but it doesn't really distract from the film. Enough years have passed that it no longer looks dated, it's more that the film is a period piece set in the 70s.

In this film, there's a high level of competition for wackiest musical number. One of the early contenders is 'Air-otica.' It's an interestingly staged number, and I'm not really sure what to make of it. The point of it was to show how Gideon's ideas are constrained by the need to make his work palatable to the mass audience. There's a sexuality inherent in his stuff, however, he normally has to keep it within acceptable confines, this number pushes it to the forefront. It also reflects back on his upbringing within the burlesque clubs, clearly those times are still a major influence on him.

The sequence where Kate and Michelle dance for Joe was one of the sweetest moments in the film. The scene where Joe and his daughter dance in the studio felt a bit contrived, like the relationship was there for story purposes, it wasn't real. However, the dance in his house made the relationships feel real, and that's crucial to making the end of the film work.

Some of the stuff during the first chunk of hospital hallucinations felt a bit off, like it was too self consciously weird, or perhaps there were just too many songs spun together. The sequence with all the girls with feathers in particular didn't seem to do much. However, the basic concept of Joe directing a film of all this in his mind was cool enough to make it work. And I really liked some of the makeup and costuming here, particularly Michelle's Ragged Robin style facepaint.

The highpoint of the film was by far the finale, the 'Bye Bye Life' sequence. This is where the film ascends into a 70s lounge version of heaven, and concludes with both a great song and an emotionally riveting narrative conclusion. I love the design here, Joe's shiny coat and all the lights on the stage, though the Kiss outfits on the band didn't quite work. The excess of the whole thing reminded me of the end of Pink Floyd's 'The Wall,' another work that's intensely personal and goes to really strange places, yet somehow pulls it all off and really works. The sequence where Joe says goodbye to everyone he's known is very powerful and I love the way he glides down the hall towards Angelique. This was clearly an influence on the episode of Nip/Tuck where Julia experiences an alternate life while undergoing surgery.

The final moment of the film is incredibly stark after the raucousness of 'Bye Bye Life,' and the abrupt cutoff is jarring. The film's final image is disturbing, but considering what's come before, it was pretty clear that the film couldn't end any other way than with Joe Gideon dead. On the whole, the final sequence is absolutely stunning, I love the way the film moves on to an entirely symbolic plane, using the dream imagery to find an emotional closure that would never be possible in the real world. The dreamstuff makes it possible for Joe's death to be simultaneously sad and jubilant, it's a farewell performance rather than a simple pedestrian death.

Watching this movie made me want to get back into the editing room and take my film to another level. It's a movie that could have been a fairly standard biopic, however through the unique filmmaking, it becomes a full portrait of one man's troubled psyche, that neither romanticizes nor demonizes him, and instead allows the character to rise and fall on his own flaws and merits. It's a riveting, inventive film that shows that sometimes self indulgence works.