The junkie. A person who is hooked on drugs. Attached to? Obsessed with? In love? The relationship between a junkie and their drug of choice can best be described as a love and hate. They love their drug for what it does for them but hate it for what it takes from them. Its an extremely dependent relationship.
Candy is an Australian film about a couple who are as equally dependent on each other as they are on their favorite drug: heroin. The couple are Dan, played by Heath Ledger, and Candy, played by Abbie Cornish. They have different dependencies on the relationship. Candy loves Dan. She loves what he is and how he is. Dan loves Candy for loving Dan. He loves how she makes him feel. This slight difference is the basis for the three stages, or chapters, of their relationship: heaven, earth, and hell. This is a very most personal drug film. Director Neil Armfield takes the camera and places in the nucleus of their relationship. It creates a unique perspective on their lives. Unlike a film like Trainspotting which, while not a positive spin on drug usage, it does not romanticize it. Dan and Candy resort to begging, petty crime, and pawn their bodies to get their fixes. Uniquely, its their fix that holds them together. The acts they take are the glue. It binds them to each other and conversely deteriorates them. Holding the film together is the honest performances by Legder and Cornish. While he was awarded posthumously for his role as the Joker, his turn as Dan is a much more potent performances. Not to be outdone, Cornish delivers a beautiful turn. She makes Candy a tragic figure, the kind of woman who is worth fighting for but is lost by way of her love for Dan.
Drugs are no laughing matter. Some people use them recreationally and never suffer the consequences. Others do it once and have signed their death warrant. Candy looks at the beauty of love in the face of the tragedy that is a junkie's life. The performances are top-notch and rememberable. Even career-defining. One day the public will see it, too. When that day comes, they will be hooked.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Frankenstein (1931)
Monsters and cinema have gone hand-in-hand since the early days. Silent films had monsters (see. Nosferatu, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari), and with the advent of sound it was only natural to keep it going. Monster movies could go from making you imagine the sound of the scare to hearing it. It made it so the screams the viewer hears are not only their own. Monster movies connect with film fans because they're unique and pique the interest in all of us that is the fear of the unknown.
The original Frankenstein is loosely based on the novel published by Mary Shelly in 1818. The film deviates dramatically from the book. The film depicts the Monster (for the record, the scientist who creates the Monster is Frankenstein) as an evil, brainless fiend. The novel depicts the Monster as a curious, somewhat intelligent, but extremely misunderstood creature. The Monster is not truly a danger to all around him, but the public's fear of his features often led to violent incidents. The film makes the Monster out to be exactly that. He kills out of anger and confusion. In a way, it makes sense. Most films in the early years did not focus on sympathetic antagonists. It was as simple as good and bad.
Frankenstein has been done in various forms over the years. The sequel, The Bride of Frankenstein is considered one of the penultimate horror movies ever made. A faithful retelling of the novel was adapted by Kenneth Branagh in 1994 and starred Robert De Niro. Perhaps the best Frankenstein movie was the least serious adaptation, Albert Brooke's Young Frankenstein, which was a comedy. Regardless, the Monster is and will always be an icon in movie history. One of cinemas greatest and earliest cult characters. Perhaps one day someone can bring it back to life. Then the film world can once again utter the words, "It's alive."
The original Frankenstein is loosely based on the novel published by Mary Shelly in 1818. The film deviates dramatically from the book. The film depicts the Monster (for the record, the scientist who creates the Monster is Frankenstein) as an evil, brainless fiend. The novel depicts the Monster as a curious, somewhat intelligent, but extremely misunderstood creature. The Monster is not truly a danger to all around him, but the public's fear of his features often led to violent incidents. The film makes the Monster out to be exactly that. He kills out of anger and confusion. In a way, it makes sense. Most films in the early years did not focus on sympathetic antagonists. It was as simple as good and bad.
Frankenstein has been done in various forms over the years. The sequel, The Bride of Frankenstein is considered one of the penultimate horror movies ever made. A faithful retelling of the novel was adapted by Kenneth Branagh in 1994 and starred Robert De Niro. Perhaps the best Frankenstein movie was the least serious adaptation, Albert Brooke's Young Frankenstein, which was a comedy. Regardless, the Monster is and will always be an icon in movie history. One of cinemas greatest and earliest cult characters. Perhaps one day someone can bring it back to life. Then the film world can once again utter the words, "It's alive."
Friday, March 5, 2010
(500) Days of Summer
There are two people in the world: people who believe in love and people who don't. Is love a force of life or whimsical fallacy? Love can compared to global warming. Some people, no matter the facts that deny its existence, believe in it. Others don't need facts to believe its real, they can feel it and see the effects on the world. Its a matter of faith.
(500) Days of Summer is a whimsical take on the force of love. Its a simple premise not unlike many romances before it of guy meets girl and they are destined to not end up together. The execution of this story is fantastical yet ingrained in a very real sense of how relationships exist. Its not a story that tries to hide behind its cute and colorful backdrop. Zoey Deschanel is pitch-perfect as Summer, the new-age offspring born to a divorced family. Thus she doesn't believe love exists. Deschanel has a charisma that we cannot deny. You know she will break our hearts as she breaks his, but we are too fond of her to accept it. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is Tom, he the new-age offspring born of pop music and movies. Thus he really believes in love. He plays the role like a character. This isn't to say he lacks unique characteristic but the role is ultimately one of acting to reflect the situation not dictate it. If the moment is one of depression, he plays depressed. This is not to criticize, it's how the role works and how the story works. Deschanel is more ingrained in the dictation of the story, more defining. Her actions dictate the feeling from scene-to-scene and Gordon-Levitt punctuates that feeling. It's a beautiful dynamic. (500) Days of Summer is wonderfully relevant. We know these characters. They are our friends, our family, or ourselves. We can relate to the offbeat, sweet girl who is bound to break his heart. We can relate to the lovestruck guy who believes too much in the concept to see whats really in front of him.
Love is a defining force of life. Love is not fake. Its not a holiday created by greeting card companies. Some find it easy to deny that it exists. True, it is easier to assume that there is no unifying force between two people. Its easier to step away from someone by not believing in love. Love can be described as a matter of faith. Some just have more faith than others.
(500) Days of Summer is a whimsical take on the force of love. Its a simple premise not unlike many romances before it of guy meets girl and they are destined to not end up together. The execution of this story is fantastical yet ingrained in a very real sense of how relationships exist. Its not a story that tries to hide behind its cute and colorful backdrop. Zoey Deschanel is pitch-perfect as Summer, the new-age offspring born to a divorced family. Thus she doesn't believe love exists. Deschanel has a charisma that we cannot deny. You know she will break our hearts as she breaks his, but we are too fond of her to accept it. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is Tom, he the new-age offspring born of pop music and movies. Thus he really believes in love. He plays the role like a character. This isn't to say he lacks unique characteristic but the role is ultimately one of acting to reflect the situation not dictate it. If the moment is one of depression, he plays depressed. This is not to criticize, it's how the role works and how the story works. Deschanel is more ingrained in the dictation of the story, more defining. Her actions dictate the feeling from scene-to-scene and Gordon-Levitt punctuates that feeling. It's a beautiful dynamic. (500) Days of Summer is wonderfully relevant. We know these characters. They are our friends, our family, or ourselves. We can relate to the offbeat, sweet girl who is bound to break his heart. We can relate to the lovestruck guy who believes too much in the concept to see whats really in front of him.
Love is a defining force of life. Love is not fake. Its not a holiday created by greeting card companies. Some find it easy to deny that it exists. True, it is easier to assume that there is no unifying force between two people. Its easier to step away from someone by not believing in love. Love can be described as a matter of faith. Some just have more faith than others.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Lust, Caution
Sex in film is often reserved for art house films, slasher flicks, and B-movies. Sex is bad for studios because any instance of sex can lead to an unfavorable rating. Studios want films accessible to as many demographics as possible and sex in film does not allow people younger than 18 into theaters. Intense scenes of a sexual nature can also harm a films appeal to audiences. It's difficult to watch a rape scene or a particularly graphic sex scene from a subjective perspective. When used right, and tastefully, sex can be an effective thematic device to convey and number of emotions or themes.
Lust, Caution is a period piece set in World War II era China. It's the story of a young woman played by Wei Tang who becomes involved in a dangerous game of espionage to kill a traitor. Director Ange Lee does a superb job depicting a time and place, a feeling, a sense of what China was like during the war. I admit, I am not Asian and unfamiliar with Asian social or cultural norms. Yet it was easy to understand what the how and why the characters act and see the world around them. That's perhaps the real highlight of the film. Lee accomplishes the difficult task of creating a world that dictates the characters and yet feel like it's the characters all along. Some people will dislike this film. It's long (two hours plus), deliberately paced, and the characters change in subtle manner - which most people perceive as not at all. That's a shame because it's a film that accurately depicts the human condition. We don't change the way most films would have us believe. Human nature is not to in a moment realize we have been wasting our entire lives and become free spirited on a whim. We change over time not at a time.
It's a shame that so many people will discount this film because of the what are popularly perceived as thematic 'flaws'. Graphic sex scenes, a slow pace, and what an average moviegoer would consider unsympathetic characters, do not go far in tendering it's mainstream appeal. That's fine with me. I'd rather be among the fraternity of people who do appreciate the existence of art under those circumstance.
Lust, Caution is a period piece set in World War II era China. It's the story of a young woman played by Wei Tang who becomes involved in a dangerous game of espionage to kill a traitor. Director Ange Lee does a superb job depicting a time and place, a feeling, a sense of what China was like during the war. I admit, I am not Asian and unfamiliar with Asian social or cultural norms. Yet it was easy to understand what the how and why the characters act and see the world around them. That's perhaps the real highlight of the film. Lee accomplishes the difficult task of creating a world that dictates the characters and yet feel like it's the characters all along. Some people will dislike this film. It's long (two hours plus), deliberately paced, and the characters change in subtle manner - which most people perceive as not at all. That's a shame because it's a film that accurately depicts the human condition. We don't change the way most films would have us believe. Human nature is not to in a moment realize we have been wasting our entire lives and become free spirited on a whim. We change over time not at a time.
It's a shame that so many people will discount this film because of the what are popularly perceived as thematic 'flaws'. Graphic sex scenes, a slow pace, and what an average moviegoer would consider unsympathetic characters, do not go far in tendering it's mainstream appeal. That's fine with me. I'd rather be among the fraternity of people who do appreciate the existence of art under those circumstance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)