In today's global state, the issue of migration has become a heated debate. Thanks in part to it's promise of the 'American Dream', the United States has become the primary settling zone for illegal immigration. To some, immigration is a major issue along the home front. To others, the basic rights of individual freedoms that the country was founded on supersede other issues. Either way, it's become a political debate that figures only escalate as world populace grows.
The Visitor is about a passive University prof who undergoes a journey of self-discovery when he comes across an illegal pair of immigrants living in his New York apartment. Richard Jenkins stars as the lead and was nominated for a Best Actor award at the Oscars last year. Rightfully so. Jenkins, perhaps best known for getting his head beat in with a tire iron in Burn After Reading, portrays his characters numerous insecurities with relative ease and subtlety. Haaz Sliemen, Dani Jekesai Guirira, and Hiam Abbass excel in supporting roles. Slieman and Guirira play the couple squatting in Jenkins' apartment. Slieman is a happy and accepting human being, so his character progression is that much more painful as the story goes on. Abbass plays his mother, and she too is excellent. This is ultimately a character driven story. The writing is excellent. More importantly, it displays patience not accustomed to most films made these days (read: quality films).
In a funny way, the fact that the majority of the main characters in The Visitor are foreign plays to the strength of the films message. It's about acceptance. It's about understanding people before you pass judgement. The performances of the actors, who until now, have really not been accepted or understood by western audiences, plays to its favor.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Vanilla Sky
Over the years, it has become a common thematic tool. It used to be that films told their stories linearly. Put simply, the events of the films are placed in a straight time line. Like with many things, it was only time before the film industry figured out new ways to tell their stories. People forget that a film is like a book. Each chapter is different. Each scene is different. Moving the chapters, or scenes, out of order but in a manner that still tells the story creates a new form of storytelling. Unfortunately, there are those who don't understand how to rearrange the scenes in a manner that makes sense. In those cases, you get, well, nonsense.
Vanilla Sky is the story of a wealthy playboy who's life is thrown into chaos when a jilted lover decides to drive her car off a bridge....with him inside. As a spoiler, this is hardly a movie that can be interpreted as simply as that. Tom Cruise stars in the lead role and it's his performance that controls the majority of the film. It's both detrimental and beneficial. Mr. Cruise is truly an admirable businessman. He knows, almost better than anyone, what roles work for him. Check his resume and he consistently plays a cocky man who is humbled and has to build himself back up. Vanilla Sky is no different. He is humbled alright. Humbled hard. Therein lies an issue. Cruise is not a sturdy enough actor to best portray the depths to which his character falls. Into the third act though, his performance actually comes into focus much better. His overacting may have actually had reason.
Vanilla Sky is a story told both linearly and non-linearly. Certain sequences are linear. Some are not. Some work. And some don't. At the end of the day though, Vanilla Sky is a thoroughly thought-invoking film. It's storytelling is unique and effective whether it's linear or non-linear. Or to you, it could just be nonsense.
Vanilla Sky is the story of a wealthy playboy who's life is thrown into chaos when a jilted lover decides to drive her car off a bridge....with him inside. As a spoiler, this is hardly a movie that can be interpreted as simply as that. Tom Cruise stars in the lead role and it's his performance that controls the majority of the film. It's both detrimental and beneficial. Mr. Cruise is truly an admirable businessman. He knows, almost better than anyone, what roles work for him. Check his resume and he consistently plays a cocky man who is humbled and has to build himself back up. Vanilla Sky is no different. He is humbled alright. Humbled hard. Therein lies an issue. Cruise is not a sturdy enough actor to best portray the depths to which his character falls. Into the third act though, his performance actually comes into focus much better. His overacting may have actually had reason.
Vanilla Sky is a story told both linearly and non-linearly. Certain sequences are linear. Some are not. Some work. And some don't. At the end of the day though, Vanilla Sky is a thoroughly thought-invoking film. It's storytelling is unique and effective whether it's linear or non-linear. Or to you, it could just be nonsense.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Alien3
There was once a time when sequels were rare. Original films were what studios invested in and developed. Today, franchises are commonplace. Sequels are what commonly generate the most profit for major studios. It used to be that actors signed multi-picture contracts to star in different films for one studio. Now actors sign multi-picture deals to play one character for one studio. Franchises have the advantage of building a fan base. This gives new films in the franchise instant interest. A useful tool.
The Alien saga is one that has spanned nearly three decades, featuring four main films and a spin off franchise. It made a star out of Sigourney Weaver. It features elements of action, thriller, horror and drama genres. Basically it's as bankable a franchise as there is. Alien3 is considered by many to be where the franchise went sour. Since that film, each entry in the franchise has been mediocre at best. However, this is where I disagree. I find Alien3 to be a vastly underrated film. The theatrical release of the film is the one most people have seen. It is also the version that is what people say it is. The original cut is actually quite intriguing. It does away with the 'alien-vision' of the theatrical cut. It's longer as well, with some additional scenes and some of the theatrical scenes redone. The result is a much greater study of character and human behavior. We get a much better sense of the people involved and understand why they act the way they do. For example, Charles S. Dutton is a much more powerful character. His convictions play out more strongly which is punctuated by his characters fate at the conclusion of the film. As well, how the scenes play out with Ripley discovering she is carrying the Queen is much more profound. Her inner turmoil is more defined.
Franchises are becoming the lifeblood of the profit-driven film industry. Studios, for good reason, care more about making money than original work. That's ok. The problem is that the films play into profit-driven conventions. They are often cliche and thrill driven. This is where they fail. Most films would be met with greater critical and public approval if they are just as often left alone.
The Alien saga is one that has spanned nearly three decades, featuring four main films and a spin off franchise. It made a star out of Sigourney Weaver. It features elements of action, thriller, horror and drama genres. Basically it's as bankable a franchise as there is. Alien3 is considered by many to be where the franchise went sour. Since that film, each entry in the franchise has been mediocre at best. However, this is where I disagree. I find Alien3 to be a vastly underrated film. The theatrical release of the film is the one most people have seen. It is also the version that is what people say it is. The original cut is actually quite intriguing. It does away with the 'alien-vision' of the theatrical cut. It's longer as well, with some additional scenes and some of the theatrical scenes redone. The result is a much greater study of character and human behavior. We get a much better sense of the people involved and understand why they act the way they do. For example, Charles S. Dutton is a much more powerful character. His convictions play out more strongly which is punctuated by his characters fate at the conclusion of the film. As well, how the scenes play out with Ripley discovering she is carrying the Queen is much more profound. Her inner turmoil is more defined.
Franchises are becoming the lifeblood of the profit-driven film industry. Studios, for good reason, care more about making money than original work. That's ok. The problem is that the films play into profit-driven conventions. They are often cliche and thrill driven. This is where they fail. Most films would be met with greater critical and public approval if they are just as often left alone.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Monday, October 5, 2009
Sand (Dutch title: Zand)
I am no expert when it comes to short films. I admit as much. I do feel versed enough to make a healthy, functional critique of the form. There are some elements of short films that make it a unique form. For one, short films are often lower-budget which both limits and frees the features of the medium. It means films are often simpler, more character based but also encourages innovation for filmmakers who want to achieve certain imagery but do not have the financial means. Shorts often have to achieve their goal in a shorter (no terribly bad pun intended) time, which is difficult to do and a credit to filmmakers.
Sand (Zand) is the story of Luke, a divorced but goodhearted father to Isabel, who bonds with his daughter while working his sand trucking job. Director Joost van Ginkel does an excellent job developing a father-daughter relationship that is as beautiful as it is tragic. Luke is the kind of father every child should have, but unfortunately not every child gets. Isabel's mother is not as kind, and when Luke discovers this, he makes a poor long-term decision which leads to a wonderful short-term joy as he and Isabel spend a night together. van Ginkel does a tremendous job building up the emotional connections so that every pain that Luke feels, the viewer feels just the same. This is an excellent work where a human relationship can be an artistic narrative and not simply the latter.
Short films are a wonderfully versatile version of pictures. They can be done like extended music videos, short stories, or more expansive commercials. Sometimes even as one chapter of a larger story. The options for how to make a short film are, quite honestly, greater than a feature length. Not to mention, if you're strapped for time they're, well, shorter.
Sand (Zand)
DIRECTOR Joost van Ginkel, Netherlands, 2008, 21 MIN
When Luuk, a goodhearted father, discovers a horrific secret about his daughter he slowly loses control. Zand is a compelling and romantic story about Luuk and his daughter Isabel who both like the feel of sand.
Sand (Zand) is the story of Luke, a divorced but goodhearted father to Isabel, who bonds with his daughter while working his sand trucking job. Director Joost van Ginkel does an excellent job developing a father-daughter relationship that is as beautiful as it is tragic. Luke is the kind of father every child should have, but unfortunately not every child gets. Isabel's mother is not as kind, and when Luke discovers this, he makes a poor long-term decision which leads to a wonderful short-term joy as he and Isabel spend a night together. van Ginkel does a tremendous job building up the emotional connections so that every pain that Luke feels, the viewer feels just the same. This is an excellent work where a human relationship can be an artistic narrative and not simply the latter.
Short films are a wonderfully versatile version of pictures. They can be done like extended music videos, short stories, or more expansive commercials. Sometimes even as one chapter of a larger story. The options for how to make a short film are, quite honestly, greater than a feature length. Not to mention, if you're strapped for time they're, well, shorter.
Sand (Zand)
DIRECTOR Joost van Ginkel, Netherlands, 2008, 21 MIN
When Luuk, a goodhearted father, discovers a horrific secret about his daughter he slowly loses control. Zand is a compelling and romantic story about Luuk and his daughter Isabel who both like the feel of sand.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
He Got Game
It's difficult to determine what filmmakers or films are of the 'groundbreaking' nature. Based on things like opinion or country of origin, films or people can often be overlooked or over hyped. Or simply forgotten until years later when the public gets a clue. More often than not, groundbreaking films and people are immediately recognized by those in the know.
He Got Game is the story of a convict who is given a chance at freedom if he can convince his son, a high school basketball prodigy, to declare for the governors Alma mater. Ok, far fetched concept. No worries. He Got Game stars Denzel Washington, who's on his game as usual, as Jake Shuttlesworth and his son, Jesus, is played by actual NBAer Ray Allen. Spike Lee directs and the film is done in is his trademark style. The film explores the unifying power of sport or perhaps the unifying power of passions, which in this case is basketball. Jake has wronged his family because his passion ultimately clouded his good sense and the result put him in prison. Yet his passion for basketball, which he pushed onto his son, has given Jesus a future. Jesus struggles with the burden of his decision, however. It's an interesting dilemma. He has no one to ask for advice; the result of his fathers actions. The sport which was pushed on him and ruined his family is now providing him a future but one fraught with pitfalls. Keep an eye on the fantastic editing in the climatic scene in which Jake and Jesus both find ways to escape the prisons, literal and imagined, of their lives. It's done extremely well.
Spike Lee's first major film, Do The Right Thing, was a groundbreaking film in many ways. It was a powerful look at the social and cultural issues regarding race. However, it was his dynamic style that makes Do The Right Thing a landmark film. He Got Game is done in the same way, but the content is not the same. This is not to say it doesn't work. It does. It's a solid film. It just feels like Spike Lee lite.
He Got Game is the story of a convict who is given a chance at freedom if he can convince his son, a high school basketball prodigy, to declare for the governors Alma mater. Ok, far fetched concept. No worries. He Got Game stars Denzel Washington, who's on his game as usual, as Jake Shuttlesworth and his son, Jesus, is played by actual NBAer Ray Allen. Spike Lee directs and the film is done in is his trademark style. The film explores the unifying power of sport or perhaps the unifying power of passions, which in this case is basketball. Jake has wronged his family because his passion ultimately clouded his good sense and the result put him in prison. Yet his passion for basketball, which he pushed onto his son, has given Jesus a future. Jesus struggles with the burden of his decision, however. It's an interesting dilemma. He has no one to ask for advice; the result of his fathers actions. The sport which was pushed on him and ruined his family is now providing him a future but one fraught with pitfalls. Keep an eye on the fantastic editing in the climatic scene in which Jake and Jesus both find ways to escape the prisons, literal and imagined, of their lives. It's done extremely well.
Spike Lee's first major film, Do The Right Thing, was a groundbreaking film in many ways. It was a powerful look at the social and cultural issues regarding race. However, it was his dynamic style that makes Do The Right Thing a landmark film. He Got Game is done in the same way, but the content is not the same. This is not to say it doesn't work. It does. It's a solid film. It just feels like Spike Lee lite.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
The White Ribbon
It's always a treat being able to see a filmmaker at their best. Few things can be as inspiring, thought-provoking, or perception-changing as watching a film that is complete on every level. For some time, Michael Haneke has been that filmmaker for me. Haneke studied psychology, philosophy and theatrical sciences at the University of Vienna, Austria. His films reflect his specialty of study. The depth of his films is so much greater than any mainstream filmmaker it's less like a breath of fresh air and more like a gust.
The White Ribbon is a multi-tiered story focused on a small, pre-WW I German town. Told as a narrative by the town schoolteacher, the White Ribbon is about the dynamics between the adults and the children after a pair of crimes are committed. This is not a film for people who choose not to think about their movies. Most Haneke's aren't. This film perhaps more than any because it poses many questions but offers few answers, at least on the surface. The beauty of the film, as with any Haneke, is the 'answers' lie in the characters. How they act in relation to their circumstance and people around them provides the evidence the viewer needs. In this regard the film is as much a mystery story as a drama. Trying to figure out who commits the crimes that incite the story is part of the joy. Even though we're never privy to the answer. I feel as if I am doing a disservice to the film by not mentioning the camera work or the acting, but the character dynamics are such that on that basis alone this film excels.
As this critic is concerned, the situation in town is a microcosm of what led to the outbreak of WW I. The anger and envy of the classes, the age groups, and so on contributed to the shooting of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarejevo. Near the end of the film, the narrator emphasizes how the war came about. Is this to emphasize my theory? Perhaps. But with Haneke, one can never tell.
The White Ribbon is a multi-tiered story focused on a small, pre-WW I German town. Told as a narrative by the town schoolteacher, the White Ribbon is about the dynamics between the adults and the children after a pair of crimes are committed. This is not a film for people who choose not to think about their movies. Most Haneke's aren't. This film perhaps more than any because it poses many questions but offers few answers, at least on the surface. The beauty of the film, as with any Haneke, is the 'answers' lie in the characters. How they act in relation to their circumstance and people around them provides the evidence the viewer needs. In this regard the film is as much a mystery story as a drama. Trying to figure out who commits the crimes that incite the story is part of the joy. Even though we're never privy to the answer. I feel as if I am doing a disservice to the film by not mentioning the camera work or the acting, but the character dynamics are such that on that basis alone this film excels.
As this critic is concerned, the situation in town is a microcosm of what led to the outbreak of WW I. The anger and envy of the classes, the age groups, and so on contributed to the shooting of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarejevo. Near the end of the film, the narrator emphasizes how the war came about. Is this to emphasize my theory? Perhaps. But with Haneke, one can never tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)