My brother Andrew and I hail from western Illinois, a place where hail is seen every so often. It's said our state has only three seasons: cold, colder and construction. Much to the chagrin of everyone, it gets cold around late August, and by mid-December, you're just about ready to die. In a fire, if you can help it.
With temperatures dropping like anything drops in a vacuum like everywhere not Chicago in Illinois, it gets absurdly cold by Halloween. Growing up, my brother and I had to trick or treat in out coats more than once. It's awful for a kid to have to beg for candy in a hand-me-down coat.
"Oh, look, two little hobos."
"We're Batman and Robin."
"Oh. Well. You know, the coats."
"Yeah. That and hobos are known for having pointy ears and masks."
"Get off my porch."
To a child's mind, Halloween being so cold just isn't fair. Batman didn't wear a coat when he fought crime, so why should I wear one in a quest for sugary deliciousness? My parents always answered this by telling me to put on my coat, successfully circumventing an argument I was bound to lose.
One year, deciding the best course of action would be to avoid the whole coats/no coats, but long underwear conversation, my parents purchased for my brother and me costumes containing hooded sweatshirts. It was a masterstroke, to be sure. And in what was, in retrospect, an even more portentous move, our parents picked out the costumes themselves, apparently according to our personalities.
I was a mouse. My brother was a devil. We went out on All Hallow's Eve, got a bunch of candy, and had a great time. What worked out pretty well for our parents is, after the holiday, we could still utilize a good portion of our suits. Not that I didn't keep a number of batsuits, mind you, but the blue ranger and Dracula have both been lost to time. So, Andrew and I would wear these outfits to go out and play in the next to our house. We would be having a swell time in the leaves, and then Andrew would do something that I absolutely hated.
He would play dead. We'd be running around and he would drop like a stroke victim. This scared the holy living hell out of me. What would Mom do? Dad would kill me.
"You were supposed to be watching him!"
I was barely able to tie my own shoes, and here I was, foreseeing my father berating me for being unable to combat ST(oddler)DS. This, playing out in my mind, revealed the most traumatic part of all: Mom would cry. And she wouldn't cry like she had on the roller coaster at Six Flags. No, she would full tilt lose it, balling and calling for her little boy who I had allowed to perish in the balmy Illinois fall, in a pile of dried, red leaves. Well, I wasn't about to let that happen. So, grabbing Andrew by the wrist, I would pull him toward the house. He may die, but it wouldn't be on my watch. Let Mom and Dad deal with this. So I would drag him, worried sick and maybe crying a little myself, and he would laugh and laugh and I would get so mad at the little shit for it.
Years have passed, and we are still a mouse and a devil. I have graduated into a clever mouse (see me write these entertaining little stories?) and he has become a Devil Dog. Yup, he's a Marine, complete with rifle, boots, the whole shebang. We have both traded in our jackets for more substantial clothing. Not to say those jackets weren't warm enough. They were fine. No, what we wear now defines us better. I wear my writer's fedora, which makes me feel all artsy, like I should sip on absinthe and be poor. And he wears a dress blue jacket with gold buttons. Each button is embossed with the Eagle, Globe and Anchor the Marines proport to have taken over responsibility for from God Himself. It makes him look appropriate to attend the Marine's Ball. It's BDUs he wears to kill people.
I remember when he decided to earn that uniform. He and Mom and Dad went to see the sergeant at the mall recruiting center. I was not allowed in, for fear I would start with my drivel about peace and not let the man speak his. I consented to absence, with the understanding Andrew would not be allowed to sign up for the delayed entry program. That night I found out I should not allow my parents to go it alone. Andrew was signed up for the Marine Corps.
He was all smiles, my parents had a look of solemnity about them, and Andrew got a "Congratufuckinglations" from the poolee who would be given credit for helping get my brother's name on the line. I was disappointed, and a little worried. This was my little brother, after all. I had seen him in the direst vulnerabilities. I had seen him deal with untrue friends and girlfriends, battle with weight gain and could even remember buying diapers for him. I remembered how much he cried when his guinea pig died.
And I made a choice. It is a cold world. We all choose the best way to get through it, and in choosing, decide who we want to be. I decided the best way was to tell stories. Andrew picked "oorah." I could have tried to pull him toward the house, put him in front of Mom and Dad and say, "look, he wants to go and get killed." I know I have to let him. I wouldn't want him to stop me, tell me what I do isn't right. I will not say the same to him. The truth is, despite the danger, in spite of the fear I now possess more than ever for his safety, I'm proud of Andrew and would not change his profession for anything.
He has chosen the costume to wear to protect him and who he is, and it's something he wears in autumn as red leaves float to frozen earth, or if hot sand and lead whips about him. I will not pull him from either.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Poster Plaster: How to Effectively Decorate Your Home with Movie Posters
I was reading a men's magazine recently, and it said to get real conversation starters on your walls, not movie posters. Well I think that's a little narrow-minded. Movie posters can be great conversation starters! And let's face it, if taking down your Friday the 13th poster is the best way to festoon your digs, you'd rather be bland. Here are a few thoughts on how hip you can be with the square.
All (manly) men love Scarface. It's a great movie. But if you want to make your home a little more intriguing, pick stuff a little off the beaten path. You don't have to go too far, either. If you like Scarface, maybe a Goodfellas bill could be up your alley. Instead of The Boondock Saints, maybe you could throw up a History of Violence ad. If you get a little more "out there" with your choices, you can turn what would normally play out as, "That's a great move." "Yeah." Into, "Wow, you like that movie, too?" Which will cause a real back and forth. You might want to stop yourself from being too oddball, though. Keep Saturday Night Fever over Stayin' Alive. Please.
"But I like Scarface," you say. That's fine. You can work with that. Instead of the usual A run poster, look for something a little more obtuse. Some people like to get foreign posters. While you can't read the text (which you don't need to), you can sometimes get some pretty wild art. It's nice to perform this little excercise in cross-culture. And you know, deep down in your heart, that the Japanese posters for Star Wars are cooler than the US releases.
One of the other cool things about not getting the actual theater poster is it can pull something from the movie in a more meaningful way than an advertisement. I once saw a Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas poster, on which was printed a picture of Johnny Depp and his character's "Drug Collection" monologue. I've never seen the movie, but that poster told me more about the story than anything that's ended up on a DVD case for the film. Likewise, my fiance has a The Breakfast Club poster with a cast photo and the letter from the end of the film. If the movie means something to you, it will get you every time.
Generally, when you're trying for posters that wouldn't have been used in theaters, you'll come across older movies, films that have taken time and found a place in our culture. My advice on the olies: go for it! Make sure it's a movie you've actually seen, but always favor put-ups for older films. Pretention aside, there's more to talk about when the movie is older. People generally know more about Raiders of the Lost Ark than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Everyone knows the story about Harrison Ford being sick as a dog, thus shooting the scimitar-wielding warrior. But if you know any anecdotes for the most recent Indy film, chances are your guest doesn't.
Another good reason to go old is the quality of the posters themselves. I have a Breakfast at Tiffany's poster that is absolutely gorgeous. It features an illustration of Audrey Hepburn, along with a smaller drawing of her and George Peppard kissing in the rain. All this on a white background with a primary colors border. It just looks good, and it always ellicits conversation. Being a man, not all of them have been pleasant conversations, but that's life. It's also an incontrovertible fact these drawn pieces are head and shoulders above the photoshopped, oversaturated collages we have today. If you saw Dirty Work with Norm McDonald, you might remember a scene in which he and his buddy are trashing apartments, and his buddy comes across this old From Russia, With Love poster. He steals it. It's sexy. Keep that in mind.
The other thing about that particular poster, is it was small. Vary size. I have a couple of smaller posters, like my Pan's Labyrinth, V for Vendetta and Halloween pieces. Variations in size will draw in the eye. Mixing it up will also help you fit more pics, which is not to say you should wallpaper, but more to say you can create a sort of texture. You can squeeze in more of you.
Maybe you don't like old movies, though. Maybe you like widely-known blockbusters. Maybe you don't care for art films or foreign films and just want a Stepbrothers poster on your wall. Maybe you hate American movies, but worry your friends won't get your 8 1/2 poster. Put them up, dammit! I proudly display my posters for The Fountain and Spanglish. Those movies mean a lot to me. The whole point is picking things important to you. This is your house, where you live and it will reflect you. Just make sure what you put up there is important to you, and you will be happy with it. If you have good friends, they'll love it, too.
Friday, January 23, 2009
You People are Pompous Jerks: A Fair-minded Open Letter to the MPAA
Dear Academy,
How are you feeling today? Proud of yourselves, I hope. I'm glad you were able to almost entirely disregard The Dark Knight for any of the nominations it deserved. You passed over a great film for the best picture category, an outstanding director for his work and you gave an obligatory nomination to an exemplary actor not because of his talent, but because he died. And all this because you refuse to sully your arrogant waters with such comic book fare. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Titanic is the top grossing film of all time (right now) and received 11 Oscars. Interestingly enough, it is not on the iMDB top 250. The Dark Knight is #5 on this list, currently behind The Shawshank Redemption, The Godfather (1 & 2) and The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. TDK received universally positive reviews, many of them lauding it as a great film, one representing a paradigm shift. It is one of the best movies ever made and is simply being fobbed off for having a man with a cape.
Memento is a great movie. So is The Prestige. So is Insomnia. Christopher Nolan directed all of these films, along with TDK's predecessor Batman Begins, which was nominated for cinematography. Nolan has proved himself an inventive storyteller, crafting films that strip characters down to their basic ambitions even while putting them in imaginative and often bizarre circumstances. His daring use of camera (including filming parts of TDK with IMAX cameras), his understanding of emotion and motivation and his ability to tell a rich, deep story should have garnered him a nomination. Unfortunately for him, the Academy looks down on someone who would dare make a movie about something as childish as comic books.
So if the rest of TDK has been shunned so, one would resonably assume its actors would be as well. I will be the first to admit Heath Ledger did a magnificent job as the Joker, but it seems Oscars are not being given out based on actual talent. This is a token nomination, which is a shame. It is a shame to diminish such talent by essentially nominating out of pity. I suppose I'll just have to wait and see who wins.
The passing-over of The Dark Knight is yet another example of movies being overlooked because they aren't up to the high brow standards of elitists and self-styled aristocrats. It's just a pity films like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which is getting lukewarm reviews, are so rewarded while movies like The Dark Knight are treated as little more than pulp. Which is saying something, because this is the same institution which gave the Oscar for best song to "It's Hard out here 4 a Pimp" from Hustle and Flow. This just makes me sick.
-The Renaissance Writer
How are you feeling today? Proud of yourselves, I hope. I'm glad you were able to almost entirely disregard The Dark Knight for any of the nominations it deserved. You passed over a great film for the best picture category, an outstanding director for his work and you gave an obligatory nomination to an exemplary actor not because of his talent, but because he died. And all this because you refuse to sully your arrogant waters with such comic book fare. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Titanic is the top grossing film of all time (right now) and received 11 Oscars. Interestingly enough, it is not on the iMDB top 250. The Dark Knight is #5 on this list, currently behind The Shawshank Redemption, The Godfather (1 & 2) and The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. TDK received universally positive reviews, many of them lauding it as a great film, one representing a paradigm shift. It is one of the best movies ever made and is simply being fobbed off for having a man with a cape.
Memento is a great movie. So is The Prestige. So is Insomnia. Christopher Nolan directed all of these films, along with TDK's predecessor Batman Begins, which was nominated for cinematography. Nolan has proved himself an inventive storyteller, crafting films that strip characters down to their basic ambitions even while putting them in imaginative and often bizarre circumstances. His daring use of camera (including filming parts of TDK with IMAX cameras), his understanding of emotion and motivation and his ability to tell a rich, deep story should have garnered him a nomination. Unfortunately for him, the Academy looks down on someone who would dare make a movie about something as childish as comic books.
So if the rest of TDK has been shunned so, one would resonably assume its actors would be as well. I will be the first to admit Heath Ledger did a magnificent job as the Joker, but it seems Oscars are not being given out based on actual talent. This is a token nomination, which is a shame. It is a shame to diminish such talent by essentially nominating out of pity. I suppose I'll just have to wait and see who wins.
The passing-over of The Dark Knight is yet another example of movies being overlooked because they aren't up to the high brow standards of elitists and self-styled aristocrats. It's just a pity films like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which is getting lukewarm reviews, are so rewarded while movies like The Dark Knight are treated as little more than pulp. Which is saying something, because this is the same institution which gave the Oscar for best song to "It's Hard out here 4 a Pimp" from Hustle and Flow. This just makes me sick.
-The Renaissance Writer
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Respecting the Edit
When I was in my "Kevin Smith Phase" (which is not something I'm entirely out of, mind you) during my high school career, I did a crawl through the Chasing Amy DVD. It was one of my earliest and best encounters with deleted scenes. I still remember Smith saying "this is the director's cut. The one you see is the director's cut." The scenes were generally interesting, gave a little humorous insight, but were unnecessary and boring. I found myself saying, "I see why he took them out." Or even, "I'm glad he took them out." I felt I was fortunate to learn a little more about the characters and plot, but knew they had no place in the final cut.
Well a couple of months ago I was pouring over my copy of Juno. So I'm watching the deleted scenes, finding them all pretty amusing. Amusing, but cut for all the right reasons. The racist old woman in the very first scene, for instance? Total tone breaker, kills pacing. That was obvious. What I found interesting was the scenes concerning Juno herself. In these scenes, she is a stark raving bitch. She sings about how Bleaker has left her up shit creek without a paddle, berates him at school (more harshly) and just treats everyone around her a little less than peachy keen.
People have said about Juno that she doesn't deserve Bleaker because she is so selfish, but I debate this. I couldn't if those cuts hadn't been made. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is whether or not the theatrical Juno is the real Juno.
It's been said that in a movie's life, three movies are made: the movie of the screenplay, of the raw footage, of the edit. This is more or less true, considering multiple cuts and edits along the way. I still wonder, though, if I can separate the final character from the earlier version. When a film is so lauded for its screenplay, I'm not entirely sure it's right for me to divide it from the finished product so completely. Understand: the movie is entirely different, these scenes considered. You don't know for sure if Juno is a virgin or not when she and Paulie first make love, but I can tell you, in the script, she wasn't too vestal. Instead, she was so ego maniacal she rivaled Lex Luthor.
"Wait," I said, "this isn't my Juno. I love my Juno." This may be the true basis of my problem. She looked like my Juno, but I didn't know this person. And I didn't like her. At all. But here was filmed evidence of this doppelganger being a total shrew.
Can I watch Juno again and like the main character? Is this Diablo Cody's Juno? Does it matter? Well, yes, sort of, and no.
We have to disassociate the bad writing and filming that does get cut from what doesn't. The filmmakers did. If I considered Harpy Juno a sort of apocryphal, true Juno, I'd have to honor 1st draft Col. Kurtz (Holding a machine gun, "I can feel the power in my loins!" I shit you not.) They cut it, it's not real anymore. Cute, telling, food for thought? Yes. But Lucky Charms are food, academically speaking.
As far as the screenwriter goes, well, that's as far as she goes. She didn't direct Juno. Jason Reitman did. Cody did well, but she is not the author of the film. Sorry (don't read that as smug. I mean it.).
I wouldn't have met this Evil Juno whom I didn't recognize had I not the special access DVD affords us. She is a character put to death for being too unlikable for most audiences. Good. There are enough shitty people in real life. We don't need them as our heroes.
Well a couple of months ago I was pouring over my copy of Juno. So I'm watching the deleted scenes, finding them all pretty amusing. Amusing, but cut for all the right reasons. The racist old woman in the very first scene, for instance? Total tone breaker, kills pacing. That was obvious. What I found interesting was the scenes concerning Juno herself. In these scenes, she is a stark raving bitch. She sings about how Bleaker has left her up shit creek without a paddle, berates him at school (more harshly) and just treats everyone around her a little less than peachy keen.
People have said about Juno that she doesn't deserve Bleaker because she is so selfish, but I debate this. I couldn't if those cuts hadn't been made. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is whether or not the theatrical Juno is the real Juno.
It's been said that in a movie's life, three movies are made: the movie of the screenplay, of the raw footage, of the edit. This is more or less true, considering multiple cuts and edits along the way. I still wonder, though, if I can separate the final character from the earlier version. When a film is so lauded for its screenplay, I'm not entirely sure it's right for me to divide it from the finished product so completely. Understand: the movie is entirely different, these scenes considered. You don't know for sure if Juno is a virgin or not when she and Paulie first make love, but I can tell you, in the script, she wasn't too vestal. Instead, she was so ego maniacal she rivaled Lex Luthor.
"Wait," I said, "this isn't my Juno. I love my Juno." This may be the true basis of my problem. She looked like my Juno, but I didn't know this person. And I didn't like her. At all. But here was filmed evidence of this doppelganger being a total shrew.
Can I watch Juno again and like the main character? Is this Diablo Cody's Juno? Does it matter? Well, yes, sort of, and no.
We have to disassociate the bad writing and filming that does get cut from what doesn't. The filmmakers did. If I considered Harpy Juno a sort of apocryphal, true Juno, I'd have to honor 1st draft Col. Kurtz (Holding a machine gun, "I can feel the power in my loins!" I shit you not.) They cut it, it's not real anymore. Cute, telling, food for thought? Yes. But Lucky Charms are food, academically speaking.
As far as the screenwriter goes, well, that's as far as she goes. She didn't direct Juno. Jason Reitman did. Cody did well, but she is not the author of the film. Sorry (don't read that as smug. I mean it.).
I wouldn't have met this Evil Juno whom I didn't recognize had I not the special access DVD affords us. She is a character put to death for being too unlikable for most audiences. Good. There are enough shitty people in real life. We don't need them as our heroes.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
boston.com = Poorly Researched Tripe
Boston.com recently published an article mirroring ideas found in English Professor Mark Bauerlein's new book The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future. Apparently, though, both boston.com and Bauerlein consider actual research far too tedious and non-fallacious arguments unnecessary. Here's why.
The first point has something to do with my generation making excellent "Jaywalking" targets. I don't watch Jay Leno, as I read more than watch TV, but I don't think there is any real way to quantify this. Leno's team can, I'm sure, edit the segment for the best possible, oh, how should I say it? LOLs? Unless Bauerlein can crunch some numbers and prove, conclusively, that most of the "guests" of that segment were under 30, I'm calling foul from base one.
Then the inevitable "they don't read" argument. According to this article, while everyone has always hated homework, we are just now singing the praises of illiteracy. Mark Twain did say, "Those who don't read good books have no advantage over those who can't." I'm sure he was talking about us in 2008. Also, I checked into it; according to an Associated Press poll, one in four Americans read no books at all this past year (http://www.resourceshelf.com/2007/08/22/surveys-and-stats-us-reading-habits/). That's all adults. Bauerlein doesn't compare "tweens" to "real adults" with any sort of numbers, or boston.com didn't post those very same numbers. Either way, there's a lot of room for doubt.
"Lack of capitalization and IM codes dominate online writing. Without spellcheck, folks are toast," claims the article. Problem: IM conversations are not academic or scholarly. They are colloquial. Listen to an average conversation in which no one is trying too hard to impress someone else. Is their grammar flawless? Is their enunciation sublime? Does it matter? No, of course not. Read Their Eyes Were Watching God. See the errors in spelling. It's all dialog. Same thing here. You cannot use colloquial communication to decry in an idyllic sense. That's just dumb.
Point 4: "They get ridiculed for original thought, good writing." The smart kid has always been made fun of. Also, MySpace is not a realm to fairly typify all young people, as MySpace denizens are not necessarily a representative sample.
The fifth point has something to do with "Grand Theft Auto IV, etc." Bauerlein is trying to say there is some link between video games outselling other media and this somehow makes kids dumber. I've read this bit a few times, and I cannot find any semblance of causality so much as hinted. Wonderful fallacy, that, putting two "facts" next to each other is oftentimes enough to convince some people, but not this member of the "dumbest generation." If there is a link, pointing it out helps an argument.
Next is, "they don't store the information." Now, the article doesn't specify if this means storing it on the computer or in the ol' noggin, but either way it's the internet's fault for being an information conduit. Yes, the internet is notorious for "metooism," but this isn't unique to the internet. Lots of people above 30 "read something somewhere that said..." The internet is just another way of doing this. There is an assumption here that reading something then writing it in a research paper makes you remember. If fact, it's the same thing.
The next point puts responsibility on the adults who don't foster intellectual growth, allowing for self-esteem to supersede ability and allowing IMing at midnight. No, it's not because the adults in this country have abandoned both the inner-city and rural area schools in favor of rich, white neighborhoods. It's because of the rise of awareness of the student as an actual human being. Even in taking responsibility (albeit left-handedly), Bauerlein misdirects the information to serve him, instead of looking at the real problem: a sub-par educational system built on racism and elitism.
His eighth point? "Because they're young." Filling space, are we? Yes, we lack experience. That's a much more valid point than our news sources being habitually false and favoring celebrity trials over actual news. Even worse, the article is titled superlatively, yet you bolster it with a universal truism. This rather points out the problem with the article: there are no solutions. Not that there aren't any solutions to any of these problems. Rather, Bauerlein makes no attempt whatsoever to find them. I guess that doesn't sell books. It doesn't do anyone any good to attack another group of people and not even try to help. Is this generation a little slow? In some ways, yes. But our generation will make wonderful progress. Maybe it won't just be Americans helming the world anymore, but that may not be a bad thing. Bauerlein does not look at anything but the bad things, and complains about them. No fixes, just breaks. Well, in the words of my mother's generation, "If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
The first point has something to do with my generation making excellent "Jaywalking" targets. I don't watch Jay Leno, as I read more than watch TV, but I don't think there is any real way to quantify this. Leno's team can, I'm sure, edit the segment for the best possible, oh, how should I say it? LOLs? Unless Bauerlein can crunch some numbers and prove, conclusively, that most of the "guests" of that segment were under 30, I'm calling foul from base one.
Then the inevitable "they don't read" argument. According to this article, while everyone has always hated homework, we are just now singing the praises of illiteracy. Mark Twain did say, "Those who don't read good books have no advantage over those who can't." I'm sure he was talking about us in 2008. Also, I checked into it; according to an Associated Press poll, one in four Americans read no books at all this past year (http://www.resourceshelf.com/2007/08/22/surveys-and-stats-us-reading-habits/). That's all adults. Bauerlein doesn't compare "tweens" to "real adults" with any sort of numbers, or boston.com didn't post those very same numbers. Either way, there's a lot of room for doubt.
"Lack of capitalization and IM codes dominate online writing. Without spellcheck, folks are toast," claims the article. Problem: IM conversations are not academic or scholarly. They are colloquial. Listen to an average conversation in which no one is trying too hard to impress someone else. Is their grammar flawless? Is their enunciation sublime? Does it matter? No, of course not. Read Their Eyes Were Watching God. See the errors in spelling. It's all dialog. Same thing here. You cannot use colloquial communication to decry in an idyllic sense. That's just dumb.
Point 4: "They get ridiculed for original thought, good writing." The smart kid has always been made fun of. Also, MySpace is not a realm to fairly typify all young people, as MySpace denizens are not necessarily a representative sample.
The fifth point has something to do with "Grand Theft Auto IV, etc." Bauerlein is trying to say there is some link between video games outselling other media and this somehow makes kids dumber. I've read this bit a few times, and I cannot find any semblance of causality so much as hinted. Wonderful fallacy, that, putting two "facts" next to each other is oftentimes enough to convince some people, but not this member of the "dumbest generation." If there is a link, pointing it out helps an argument.
Next is, "they don't store the information." Now, the article doesn't specify if this means storing it on the computer or in the ol' noggin, but either way it's the internet's fault for being an information conduit. Yes, the internet is notorious for "metooism," but this isn't unique to the internet. Lots of people above 30 "read something somewhere that said..." The internet is just another way of doing this. There is an assumption here that reading something then writing it in a research paper makes you remember. If fact, it's the same thing.
The next point puts responsibility on the adults who don't foster intellectual growth, allowing for self-esteem to supersede ability and allowing IMing at midnight. No, it's not because the adults in this country have abandoned both the inner-city and rural area schools in favor of rich, white neighborhoods. It's because of the rise of awareness of the student as an actual human being. Even in taking responsibility (albeit left-handedly), Bauerlein misdirects the information to serve him, instead of looking at the real problem: a sub-par educational system built on racism and elitism.
His eighth point? "Because they're young." Filling space, are we? Yes, we lack experience. That's a much more valid point than our news sources being habitually false and favoring celebrity trials over actual news. Even worse, the article is titled superlatively, yet you bolster it with a universal truism. This rather points out the problem with the article: there are no solutions. Not that there aren't any solutions to any of these problems. Rather, Bauerlein makes no attempt whatsoever to find them. I guess that doesn't sell books. It doesn't do anyone any good to attack another group of people and not even try to help. Is this generation a little slow? In some ways, yes. But our generation will make wonderful progress. Maybe it won't just be Americans helming the world anymore, but that may not be a bad thing. Bauerlein does not look at anything but the bad things, and complains about them. No fixes, just breaks. Well, in the words of my mother's generation, "If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Vantage Point
Last night, I saw Vantage Point, so I'll give you a quick run-down on whether or not you should see it. As a preface, it's worth seeing, but listen up.
There's this opening that feels like something out of a flick produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. You know how it is, all grayscale and mysterious and you just want to know more! You are then launched on a thrill-a-minute thrilling thrillride full of intrigue, twists and thrills!
Vantage Point is pretty entertaining, which should have been, more or less, what you expecting. The characters are at least fun to watch, like Superman secret service agent Dennis Quaid, cuddly Forrest Whittaker or compassion-rific President William hurt, just two parts of a reasonable well put-together cast. You don't get the sense these are real people, but they are at least they aren't obnoxious. Well, news media boss Sigourney Weaver is made of censor and fail, but other than that you don't hate yourself for caring about these people. The only character who gets any development is Quaid, who leaps from a shaky man in a suit to American badass superhero.
The whole film, while billed to be told from 8 perspectives, only serves to augment this one character's perception. A solid narrative tool, to be sure, but not as artistic or interesting as it could have been. You follow Quaid as he tries to foil the ill-defined geopolitical boogeymen in this one.
See, the crux of the film's tribulations is a plot to kill (?) the President. Supposedly. I'm not going to spoil the plot for you. You'll be able to spoil the plot for you about an hour or so into it. That's Vantage Point's problem: you know what's coming, which is not the best case scenario for a thrilling (remember the thrilling part?) tale of intrigue. The relatively by-the-numbers plot, bound together by, what, seven rewind transitions serves only to comment on how awesome America is, even in the face of adversity. Don't question who these people are or what they want; America Rules!
Even so, the obligatory car chase scene is adequately outrageous, the camera is, occasionally interestingly used, and it's overall an entertaining movie.
Worth seeing, but wait for the DVD. Or Blu-ray. Whatever you kids are watching these days.
There's this opening that feels like something out of a flick produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. You know how it is, all grayscale and mysterious and you just want to know more! You are then launched on a thrill-a-minute thrilling thrillride full of intrigue, twists and thrills!
Vantage Point is pretty entertaining, which should have been, more or less, what you expecting. The characters are at least fun to watch, like Superman secret service agent Dennis Quaid, cuddly Forrest Whittaker or compassion-rific President William hurt, just two parts of a reasonable well put-together cast. You don't get the sense these are real people, but they are at least they aren't obnoxious. Well, news media boss Sigourney Weaver is made of censor and fail, but other than that you don't hate yourself for caring about these people. The only character who gets any development is Quaid, who leaps from a shaky man in a suit to American badass superhero.
The whole film, while billed to be told from 8 perspectives, only serves to augment this one character's perception. A solid narrative tool, to be sure, but not as artistic or interesting as it could have been. You follow Quaid as he tries to foil the ill-defined geopolitical boogeymen in this one.
See, the crux of the film's tribulations is a plot to kill (?) the President. Supposedly. I'm not going to spoil the plot for you. You'll be able to spoil the plot for you about an hour or so into it. That's Vantage Point's problem: you know what's coming, which is not the best case scenario for a thrilling (remember the thrilling part?) tale of intrigue. The relatively by-the-numbers plot, bound together by, what, seven rewind transitions serves only to comment on how awesome America is, even in the face of adversity. Don't question who these people are or what they want; America Rules!
Even so, the obligatory car chase scene is adequately outrageous, the camera is, occasionally interestingly used, and it's overall an entertaining movie.
Worth seeing, but wait for the DVD. Or Blu-ray. Whatever you kids are watching these days.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
The Academy and What I Say (Because it Matters)
So I thought I'd share with you my reflections on some of the Oscar nominations. I'll let you know who's nominated, (or at least) who I want to win and who I think will win. I may also offer some justification, or force you to take my word as truth on its own, with no reasoning. That's how the internet works, anyway.
Best Picture:
Atonement
Juno
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood
Who I want to win:
Juno
Who will win:
No Country for Old Men
Two of this year's nominees have really long titles. That doesn't matter, I just thought I'd point it out. It is a little odd. So, this year's batch has some fine films, to be sure.
Michael Clayton was pretty impressive, with a narrative style growing in popularity. It was an important, moving, complex film. Even so, it was accessible and interesting. I liked it, but it didn't resonate with me like others on the list did.
No Country for Old Men was remarkable, with vibrant characters, disturbingly precise shooting (film, that is. Not guns.), and a style pushing the envelope. The acting was also top-notch; after all, Tommy Lee Jones. The Coen Brothers should be proud.
Even so, my pick for the year is Juno. A movie like this only comes along once in a very great while. Few screenplays are sa imaginative, poignant, clever, thought-provoking and just plain good. It's funny, but not flippant. It's powerful, but not overbearing. It's delightful, but not condescending. It's everything we miss about movies from years gone by, with the edge we need in modern cinema. It also has an outstanding soundtrack, emotionally grabbing you and augmenting the overall experience. Also of note, the acting is so well-done. Ellen Page is flawless in her titular role. You cannot tell where she ends and Juno begins. You fall in love with the character, the movie, you believe in love after seeing all sorts of love gone wrong. It's intelligent. It's good. It's important. Thanks, guys.
Seeing as how I've only seen two of the Best Actor noms, I'll only share thoughts on those two.
George Clooney is up for Michael Clayton. Viggo Mortensen for Eastern Promises. Now, George did a great job, and, out of the two, I think it's the more "Oscar friendly" role. I watched that movie and, well, honestly I was thinking about how great that scowl would have been when he was Batman. I give an audible sigh.
That said, I'd love to see Mr. Mortensen win. Eastern Promises was a terrific movie, and Viggo played his part with such precision. Also, he had the (forgive me) balls to do a whole fight scene nude. "I'm a driver. I go left, I go right, I go straight. I know nothing." He's just too damn cool.
For Actress, I want Ellen Page to win. I detailed earlier her work as Juno, and why it was so splendid. As for who will actually win, I cannot even begin to speculate.
The Academy and I should both pick Javier Bardem for his work in No Country for Old Men. He invested himself entirely into the role. He made a character who is pure evil, yet human in his depravity. He was vivid and believable, yet beyond the realm of human emotion. Bardem did such a great job just making you feel what the Coens wanted you to feel. I think he'll get it, and he did so very well.
Original Screenplay and Best Director are just the Best Picture category. Best adapted, though, should be (I think will be) No Country. Come on. Just accept it.
For animated, I want Persepolis to get it, as the graphic novel is a masterpiece of coming-of-age literature. It captures the humanity of a people oppressed, given from the point of view of a child who doesn't understand. It's this naive nature that makes so clear the ridiculous nature of hatred and war.
Ratatouille will win. It's American.
That's all I really care to write about. Not that cinematography, for instance, doesn't matter to me, but those categories generally get mopped up by the winners of the big ones. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed this look at the awards, and that your favorites win.
Take care.
Best Picture:
Atonement
Juno
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood
Who I want to win:
Juno
Who will win:
No Country for Old Men
Two of this year's nominees have really long titles. That doesn't matter, I just thought I'd point it out. It is a little odd. So, this year's batch has some fine films, to be sure.
Michael Clayton was pretty impressive, with a narrative style growing in popularity. It was an important, moving, complex film. Even so, it was accessible and interesting. I liked it, but it didn't resonate with me like others on the list did.
No Country for Old Men was remarkable, with vibrant characters, disturbingly precise shooting (film, that is. Not guns.), and a style pushing the envelope. The acting was also top-notch; after all, Tommy Lee Jones. The Coen Brothers should be proud.
Even so, my pick for the year is Juno. A movie like this only comes along once in a very great while. Few screenplays are sa imaginative, poignant, clever, thought-provoking and just plain good. It's funny, but not flippant. It's powerful, but not overbearing. It's delightful, but not condescending. It's everything we miss about movies from years gone by, with the edge we need in modern cinema. It also has an outstanding soundtrack, emotionally grabbing you and augmenting the overall experience. Also of note, the acting is so well-done. Ellen Page is flawless in her titular role. You cannot tell where she ends and Juno begins. You fall in love with the character, the movie, you believe in love after seeing all sorts of love gone wrong. It's intelligent. It's good. It's important. Thanks, guys.
Seeing as how I've only seen two of the Best Actor noms, I'll only share thoughts on those two.
George Clooney is up for Michael Clayton. Viggo Mortensen for Eastern Promises. Now, George did a great job, and, out of the two, I think it's the more "Oscar friendly" role. I watched that movie and, well, honestly I was thinking about how great that scowl would have been when he was Batman. I give an audible sigh.
That said, I'd love to see Mr. Mortensen win. Eastern Promises was a terrific movie, and Viggo played his part with such precision. Also, he had the (forgive me) balls to do a whole fight scene nude. "I'm a driver. I go left, I go right, I go straight. I know nothing." He's just too damn cool.
For Actress, I want Ellen Page to win. I detailed earlier her work as Juno, and why it was so splendid. As for who will actually win, I cannot even begin to speculate.
The Academy and I should both pick Javier Bardem for his work in No Country for Old Men. He invested himself entirely into the role. He made a character who is pure evil, yet human in his depravity. He was vivid and believable, yet beyond the realm of human emotion. Bardem did such a great job just making you feel what the Coens wanted you to feel. I think he'll get it, and he did so very well.
Original Screenplay and Best Director are just the Best Picture category. Best adapted, though, should be (I think will be) No Country. Come on. Just accept it.
For animated, I want Persepolis to get it, as the graphic novel is a masterpiece of coming-of-age literature. It captures the humanity of a people oppressed, given from the point of view of a child who doesn't understand. It's this naive nature that makes so clear the ridiculous nature of hatred and war.
Ratatouille will win. It's American.
That's all I really care to write about. Not that cinematography, for instance, doesn't matter to me, but those categories generally get mopped up by the winners of the big ones. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed this look at the awards, and that your favorites win.
Take care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
