« September 2004 | Main | January 2005 »

October 17, 2004

Easy Rider

I am not a fan of Easy Rider. Having just seen it, I wonder if I needed to have been alive in the 1960's and 1970's to fully appreciate it, but the point seems to me: show a bunch of stoner bikers crossing the country in the name of freedom. Then have The Man show up in the guise of a bunch of southern hicks to kill them, show most people are afraid of freedom, and make the protagonists heroes.

I was onboard for the road trip part, though I hope I wasn't expected to agree with what they wanted me to agree with. For example, the stupid hippy community was stupid and hippy. I was just watching those people thinking that every one of them was a waste of flesh, planting their stupid grain in dirt where it won't grow. At one point, Peter Fonda says that they will survive, but I think history has shown otherwise. The film doesn't go too far to glorify it, thank God.

Again though, I could go along surprisingly with the overall road trip, something I usually hate. And the characters are likable and well-acted (first and last movie I've ever though Dennis Hopper acted well in). Then Jack Nicholson shows up, and that's OK, except he gets killed by baseball bats and it's totally lame and cliched. It almost feels like Nicholson told them that he could only shoot for a couple days, they ran out of time, and then killed him off. Oh well.

As for what point this film makes, it comes off that you have two shitty choices: a life of debauchery (and by this I mean no evolution, forward movement, or growth) vs. a life of conformity. Both suck, though given the two extremes, I guess Peter Fonda's flag-clad leather jacket is closer to Americanism than the hicks of the south. But the metaphor is too easy.

In other words, I don't think this movie should be considered anything more than a Roger Corman motorcycle movie. It's got better cinematography and better acting, but the story and themes are pretty cliched. Maybe if this film came out in 1950, it'd pack more punch for me.

Posted by nick at 09:19 PM | Comments (0)

October 15, 2004

The Deer Hunter, Deliverance

I'm quite annoyed because the mailman shoved The Deer Hunter into my box, bending it enough to ruin the disc. So I got about halfway through the film, then had to shut it off and report it broken. Second copy finally came today, and I was able to finish it.

If someone described the film to me, it really wouldn't seem like the type of thing I'd like. The first hour delves into a bunch of hometown middle-America blue collar workers who work in a mill (played by De Niro, Walken, and John Cazale [Fredo of the Godfather] who was dying of bone cancer during the shoot]. The second hour deals with the disaster that was Vietnam, and the third as De Niro returns and tries to pick up the pieces.

The first hour of the film is more or less concerned with a single day or two, in fact - preping for a wedding, the wedding, the wedding party, and then a hunting trip. All seemingly insignificant events that are much needed in this film. Then we cut to De Niro, who is already in Nam in a POW camp with Walken. Funny how we have just spent an hour on an "unimportant" wedding, then skipped over travel, training, and battle only to arrive at the prison camp. But really, this is what matters: seeing the everyday life of middle America kids and then watching it get smashed to pieces in an underwater cage. The many Russian Roulette matches are classic, and supposedly upped the number of such deaths in the US after the film's release.

Overall, a great film, and I think it's funny that director Michael Cimono's next film, Heaven's Gate, is totally unmentioned on the DVD. Considered one of the greatest disasters in film history, it was the film that put United Artists out of business. Way to go, Mike!

I also watched Deliverance, finally, and while I enjoyed it, I think the hype kind of ruined it. I was very surprised to see both the banjo scene and the rape scene occur within the first half hour of the film. Both are, er, classic in their own ways. And the cinematography was wonderful - lots of earthy greens, browns, and whites. Ultimately, though, I'm not a huge fan. They say when you write a screenplay, each event should be more devastating than the last, and this script seems to follow that to a T. But on the other hand, it almost comes off as mechanical. The bad just keeps on getting worse and worse until ... they are faced with a moral dilemma, and Jon Voight gets to go home and have nightmares. It was good ... I just suppose I already had the movie in my head. And that's a tough standard to live up to.

Posted by nick at 12:22 AM | Comments (0)

October 11, 2004

Primer

I frequently say that the fundamental necessity for any film is first and foremost, ABOVE ALL ELSE (can I stress this anymore?!) a good story. And in this sense, Primer, which opened this past weekend, is a very interesting case. Most films are lacking in their story. With Primer, a very rich story is in place - it is how it is told that raises questions.

Primer is the story of two white-collar engineers who live in a random suburb and spend most of their time tinkering in their garage. Then, one day, they build a box (which, I have since learned, is intended to remove an object placed inside from Earth's gravitational pull - but you don't need to know this). Soon, they learn that the box is capable of much, much more than that. It is, in effect, a time machine. Soon, they build a bigger box. Then they build two boxes. Then they put boxes inside boxes.

I very much enjoyed Primer on the whole, but I don't think I could defend this at the end of the day. Not that I need to. Even 30 years after 2001 came out, people still complain that they don't get it, that it's too technical, or that it asks too much of the viewer. For the person with these types of complaints, Primer would probably make their head explode. The film opens with a lot of meetings between the two main characters as they talk about their invention. The dialogue is supposedly real, and intriguing if you can follow along, boring if you can't. Those that can't (including my roommate) walked out of the movie, and that is justifiable. I'm quite sure the director realized this would happen.

But once the film takes off, it opens up an infinite web of possibilities. It allows your imagination to go wild with ideas, and this is in part why it's such a great film. My theory on the strange love people have for Donnie Darko is that it's 1) a mystery and 2) a mystery without a conclusion - meaning that whatever you want to be right is right, except that it's always possible that you're wrong. My problem with Donnie Darko is that the logic is very facile and pointless at the end of the day. In Primer, it's the opposite. The mystery is open-ended and yet closed, and the logic is extremely intense and fascinating. As a story, it's somewhat like taken Momento and rather than presenting it backwards, putting all the scenes in a bag, shaking it up, and letting the contents fall out. Sort of.

Everything in the film serves the story - the characters, the acting, the cinematography, etc. This could be successfully argued as a downside to the film, but again, it feld like it melded with the story well. And because the story was so rich, anything that would normally stand out as lacking in another film can be ignored here. The mystery is one for the modern age, and I've been thinking about it ever since.

Go see the film. Really, go see it, but make sure you see it at a theater where another movie you'd like to see is playing. That way, if you go in and realize the film isn't for you, you can walk out. If you like it, you can thank me later. This is the most serious and realistic time travel movie you've ever seen. Me, I would've done it differently. With Primer on the hyper-realism side and Back to the Future on the escapist-fantasy side, I would have been somewhere in the middle. But that's me, and I have a lot of respect for the director, who shot the film for $7,000 on Super 16.

I can't promise you'll like it, but I enjoyed it very much.

Posted by nick at 03:19 AM | Comments (0)

October 08, 2004

M*A*S*H*

I'm not going to write M*A*S*H* with all those little stars for the rest of this entry. I would if I felt it deserved it, but it doesn't.

My feelings on the movie are mixed (as many critics' seem to be). For the positive, I think that a lot of the performances are wonderful, and this is probably the only film I've ever seen with Donald Sutherland in which I've enjoyed his performance (as Hawk-Eye Pierce with the trademark whistle). Many of the other characters play their performances as memorably, and part of the success is that they treat this farce on a level of reality despite the general goofiness.

The film feels like a series of situation comedies strung together, and it is no question why it eventually led to a successful TV show. You could probably split the film into four 30 minute episodes quite easily. As a comedy, it is straight Altman. Lots of stuff that was clearly improved, a very very very loose structure, some funny parts and a lot more jokes that simply crash and burn. My favorite Altman movies are the ones where he sticks to a set structure and dialogue, and puts his genious into that. I loathe Nashville and the only saving grace for MASH were its performances and comedy.

The movie, as you probably know, ends with a football game for the last 20 minutes. I realize that back in the day, this was probably cutting edge satire - go to see a war movie, and the part of the film where the chief battle should occur is occupied by a football game between different army units. Satire or not, it's a lame ending that doesn't bookend anything. In fact, the movie doesn't move forward at all. It's simply amusing situation after amusing situation. Again, maybe this is cutting social satire for the time - go away to war, and end up boozing and fucking your way through it. It's an amusing joke, but one that doesn't require 2 hours to tell.

There are some natural comparisons to be made. Catch-22 (the book) is far superior in every way, because there is just as much general zaniness, but there is also structure and forward movement. Whereas Pierce is the same guy from beginning to end doing zany screwball antics at the camp, Yossarian changes very much over the course of the book. And in the end, Catch-22 delivers a much stronger message about war with just as much (if not more) insanity.

Apocalypse Now is a film that readily comes to mind, and one that I believe is far superior. The zaniness and insanity is more subdued, but the same point Altman is making is made much more forcefully with Apocalypse Now. Dr. Strangelove also has the same wackiness as MASH, but with an actual story and structure which make for a much better movie.

On its own, MASH is a film with great performances and a lot of what comedians would describe as bits set on the backdrop of the Korean war. The philosophy behind the film, while harsh, is also very shallow, which is unfortunate because so much more could have been done.

As a professor of mine once said, Altman has made about 40 movies, and about 3 of them are good. My experience is that which three you think are good depends on the story. I like Gosford Park (hated it the first time I saw it), The Player, and Three Women. The first two have a required tighter structure; the third is pretty out there, but then again, I'm a fan of Persona and Mulholland Drive.

Oh yes. And I despise the Altman zoom.

Posted by nick at 11:32 AM | Comments (1)

October 07, 2004

Rashomon, All The President's Men

Rashomon is a wonderful film, and the fact that everyone is aware that it is a wonderful film makes me not want to write about it, because I feel like there's absolutely nothing new that could possibly be said after half a century of theorists and critics writing about it. It really shows how a relative storyline can only be effective if it serves some sort of underlying theme. Hero, the 2002 Chinese film that just got released, is a failure in my mind because the whole "what is real, what is not" is just a stupid jigsaw puzzle. You might as well not watch the movie till the very end, when the "correct" version of events is finally revealed. Whereas in Rashomon, each story serves a purpose, a greater theme, a more important cause. Each character tells his version for a reason, that all comes back to a central point elaborated upon at the very end. Excellent stuff.

*****/***** (five of five stars)

All The President's Men - I saw this because I'm getting geared up to see Primer this weekend, and the director/writer says over and over in interviews that he was most influenced by this movie starring Redford and Hoffman. I've never read the famous book, but the film does a great version of taking you through their journalistic pursuits at a whirlwind speed. I see what the Primer director is after - event after event without letting up, without giving you a chance to really stop and breathe and think about what's going on, and that could either be good or bad. See, when a movie is based primarily on reality, I often wonder why a narrative fiction was chosen over a documentary. Because this is so close to recent events and the truth that accompanies them, it's hard to imagine that everything took place exactly as presented. And because the film doesn't do much to imbibe it with any philosophical deeper levels that would come with a fictional account, it's mostly a historical fiction piece with event after event. The acting was great, and some of the scenes were cool - who doesn't remember Deep Throat in the parking lot? The ending threw me a bit - just ending with a bunch of newspaper articles being typed up rather than showing the events. I have a feeling that the director feels that we already know the ending to the story, and don't need to see it. But I think we do need to see it - especially us young 'uns who weren't around to remember it! I want to see Woodward and Bernstein have their come-uppance; I want to see Nixon get impeached through newsreel footage; I want to see them win the Pulitzer! I understand the decision, but I'm not big on it.

**** / ***** (four out of five stars)

Next up: Mash, The Deer Hunter, and Deliverance (hell, I just don't think it's right that so many people reference scenes out of this movie without having seen it!!).

Posted by nick at 02:31 PM | Comments (0)

October 05, 2004

No Grad School

Tonight, I went to a function at NYU for the Volvo film contest winners (basically the same as the Coke contest, only longer films and more money), and I met a number of different people who gave me great advice on grad school. I am very confident that I could put together a kick-ass application and get accepted to NYU, and maybe some others. But at the same time, it's just not for me. School is great for people who need school - but I've never needed school to do what I do. From ventriloquism to filmmaking to cartooning to writing - nearly everything I've learned has been on my own initiative. I'm a self-starter, and the worst stuff I've ever done is when I've been fulfilling exercises for a class. God, I have that stuff locked away never to be seen again.

But PKB had a great comment, and it's one I need to stick by - make sure I'm not in the same place next year that I'm in now. Make sure I've accomplished, produced something that puts me in a better position. Writing costs nothing, of course, and I should have at least a few scripts by then. I'd also like to produce two short films of differing genres. Basically, I need to make a list of expectations for next October, then do everything I can to meet those expectations. And I can do it - I'm absolutely sure I can. Real life starts now, so time to make the best of it.

Posted by nick at 12:53 AM | Comments (0)

October 03, 2004

Four Movies

I've seen four movies over the last few days. I just started up my NetFlix account again, so that accounts for two of them.

Central Station - After going to see Motorcycle Diaries with my boss and listening to the director and actors do a Q and A after, I decided that I really needed to see the film which he is best known for. Central Station is a road movie, and I must say that I generally hate hate hate road movies. There is too much room to put in a lot of shit that doesn't actually matter, and the character growth usually takes place in a few choice moments, regardless of many other scenes that have proceeded. I wasn't into Central Station at first, but the acting of the female protagonist is just too perfect not to pull you in before too long. I can't believe she lost the Oscar to a certain actress in a certain movie with Ben Affleck. Travesty!! The movie really comes together as you learn more about the woman's personality, and see her trying to come out of the shell she has holed herself up in. The last moments are, of course, entirely unpredictable and very sad. I enjoyed it overall, and I really loved the constant blue skies with puffy white clouds, which reminds me of a painter whose name slips my mind.

Touch of Evil - I'm not a huge Orson Welles fan. Years ago, it was a travesty for any film student to admit that. Then it was commonplace. Now it's somewhere in the middle. I can watch Citizen Kane about once a year, but that's all for me. I honestly think that many of the innovations had very little to do with film theory and everything to do with a man who was very, very good at thinking outside the box. After everyone went crazy over it, he realized that he could stuff a boatload of theory into all his stylistic choices, leading to such movies as Touch of Evil. Certain scenes are brilliant, some performances are memorable, but overall I find the film to be convolluted and meandering. Stylistic as hell, sure, but something feels missing from it. Not that I'll ever speak ill of the opening 2 minutes!

Shaun of the Dead - Hilarious, funny, great stuff and exactly what I was hoping for, and a little more. The end 20 minutes or so gets a little too action-ey over comedy, which prevents it from being totally perfect, but a great little romp through zombie land. This of course is akin to Abbott and Costello Meet (Frankenstein/Dracula/etc.) in signaling the end of the relevance of the zombie movie once and for all. The best that anyone can get in the future will be homages (already started with the Dawn of the Dead remake), and while 28 Days Later was neat, I'm not a huge fan. Zombies have been done to death. Time to make up some new monsters.

The Forgotten - This movie is so ludicrously stupid EXCEPT for one of the coolest, freakiest special effects I've seen in a while. There are aliens involved, of course, and the manner in which they suck people into outer space - literally, right off the ground! - was freakin' scary as fuck. I think it had to do with the fact that there is simply no way to stop it when it happens. We as people are completely defenseless, and though the logic behind it was totally stupid, it was still scary. Also, the lead alien's face was sort of scary.

Rashomon next. I can't believe it's taken me so long to see this movie.

Posted by nick at 11:44 PM | Comments (0)