Saturday, January 16, 2016
Oscars So White
I don't want to write this post, but I feel that I have an obligation to offer my perspective, as someone who has been an avid award show watcher for over two decades, and has been keeping an eye on diversity issues in Hollywood for nearly as long. You may have heard about the brewing controversy over this year's Academy Award nominations. For the second year in a row, all twenty of the acting nominations went to white actors.
Yes, this is a problem. I'm going to tell you why.
Let's get a few things out of the way first, though. Yes, there are plenty of non-white nominees in the other categories. However, we're focusing on the acting nominations because those are the most visible, high profile races, and the ones that most viewers actually care about. With all due respect to Alejandro G. Iñárritu and El Chivo, nobody pays much attention to Directing or Cinematography outside of the filmmaking community, because your average moviegoer has no idea who is standing behind the camera 99% of the time. But Leonardo DiCaprio possibly getting an Oscar this year? Suddenly, a lot of people care.
Second, it should be stressed that the beef isn't with the individual actors themselves, but what they represent. We can argue all day about whether Bryan Cranston deserves to be up there on the Best Actor nomination list over Will Smith or Michael B. Jordan, but what's important is that Cranston was picked by an overwhelmingly older, white, insular Academy membership. Also, the financiers and filmmakers involved with "Trumbo" decided to make a biopic about him where the only minority actor plays Trumbo's hostile prison bunkmate, and the distributors decided to push it as an awards contender. This is absolutely a systemic problem, not the fault of any one person or studio.
Still, the lack of non-white contenders can be traced directly to a lack of support for films featuring non-white talent. We had some potential contenders this year, including "Sicario," "Creed," "Beasts of No Nation," "Concussion," "Tangerine," and "Straight Out of Compton." However, campaigning for awards takes a lot of effort and politicking, and none of these movies managed to gather the right combination of critical, popular, and industry support necessary to get ahead in the Oscar race. There are plenty of theories as to why this happened - I know a lot of people cared and a lot of people tried - but what's undeniable are the results. No black, Latino, Asian, Middle-Eastern, Native American, or otherwise non-white actor is in contention this year.
This galls so much because we know the Academy can do better. It's not like we haven't been through this whole controversy before. The most diverse set of acting nominations I've ever seen were back in 2007, when the nods went to twelve white, five black, two Hispanic, and one Asian actor. That was the year of "Babel," Dreamgirls," "The Pursuit of Happyness," and "The Last King of Scotland." Notable contenders that year also included "Pan's Labyrinth," "Letters From Iwo Jima," and "Apocalypto." Now how did we go from that to two Oscars in a row of all-white acting nominees? You have to go back to 1997 to find the most recent all-white acting nominations before 2014. For two in a row? You have to go back to 1979 and 1980.
To the Academy's credit, they are trying. They know that this is a problem. Academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs, the organization's first African-American leader elected in 2013, has expressed her disappointment with yesterday's results. This year Chris Rock is hosting the ceremony and Spike Lee was honored at the Governors Awards a few months ago. However, there's only so much that the Academy can do when non-white contenders are either not getting the support they need for nominations, or simply aren't there at all.
I've noticed that we're missing films that feature non-white actors in smaller roles, which is where their nominations in the past usually came from. Instead, "The Big Short" essentially wrote out the major female and minority characters that featured in their original source material. "Spotlight," "Brooklyn," and "Bridge of Spies" have these big ensembles with no minority actors in sight. In the Best Picture nominees where they do appear, like "The Martian," "Room," "The Revenant," and "Mad Max: Fury Road," the parts are tiny, perfunctory.
I have my own theories about why we're seeing such a sudden shift. Most Oscar films are midrange, midsize films, and they're disappearing as the business changes. Executives are worried about marketability, especially overseas, and their first instinct is to hide the black guy on the poster. But whatever the reason, please let's recognize that this is a problem. That's the only way we can even start to try and fix it.
---
Friday, January 15, 2016
My Favorite Peter Greenaway Film
"A Zed & Two Noughts," or "ZOO," is one of Peter Greenaway's earliest films, and the one to really cement his particular style. Each shot is elaborately composed, always static or nearly so, always brimming over with meaningful symbols and references to Greenaway's favorite artists. "Zed" includes a character named Venus De Milo (Frances Barber), and recreations of Vermeer paintings. Most importantly, this is the first time that Greenaway would collaborate with cinematographer Sacha Vierny. The film also features my favorite compositions by Greenaway's longtime composer Michael Nyman.
"Zed" is a study of obsession, conforming to a very severe, formal set of self-imposed rules. The story concerns a pair of twin zoologists, Oswald and Oliver Deuce (Brian Deacon and Eric Deacon), who lose their wives in the film's opening moments to a car accident. The driver, Alba Bewick (Andréa Ferréol), survives but loses a leg. Oswald and Oliver become obsessed with death and decay, creating time-lapse films of various animals decomposing, starting small and then working their way up the food chain. They become romantically involved with Alba, one after the other. They also fixate on snails, on black and white animals, on symmetry, on fine art, and on each other. The decomposition films come at regular intervals, accompanied by frenzied violin music.
Peter Greenaway's films always require some degree of decoding, but they all share similar elements. The stories always involve an obsession or unchecked passion that runs amok and leads to destruction. The visuals are always far more important to the storytelling than the dialogue. His mise-en-scene is all based on beautifully lit tableaux, the shots are long, and the characters larger than life. Greenway is absolutely maniacal when it comes to the fine details. Notice the female lead's name, Alba, is almost a palindrome, except that it has that pesky "l," comparable to the lone leg that prevents Alba herself from being perfectly symmetrical like her doting lovers. Everything in a Greenaway film reflects the central themes, in this case symmetry, order, death, and decomposition.
It's those decomposition films that stayed with me the most, the way that they suggested that death are not static and quiet, but rather a tumultuous, violent process as the bodies are broken down and disintegrated. Sped up by the camera, they are positively lively as the rot and bacteria do their work. None of the characters here are particularly memorable by themselves - the twins are barely distinguishable and blandly handsome - but the way in which they are placed in each scene, and the way each of them gradually comes to fulfill their function within the elaborate system constructed within the film's universe, is fascinating. Watching the three leads all whirl deeper and deeper into madness, losing themselves in their shared vision of being one, perfect, symmetrical, decaying, organism, preserved on film as the final artistic and scientific culmination of their grand design, is as lovely as it is insane.
The roots of Peter Greenaway's films are the old masters of traditional painting, illustration, sculpture, and architecture, making him a fairly unique figure in the cinema. His films are ambitiously conceived, play entirely by their own rules, and are utterly fearless in execution. Greenaway has no use for the usual conventions of commercial filmmaking, and happily includes as much nudity and vulgarity as he believes is appropriate to get his vision across - all presented with such a painterly eye, you'd never think for a moment that it was meant to be titillating. Shocking and provocative, yes, but not titillating. His films are Art with a capital A, without apology, and there aren't many directors that can say that anymore.
At the same time, his work is still consistently entertaining. I love that he references obscure artists constantly, tackles all kinds of extreme content like cannibalism and rape, and makes it all look so gorgeous. I love his sense of humor too, as sick as it is. The final sequence of "Zed," where the twins collaborate on their final film to the tune of "Teddy Bear's Picnic," had me grinning at the macabre whimsy. Greenaway's films have gotten less audience-friendly over the years, and more obscure, but I'm happy every time I've heard he's made a new one.
And that Michael Nyman score really is to die for.
---
The Falls (1980)
"Zed" is a study of obsession, conforming to a very severe, formal set of self-imposed rules. The story concerns a pair of twin zoologists, Oswald and Oliver Deuce (Brian Deacon and Eric Deacon), who lose their wives in the film's opening moments to a car accident. The driver, Alba Bewick (Andréa Ferréol), survives but loses a leg. Oswald and Oliver become obsessed with death and decay, creating time-lapse films of various animals decomposing, starting small and then working their way up the food chain. They become romantically involved with Alba, one after the other. They also fixate on snails, on black and white animals, on symmetry, on fine art, and on each other. The decomposition films come at regular intervals, accompanied by frenzied violin music.
Peter Greenaway's films always require some degree of decoding, but they all share similar elements. The stories always involve an obsession or unchecked passion that runs amok and leads to destruction. The visuals are always far more important to the storytelling than the dialogue. His mise-en-scene is all based on beautifully lit tableaux, the shots are long, and the characters larger than life. Greenway is absolutely maniacal when it comes to the fine details. Notice the female lead's name, Alba, is almost a palindrome, except that it has that pesky "l," comparable to the lone leg that prevents Alba herself from being perfectly symmetrical like her doting lovers. Everything in a Greenaway film reflects the central themes, in this case symmetry, order, death, and decomposition.
It's those decomposition films that stayed with me the most, the way that they suggested that death are not static and quiet, but rather a tumultuous, violent process as the bodies are broken down and disintegrated. Sped up by the camera, they are positively lively as the rot and bacteria do their work. None of the characters here are particularly memorable by themselves - the twins are barely distinguishable and blandly handsome - but the way in which they are placed in each scene, and the way each of them gradually comes to fulfill their function within the elaborate system constructed within the film's universe, is fascinating. Watching the three leads all whirl deeper and deeper into madness, losing themselves in their shared vision of being one, perfect, symmetrical, decaying, organism, preserved on film as the final artistic and scientific culmination of their grand design, is as lovely as it is insane.
The roots of Peter Greenaway's films are the old masters of traditional painting, illustration, sculpture, and architecture, making him a fairly unique figure in the cinema. His films are ambitiously conceived, play entirely by their own rules, and are utterly fearless in execution. Greenaway has no use for the usual conventions of commercial filmmaking, and happily includes as much nudity and vulgarity as he believes is appropriate to get his vision across - all presented with such a painterly eye, you'd never think for a moment that it was meant to be titillating. Shocking and provocative, yes, but not titillating. His films are Art with a capital A, without apology, and there aren't many directors that can say that anymore.
At the same time, his work is still consistently entertaining. I love that he references obscure artists constantly, tackles all kinds of extreme content like cannibalism and rape, and makes it all look so gorgeous. I love his sense of humor too, as sick as it is. The final sequence of "Zed," where the twins collaborate on their final film to the tune of "Teddy Bear's Picnic," had me grinning at the macabre whimsy. Greenaway's films have gotten less audience-friendly over the years, and more obscure, but I'm happy every time I've heard he's made a new one.
And that Michael Nyman score really is to die for.
---
What I've Seen - Peter Greenaway
The Falls (1980)
The Draughtsman's Contract (1982)
A Zed & Two Noughts (1985)
The Belly of an Architect (1987)
Drowning by Numbers (1988)
The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1989)
Prospero's Books (1991)
The Baby of Mâcon (1993)
The Pillow Book (1996)
The Tulse Luper Suitcases (2005)
Nightwatching (2007)
A Zed & Two Noughts (1985)
The Belly of an Architect (1987)
Drowning by Numbers (1988)
The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1989)
Prospero's Books (1991)
The Baby of Mâcon (1993)
The Pillow Book (1996)
The Tulse Luper Suitcases (2005)
Nightwatching (2007)
Rembrandt's J'Accuse (2008)
Eisenstein in Guanajuato (2015)
Eisenstein in Guanajuato (2015)
---
Thursday, January 14, 2016
The 2016 Oscar Nominations
They're here! They're finally here! Movie nerds and awards prognosticators get to see if their predictions/worst fears were correct, and the Oscar race can kick into full gear. Today brought some good surprises and some glaring omissions. Ready to dive in?
Let's look at the Best Picture nominations first. Eight spots made room for "Bridge of Spies" and "Brooklyn," but left out "Carol," and "Inside Out." Longer shots "Steve Jobs," "The Hateful 8," and "Sicario" also didn't make the cut. There's a lot of giddiness from the fanboys over the fact that "Mad Max: Fury Road" made it in, and George Miller got a Best Director nod to boot. Remember to thank the critics, kids, who gave the campaign so much momentum by heaping it with major critics' awards earlier in the season. I'm also happy to see "Brooklyn," which along with "Room" represent the smaller, less flashy titles from unfamiliar names. More on all the Best Picture nominees later in the season, after I've caught up on the last few I haven't seen.
In the acting categories, Best Actor and Best Actress came out about exactly as expected. I thought Tom Hanks might be in over Matt Damon or Bryan Cranston, but not this year, apparently. Will Smith and Johnny Depp will also have to sit this round out. Leonardo DiCaprio will probably win Best Actor, and I'll be rooting for Brie Larson or Saoirse Ronan for Best Actress. Best Supporting Actress also shook out the way I expected it to. Rooney Mara really should be a co-lead with Cate Blanchett for "Carol," but the Supporting race isn't going to be easy for her with Winslet and Vikander in the mix.
Best Supporting Actor, however is an absolute disaster - this category seems to get worse every year. I can understand Stallone for "Creed" and Mark Ruffalo for "Spotlight." Mark Rylance has been the one major lock since the beginning. But what on earth is Christian Bale doing there for "The Big Short"? The standout performance from that movie was Steve Carrell, who I wouldn't even consider to be in contention. And fine, Tom Hardy was pretty good in "The Revenant," but not as good as Benicio Del Toro in "Sicario," Paul Dano, in "Love & Mercy," Jacob Tremblay in "Room," and Michael Shannon in "99 Homes." Maybe he's better than Idris Elba in "Beasts of No Nation." Maybe.
On to the major Best Picture predictor categories. I'm honestly surprised to see Adam McKay up for Best Director for "The Big Short," since some of his choices were so bizarre. He edged out both Ridley Scott for "The Martian" and Steven Spielberg for "Bridge of Spies," diminishing those films' chances. It looks like it's going to come down to a fight between "The Revenant" and "Spotlight." The Best Editing nods are the same, notably missing "Room," which went to "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" instead. Best Cinematography, however, only has two nominees in common with the Best Picture nominees. Roger Deakins is up for "Sicario," his fourth nomination in a row, and it's likely that he'll lose to Emmanuel Lubezki for the third time in a row.
The Best Screenplay categories always offer an interesting look at potential alternates in the Best Picture category. "Carol" and "Inside Out" fill in some of the extra spots there as expected, but we also have "Straight Out of Compton," with its only nomination, and "Ex Machina," which also got one for Visual Effects. "The Revenant" and "Mad Max: Fury Road" cleaned up in the technical award nominations, giving them the highest nomination totals with twelve and ten respectively. Among the non-Best Picture nominees, "Carol" had the highest total with six, right ahead of "Star Wars," which racked up five nominees, mostly in the technical categories that you'd expect.
Now a nice surprise is the Best Animated Feature Film race. I was expecting the nominees to follow the Annie Awards, since they share similar voting groups. However, instead of "The Good Dinosaur" and "The Peanuts Movie," we have international titles "Boy and the World" and "When Marnie Was There." The former comes from Brazil's Alê Abreu, and the latter is from Studio Ghibli. Those two are traditionally animated, and "Anomalisa" and "Shaun the Sheep" are stop motion, leaving "Inside Out" the only CGI feature.
Over in the Documentary category, both of the controversial titles, Michael Moore's "Where to Invade Next" and the Church of Scientology expose "Going Clear" failed to make the cut. Best Foreign Language Film is full of unfamiliar titles - there was some grumbling earlier in the season that "The Assassin" and other favorites were left off the short list - but that's par for the course. To be blunt, it hasn't been a good year for foreign films, and there were only a few that anybody was gunning for to begin with.
It's interesting to look at the films that initially seemed to have great prospects, but people cooled on. "Steve Jobs" only ended up with two acting nominations. No Screenplay nod for Aaron Sorkin. Ditto "The Hateful 8." Nobody seems to be in the mood for Tarantino's antics this year. "The Danish Girl" did slightly better, but is almost totally out of contention in all its categories. I'm very surprised that "Inside Out" didn't make the Best Picture list. Also, I would have pegged "The Martian" as our frontrunner a few weeks ago, but the momentum seems to be shifting to "The Revenant."
Personally I'm disappointed to see the shut outs of "Love & Mercy" - not even a Best Song nod, in what remains the Oscars' consistently worst category - along with "Beasts of No Nation" and "99 Homes." "Crimson Peak" should have gotten a nod for Art Direction at the very least. And every single acting nominee is white. Chris Rock is hosting, and he's going to notice. You know he will.
Still, this isn't a bad year as far as these things go. "Ex Machina" came away with two nominations. "Sicario" landed three. And they didn't forget Don Hertzfeld's "The World of Tomorrow" or Richard Williams' "Prologue." I can't look at that Animated Feature category and not grin. The Oscars will air on February 28th. Let's go watch some movies.
---
Monday, January 11, 2016
"Fargo," Year Two
Minor spoilers ahead.
Let's get the usual questions out of the way first. Yes, the second season of "Fargo" was very good. However, I didn't find it as strong or as satisfying a watch as the first season. I liked the period setting, pretty much the entire cast of characters, and the greater emphasis on dark humor. However, I found the references to the Coen brothers films, most prominently "No Country for Old Men" and "Miller's Crossing," much messier and less effective than the ones used in the first season. And while I appreciate the attempts to incorporate more ambitious themes, and challenging conceits, I found the execution pretty bumpy.
But when the show was great, it was great. Based on a brief anecdote from one of the characters in the first season, this year we go back to Fargo in 1979, where the Gerhardt crime family, led by matriarch Floyd Gerhardt (Jean Smart) and her sons Dodd (Jeffrey Donovan) and Bear (Angus Sampson), anticipate a coming clash with the the agents of the encroaching Kansas City syndicate, specifically the ambitious Mike Milligan (Bokeem Woodbine). State Trooper Lou Solverson (Patrick Wilson) and his father-in-law Sheriff Hank Larsson (Ted Danson) become involved when investigating a shooting that appears to be connected. Also key to the story are a hairdresser, Peggy Blumquist (Kirsten Dunst) and her husband Ed (Jesse Plemmons), a butcher, who blunder unwittingly into the volatile situation and get in way over their heads.
I love the whole cast. The season is stuffed full of such strong, memorable performances, including smaller turns from Brad Garrett, Kieran Culkin, Nick Offerman, Adam Arkin, and Bruce Campbell, who pops in briefly to play Ronald Reagan. However, I want to point out some MVPs: Rachel Keller as self-destructive Simone Gerhardt, whose teenage rebellion has terrible consequences, Cristin Milioti as Lou's cancer-afflicted, but endlessly brave wife Betsy, Zahn McClarnon as the Gerhardt's deeply damaged Native American enforcer Hanzee, Bokeem Woodbine as loquacious, conniving gangster Mike Milligan, and last but certainly not least, Kirsten Dunst as Peggy Blumquist, who turns an accident into a snowballing maelstrom of violence and horror in her bid to escape a boring life.
For the majority of this season of "Fargo," I was enthralled, willing to let the little flaws and weaker scenes go as the momentum kept building and building toward what I expected to be a terrific climax. The little character portraits were solid, and quickly moving events forced the large cast into some great combinations. The references to Albert Camus, Ronald Reagan, and UFOs added some fun thematic touches. And it was impossible to predict what was going to happen next, with so many moving parts and so many different agendas at play. Aside from the Solverson family, it was hard to know who to root for, as alliances and loyalties could change in the blink of an eye. There were some tremendous episodes in the middle of the season, culminating in "Loplop," where the Blumquists end up in the middle of an absurd and hysterical hostage situation.
Once again the production values are very high, full of great little period details and bleakly gorgeous cinematography. A recurring motif is the use of split-screens, putting as many as four different storylines in front of us at the same time to help give a sense of where everyone is in relation to each other, or splitting off Ed and Peggy into their own boxes despite them being literally right next to each other, to show that their viewpoints being divergent. I found the writing had its ups and downs, but I really admire Noah Hawley's ability to mine moments of greatness from smaller, intimate scenes that look so inconsequential at first glance. It really gives the quieter characters like Betsy and Hank their time to shine.
However, I found the last two episodes disappointing. I'm still trying to work out why, since they delivered on pretty much all of what the preceding ones promised. We had the big showdown and all the major characters met their appropriate fates. But is all seemed to go by so quickly, with so little time to react to big events. I was left wondering what happened to some of the minor characters, and whether maybe Hawley had decided to leave later events for a follow-up season. So much feels unresolved, uneasy, and anti-climactic, with a few odd bits of look-at-the-bigger-picture exposition tacked on at the end, to explain away dangling plot threads and to justify the looming portents of the approaching Reagan era.
Maybe that was the point, following along in the same vein as that famously sudden and unconventional ending from "No Country for Old Men," that refused to give the audience the closure it wanted. However, even if this is the case, the execution of the final episodes of "Fargo" still felt off. And I can't help thinking of all the other little scenes that didn't quite work, strewn throughout the season. I got a lot of enjoyment out of this year of "Fargo," and it certainly stands on its own separately from the first season, but this one had some substantial flaws that should be taken into account.
---
Let's get the usual questions out of the way first. Yes, the second season of "Fargo" was very good. However, I didn't find it as strong or as satisfying a watch as the first season. I liked the period setting, pretty much the entire cast of characters, and the greater emphasis on dark humor. However, I found the references to the Coen brothers films, most prominently "No Country for Old Men" and "Miller's Crossing," much messier and less effective than the ones used in the first season. And while I appreciate the attempts to incorporate more ambitious themes, and challenging conceits, I found the execution pretty bumpy.
But when the show was great, it was great. Based on a brief anecdote from one of the characters in the first season, this year we go back to Fargo in 1979, where the Gerhardt crime family, led by matriarch Floyd Gerhardt (Jean Smart) and her sons Dodd (Jeffrey Donovan) and Bear (Angus Sampson), anticipate a coming clash with the the agents of the encroaching Kansas City syndicate, specifically the ambitious Mike Milligan (Bokeem Woodbine). State Trooper Lou Solverson (Patrick Wilson) and his father-in-law Sheriff Hank Larsson (Ted Danson) become involved when investigating a shooting that appears to be connected. Also key to the story are a hairdresser, Peggy Blumquist (Kirsten Dunst) and her husband Ed (Jesse Plemmons), a butcher, who blunder unwittingly into the volatile situation and get in way over their heads.
I love the whole cast. The season is stuffed full of such strong, memorable performances, including smaller turns from Brad Garrett, Kieran Culkin, Nick Offerman, Adam Arkin, and Bruce Campbell, who pops in briefly to play Ronald Reagan. However, I want to point out some MVPs: Rachel Keller as self-destructive Simone Gerhardt, whose teenage rebellion has terrible consequences, Cristin Milioti as Lou's cancer-afflicted, but endlessly brave wife Betsy, Zahn McClarnon as the Gerhardt's deeply damaged Native American enforcer Hanzee, Bokeem Woodbine as loquacious, conniving gangster Mike Milligan, and last but certainly not least, Kirsten Dunst as Peggy Blumquist, who turns an accident into a snowballing maelstrom of violence and horror in her bid to escape a boring life.
For the majority of this season of "Fargo," I was enthralled, willing to let the little flaws and weaker scenes go as the momentum kept building and building toward what I expected to be a terrific climax. The little character portraits were solid, and quickly moving events forced the large cast into some great combinations. The references to Albert Camus, Ronald Reagan, and UFOs added some fun thematic touches. And it was impossible to predict what was going to happen next, with so many moving parts and so many different agendas at play. Aside from the Solverson family, it was hard to know who to root for, as alliances and loyalties could change in the blink of an eye. There were some tremendous episodes in the middle of the season, culminating in "Loplop," where the Blumquists end up in the middle of an absurd and hysterical hostage situation.
Once again the production values are very high, full of great little period details and bleakly gorgeous cinematography. A recurring motif is the use of split-screens, putting as many as four different storylines in front of us at the same time to help give a sense of where everyone is in relation to each other, or splitting off Ed and Peggy into their own boxes despite them being literally right next to each other, to show that their viewpoints being divergent. I found the writing had its ups and downs, but I really admire Noah Hawley's ability to mine moments of greatness from smaller, intimate scenes that look so inconsequential at first glance. It really gives the quieter characters like Betsy and Hank their time to shine.
However, I found the last two episodes disappointing. I'm still trying to work out why, since they delivered on pretty much all of what the preceding ones promised. We had the big showdown and all the major characters met their appropriate fates. But is all seemed to go by so quickly, with so little time to react to big events. I was left wondering what happened to some of the minor characters, and whether maybe Hawley had decided to leave later events for a follow-up season. So much feels unresolved, uneasy, and anti-climactic, with a few odd bits of look-at-the-bigger-picture exposition tacked on at the end, to explain away dangling plot threads and to justify the looming portents of the approaching Reagan era.
Maybe that was the point, following along in the same vein as that famously sudden and unconventional ending from "No Country for Old Men," that refused to give the audience the closure it wanted. However, even if this is the case, the execution of the final episodes of "Fargo" still felt off. And I can't help thinking of all the other little scenes that didn't quite work, strewn throughout the season. I got a lot of enjoyment out of this year of "Fargo," and it certainly stands on its own separately from the first season, but this one had some substantial flaws that should be taken into account.
---
Sunday, January 10, 2016
Man, I Dig "The Martian"
We've been getting one or two big movies about space travel yearly, like "Gravity" and "Interstellar," which have been nice to see, but the recent ones haven't really been to my tastes. Sure, they have big ideas and big budget spectacle, but they've also been such grim, unhappy affairs. Go into space and you risk a wide array of immediate, physical dangers, but also more existential threats, like everyone you knew on Earth being dead when you get back, because space travel takes such a long time. Why would anyone want to go explore the vast reaches of the galaxy with that in mind?
That's why I'm so, so grateful for "The Martian," which puts the humanity back into the space race. We begin a few decades into the future, where a small group of astronauts have come to Mars on a planned, routine mission. A bad storm forces them to evacuate, leaving behind Mark Watney (Matt Damon), who is believed to be dead. However, Watney survives and has to figure out how to live for more than a year on Mars with dwindling supplies, how to contact NASA, and how to mobilize himself to reach important resources. Meanwhile back on Earth, NASA director Teddy Sanders (Jeff Daniels) and Mars mission directors Vincent Kapoor (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and Mitch Henderson (Sean Bean) face their own challenges trying to mount a rescue once they realize Watney is still alive. And how much do they tell Commander Lewis (Jessica Chastain) and the rest of the crew from the Mars mission, who are on their way back to Earth?
All the bad things that you would expect to happen in this kind space survival movie are addressed in one form or another. You definitely see the influence of "Gravity" and all the other space disaster films that have come before. This time, however, the attitude is completely different. Watney approaches each problem like a challenge to be solved, rarely expressing any anger or angst over his situation. He talks through each new puzzle in his video logs, often cracking jokes and commenting on the absurdity of what he's doing. Sure, he experiences setbacks and low points where things look especially bleak, but Watney keeps going without much fuss. Everybody in the movie does. And it's so refreshing that the story stays firmly focused on the science and on the problem-solving ingenuity of the characters, avoiding all the usual manufactured personal drama designed to make our heroes feel more human, but often does the exact opposite.
"The Martian" recently ended up in the "Best Comedy or Musical" category at the Golden Globes, which is ridiculous, but I can see how the argument was made. There are segments here that are genuinely funny and irreverent, including a delightful meeting with an astrodynamicist played by Donald Glover that starts off with a nerdy "Lord of the Rings" discussion. Damon's performance is also a wonderful source of physical pratfalls and agreeable everyman kvetching. I'd definitely categorize "The Martian" as a science-fiction adventure film, but it's been so long that we've seen a really optimistic, non-apocalyptic entry into the genre, I suppose it's understandable why some people have gotten confused. This is the kind of feel good, go team, everybody pulling together for the big win crowd pleaser I didn't know a space movie could be anymore.
This is also a big departure for Ridley Scott, whose recent track record hasn't been great. Scott deftly handles all the difficult technical business required in an effects-heavy space film, but lets Drew Goddard's lighthearted script and a soundtrack heavy on disco standards do their thing. There's no sign of his usual broody intensity and only a small bit of atmospheric gloom. Also, kudos for keeping a film with so many different characters slinging so much exposition at each other, so coherent and dynamic. I am definitely looking forward to the next "Prometheus" sequel after this.
I've seen a few complaints that "The Martian" is too lightweight, that there's never any real question about the outcome of the story, which undercuts the tension and thrills. And if you go into the movie thinking that you're getting another "Castaway" or another "Gravity," I can see where a viewer might be disappointed. However, I was just pleasantly surprised through and through. I love this movie. I love the fact that it takes place in a future not too far off that I couldn't imagine all of it really happening. I love that it's so positive about science and engineering and potatoes.
More movies like this, Hollywood. More movies like this!
The Duellists (1977)
Alien (1979)
Blade Runner (1982)
Legend (1985)
Thelma & Louise (1991)
White Squall (1996)
G.I. Jane (1997)
Gladiator (2000)
Hannibal (2001)
Black Hawk Down (2001)
Matchstick Men (2003)
Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
A Good Year (2006)
Body of Lies (2008)
Prometheus (2012)
The Counselor (2013)
The Martian (2015)
Alien: Covenant (2017)
All the Money in the World (2017)
That's why I'm so, so grateful for "The Martian," which puts the humanity back into the space race. We begin a few decades into the future, where a small group of astronauts have come to Mars on a planned, routine mission. A bad storm forces them to evacuate, leaving behind Mark Watney (Matt Damon), who is believed to be dead. However, Watney survives and has to figure out how to live for more than a year on Mars with dwindling supplies, how to contact NASA, and how to mobilize himself to reach important resources. Meanwhile back on Earth, NASA director Teddy Sanders (Jeff Daniels) and Mars mission directors Vincent Kapoor (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and Mitch Henderson (Sean Bean) face their own challenges trying to mount a rescue once they realize Watney is still alive. And how much do they tell Commander Lewis (Jessica Chastain) and the rest of the crew from the Mars mission, who are on their way back to Earth?
All the bad things that you would expect to happen in this kind space survival movie are addressed in one form or another. You definitely see the influence of "Gravity" and all the other space disaster films that have come before. This time, however, the attitude is completely different. Watney approaches each problem like a challenge to be solved, rarely expressing any anger or angst over his situation. He talks through each new puzzle in his video logs, often cracking jokes and commenting on the absurdity of what he's doing. Sure, he experiences setbacks and low points where things look especially bleak, but Watney keeps going without much fuss. Everybody in the movie does. And it's so refreshing that the story stays firmly focused on the science and on the problem-solving ingenuity of the characters, avoiding all the usual manufactured personal drama designed to make our heroes feel more human, but often does the exact opposite.
"The Martian" recently ended up in the "Best Comedy or Musical" category at the Golden Globes, which is ridiculous, but I can see how the argument was made. There are segments here that are genuinely funny and irreverent, including a delightful meeting with an astrodynamicist played by Donald Glover that starts off with a nerdy "Lord of the Rings" discussion. Damon's performance is also a wonderful source of physical pratfalls and agreeable everyman kvetching. I'd definitely categorize "The Martian" as a science-fiction adventure film, but it's been so long that we've seen a really optimistic, non-apocalyptic entry into the genre, I suppose it's understandable why some people have gotten confused. This is the kind of feel good, go team, everybody pulling together for the big win crowd pleaser I didn't know a space movie could be anymore.
This is also a big departure for Ridley Scott, whose recent track record hasn't been great. Scott deftly handles all the difficult technical business required in an effects-heavy space film, but lets Drew Goddard's lighthearted script and a soundtrack heavy on disco standards do their thing. There's no sign of his usual broody intensity and only a small bit of atmospheric gloom. Also, kudos for keeping a film with so many different characters slinging so much exposition at each other, so coherent and dynamic. I am definitely looking forward to the next "Prometheus" sequel after this.
I've seen a few complaints that "The Martian" is too lightweight, that there's never any real question about the outcome of the story, which undercuts the tension and thrills. And if you go into the movie thinking that you're getting another "Castaway" or another "Gravity," I can see where a viewer might be disappointed. However, I was just pleasantly surprised through and through. I love this movie. I love the fact that it takes place in a future not too far off that I couldn't imagine all of it really happening. I love that it's so positive about science and engineering and potatoes.
More movies like this, Hollywood. More movies like this!
What I've Seen - Ridley Scott
The Duellists (1977)
Alien (1979)
Blade Runner (1982)
Legend (1985)
Thelma & Louise (1991)
White Squall (1996)
G.I. Jane (1997)
Gladiator (2000)
Hannibal (2001)
Black Hawk Down (2001)
Matchstick Men (2003)
Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
A Good Year (2006)
Body of Lies (2008)
Prometheus (2012)
The Counselor (2013)
The Martian (2015)
Alien: Covenant (2017)
All the Money in the World (2017)
The Last Duel (2021)
House of Gucci (2021)
---
Saturday, January 9, 2016
The Wobbly "Walk"
Robert Zemeckis took a long break from live-action filmmaking when he made a trio of motion-capture animation films, including "Polar Express," but seemed to be making some good headway on getting back into the game with 2012's "Flight." That's why his latest film, "The Walk," is so frustrating to watch. It's an ambitious film, recreating the daring 1974 tightrope performance of Philippe Petit at the World Trade Center towers to wonderful effect. Unfortunately, everything else in the film is so ill-conceived, it's almost embarrassing.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Philippe Petit, the fabulous French funambulist who takes us from the streets of Paris to the towering heights of the Manhattan skyline. Petit is originally a street performer, who learns the art of walking a tightrope from circus veteran Papa Rudy (Ben Kingsley) and wins the affections of a fellow performer named Annie (Charlotte Le Bon). After learning about the Twin Towers from a magazine article, Petit becomes obsessed with staging a tightrope walk across the tops of the two buildings, hundreds of feet in the air. Such a performance, would be illegal and highly dangerous, so Petit gathers accomplices to help him pull off the artistic coup of the century.
Now, on paper "The Wire" looks like a winner. You have a spectacular recreation of Petit's famous walk filmed for IMAX screens for maximum immersiveness, and couch it in a feel-good story of artistic daring and nostalgia for the Twin Towers. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is an appealing rising star, and was personally trained by the real Philippe Petit to play the starring role. And the project seems like a perfect fit for director Robert Zemeckis, who has close ties to the effects house ImageMovers. The film cost a relatively cheap $35 million to make, but it looks like the filmmakers spared no expense. The tightrope performance in particular is a remarkable achievement, creating one of the most thrilling cinematic sequences in any film this year Reportedly, some moviegoers experienced vertigo during screenings. Unfortunately, the walk is only about seventeen minutes out of an interminable two hour movie.
Where do I start? As much as I like Joseph Gordon-Levitt and admire everything he went through to prepare for the part, his performance as Philippe Petit borders on cartoonish. The Parisian accent desperately needs to be toned down a few degrees. The real Petit is very theatrical and exuberant, but Gordon-Levitt overdoes it. His passion for his art seems genuine enough, but it's hard to keep a straight face when he's forced to expound on it endlessly in several monologues and constant narration. There is actually a framing device with Gordon-Levitt as Petit standing on top of the Statue of Liberty, providing introductions, exposition, and commentary. At times I felt like I was watching a travelogue film, or one of those educational programs for young children with a smiley host on hand to help with difficult words.
Really, the biggest trouble is that Zemeckis and co-writer Christopher Browne fail to get us invested in Philippe Petit's journey. The meet-cute and subsequent romance with Annie are depressingly banal. Dependable Ben Kingsley is barely onscreen long enough to register as the most interesting character in the movie. The planning and preparation for the coup creates some excitement, but it's difficult to care much about secondary characters who have barely been developed beyond their accents and professions. Petit's constant exhortations to speak in English are a particularly grating and transparent ploy to play to the intended target audience - Americans who love cinema spectacle.
If you have any interest at all in "The Walk," I highly suggest watching "Man on Wire," the Oscar winning 2008 documentary that covered the same events. It's about thirty minutes shorter than "The Walk," much better paced, and considerably more entertaining. The real Philippe Petit is quite a character. And clearly, the only reason why "The Walk" exists at all is because "Man on Wire" was so well-received. Now, the one thing that "Man on Wire" doesn't have is any footage of the actual walk, because none exists of the event. If you could somehow edit together the recreation from "The Walk" into "Man on Wire," that would be something worth seeing.
---
Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Philippe Petit, the fabulous French funambulist who takes us from the streets of Paris to the towering heights of the Manhattan skyline. Petit is originally a street performer, who learns the art of walking a tightrope from circus veteran Papa Rudy (Ben Kingsley) and wins the affections of a fellow performer named Annie (Charlotte Le Bon). After learning about the Twin Towers from a magazine article, Petit becomes obsessed with staging a tightrope walk across the tops of the two buildings, hundreds of feet in the air. Such a performance, would be illegal and highly dangerous, so Petit gathers accomplices to help him pull off the artistic coup of the century.
Now, on paper "The Wire" looks like a winner. You have a spectacular recreation of Petit's famous walk filmed for IMAX screens for maximum immersiveness, and couch it in a feel-good story of artistic daring and nostalgia for the Twin Towers. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is an appealing rising star, and was personally trained by the real Philippe Petit to play the starring role. And the project seems like a perfect fit for director Robert Zemeckis, who has close ties to the effects house ImageMovers. The film cost a relatively cheap $35 million to make, but it looks like the filmmakers spared no expense. The tightrope performance in particular is a remarkable achievement, creating one of the most thrilling cinematic sequences in any film this year Reportedly, some moviegoers experienced vertigo during screenings. Unfortunately, the walk is only about seventeen minutes out of an interminable two hour movie.
Where do I start? As much as I like Joseph Gordon-Levitt and admire everything he went through to prepare for the part, his performance as Philippe Petit borders on cartoonish. The Parisian accent desperately needs to be toned down a few degrees. The real Petit is very theatrical and exuberant, but Gordon-Levitt overdoes it. His passion for his art seems genuine enough, but it's hard to keep a straight face when he's forced to expound on it endlessly in several monologues and constant narration. There is actually a framing device with Gordon-Levitt as Petit standing on top of the Statue of Liberty, providing introductions, exposition, and commentary. At times I felt like I was watching a travelogue film, or one of those educational programs for young children with a smiley host on hand to help with difficult words.
Really, the biggest trouble is that Zemeckis and co-writer Christopher Browne fail to get us invested in Philippe Petit's journey. The meet-cute and subsequent romance with Annie are depressingly banal. Dependable Ben Kingsley is barely onscreen long enough to register as the most interesting character in the movie. The planning and preparation for the coup creates some excitement, but it's difficult to care much about secondary characters who have barely been developed beyond their accents and professions. Petit's constant exhortations to speak in English are a particularly grating and transparent ploy to play to the intended target audience - Americans who love cinema spectacle.
If you have any interest at all in "The Walk," I highly suggest watching "Man on Wire," the Oscar winning 2008 documentary that covered the same events. It's about thirty minutes shorter than "The Walk," much better paced, and considerably more entertaining. The real Philippe Petit is quite a character. And clearly, the only reason why "The Walk" exists at all is because "Man on Wire" was so well-received. Now, the one thing that "Man on Wire" doesn't have is any footage of the actual walk, because none exists of the event. If you could somehow edit together the recreation from "The Walk" into "Man on Wire," that would be something worth seeing.
---
Friday, January 8, 2016
My Top Ten Mythbusters Myths
It's the end of the line for the Discovery Channel's "Mythbusters," which will end its run after fourteen seasons and nearly 250 episodes this year. The final set of episodes will begin running this month. This is a pretty haphazard Top Ten list because I stopped watching "Mythbusters" regularly around 2010, but that still covers an awful lot of ground. Also, I've decided to pick favorite myths and groups of myths instead of favorite episodes (with one exception) since there was often a big discrepancy between the individual myths featured in each installment of the show. As always, the picks below are unranked and ordered by airdate.
"Stinky Car" - The myth that got me completely hooked on "Mythbusters" was one of their earliest, where in order to test what a deteriorating corpse does to a car, Adam and Jamie sealed up two dead pig carcasses in a Corvette for two months and let nature take its course. The extreme conditions that resulted, and the cleanup efforts required, were mesmerizing in their repulsiveness. I loved how far the guys were willing to go in the name of science.
"Alcatraz Escape" - Adam and Jamie recreated the famous escape from Alcatraz, including a daring night trip across the San Francisco Bay in a very haphazard raft. This myth really appealed to my inner history buff and conspiracy enthusiast, as the Mythbusters went through all the various factors that would have impeded the prisoners' escape, and all the theories about how they could have pulled it off. This has my vote for the show's most exciting myth.
"Does a Duck's Quack Echo?" - This was a smaller, much simpler myth that aired with the Alcatraz escape, but I loved it just for the silliness of Adam and Jamie working out how to actually test the myth - how do you get a duck to quack? - and discovering a few surprises along the way. I love how the myth initially sounded ridiculous, but it turned out there really was an interesting phenomena to be tested, and we got to see some good science (and cute duckies) in action.
"Cement Mix-Up" - There have been bigger and louder, but this myth still has my favorite of the show's explosions. "Mythbusters" developed a reputation for gratuitously blowing things up over the years, but this one didn't seem quite so gratuitous since the myth was about cleaning dried cement from a cement mixer with the use of dynamite. Okay, so the myth didn't say anything about 380 kg of dynamite, but what's the fun of being a Mythbuster if you can't improvise a little?
"Pirate Special" - I'm making an exception to the "no episodes" rule I made above, so I can include the entirety of the double-length pirate episode that tested a bunch of different swashbuckling myths. Half the fun of the special was watching the cast dress up in pirate gear and indulge in goofy pirate antics. The actual myths that were tested during the episode weren't nearly as fun as the pirate obstacle course that the Build Team put Jamie and Adam through at the end.
"Underwater Car" - How do you get out of a sinking car? The Mythbusters actually put Adam in a car in a swimming pool, and let it submerge with him inside (with emergency O2 on standby), in order to test the various methods of escape. This is one of the few Mythbusters episodes that deals in practical, useful information the whole way through, and provides a good lesson in emergency preparedness. I think it's especially gripping because it's something that could plausibly happen to anybody.
"Lead Balloon" - This is one of those premises for a myth that sounds silly at first - seeing if you could actually build a working lead balloon - but the payoff is spectacular. I debated putting the similar Hindenburg myth on the list, but I went with the lead balloon because there was so much more involved with getting this one to work, and it really put he crew's skills and ingenuity to the test. When the delicate lead foil cube takes flight, it's one of the best moments in Mythbusters history.
"Don't Drive Angry" - I grew to enjoy the Build Team as much as I enjoy Adam and Jamie. This is one of my favorite myths featuring them, because it gets a lot of mileage out of their various little personality quirks. While testing whether driving angry affects gas mileage, Tory and Grant are first given relaxation treatments before being sent through a test course. Then, they're tortured with various unpleasant stimuli - including making Grant's feet touch fish - before the next round. It's hysterical.
"Phone Book Friction" - I love the way that this one escalates. It turns out that simply interleaving the pages of two 800 page phone books creates a bond between them so strong, it doesn't seem like anything can get them apart. The Mythbusters prove that there is a limit, but they have to go to some considerable extremes to do it. They bring out the big tanks for this myth, literally.
"You Can't Polish Poop" - And finally, there's the poop-polishing myth, which I love because it's so delightfully absurd and Adam and Jamie get so into it. This one, is short, sweet, and produces some very shiny poop.
---
"Stinky Car" - The myth that got me completely hooked on "Mythbusters" was one of their earliest, where in order to test what a deteriorating corpse does to a car, Adam and Jamie sealed up two dead pig carcasses in a Corvette for two months and let nature take its course. The extreme conditions that resulted, and the cleanup efforts required, were mesmerizing in their repulsiveness. I loved how far the guys were willing to go in the name of science.
"Alcatraz Escape" - Adam and Jamie recreated the famous escape from Alcatraz, including a daring night trip across the San Francisco Bay in a very haphazard raft. This myth really appealed to my inner history buff and conspiracy enthusiast, as the Mythbusters went through all the various factors that would have impeded the prisoners' escape, and all the theories about how they could have pulled it off. This has my vote for the show's most exciting myth.
"Does a Duck's Quack Echo?" - This was a smaller, much simpler myth that aired with the Alcatraz escape, but I loved it just for the silliness of Adam and Jamie working out how to actually test the myth - how do you get a duck to quack? - and discovering a few surprises along the way. I love how the myth initially sounded ridiculous, but it turned out there really was an interesting phenomena to be tested, and we got to see some good science (and cute duckies) in action.
"Cement Mix-Up" - There have been bigger and louder, but this myth still has my favorite of the show's explosions. "Mythbusters" developed a reputation for gratuitously blowing things up over the years, but this one didn't seem quite so gratuitous since the myth was about cleaning dried cement from a cement mixer with the use of dynamite. Okay, so the myth didn't say anything about 380 kg of dynamite, but what's the fun of being a Mythbuster if you can't improvise a little?
"Pirate Special" - I'm making an exception to the "no episodes" rule I made above, so I can include the entirety of the double-length pirate episode that tested a bunch of different swashbuckling myths. Half the fun of the special was watching the cast dress up in pirate gear and indulge in goofy pirate antics. The actual myths that were tested during the episode weren't nearly as fun as the pirate obstacle course that the Build Team put Jamie and Adam through at the end.
"Underwater Car" - How do you get out of a sinking car? The Mythbusters actually put Adam in a car in a swimming pool, and let it submerge with him inside (with emergency O2 on standby), in order to test the various methods of escape. This is one of the few Mythbusters episodes that deals in practical, useful information the whole way through, and provides a good lesson in emergency preparedness. I think it's especially gripping because it's something that could plausibly happen to anybody.
"Lead Balloon" - This is one of those premises for a myth that sounds silly at first - seeing if you could actually build a working lead balloon - but the payoff is spectacular. I debated putting the similar Hindenburg myth on the list, but I went with the lead balloon because there was so much more involved with getting this one to work, and it really put he crew's skills and ingenuity to the test. When the delicate lead foil cube takes flight, it's one of the best moments in Mythbusters history.
"Don't Drive Angry" - I grew to enjoy the Build Team as much as I enjoy Adam and Jamie. This is one of my favorite myths featuring them, because it gets a lot of mileage out of their various little personality quirks. While testing whether driving angry affects gas mileage, Tory and Grant are first given relaxation treatments before being sent through a test course. Then, they're tortured with various unpleasant stimuli - including making Grant's feet touch fish - before the next round. It's hysterical.
"Phone Book Friction" - I love the way that this one escalates. It turns out that simply interleaving the pages of two 800 page phone books creates a bond between them so strong, it doesn't seem like anything can get them apart. The Mythbusters prove that there is a limit, but they have to go to some considerable extremes to do it. They bring out the big tanks for this myth, literally.
"You Can't Polish Poop" - And finally, there's the poop-polishing myth, which I love because it's so delightfully absurd and Adam and Jamie get so into it. This one, is short, sweet, and produces some very shiny poop.
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
