The Winners & Losers of an Adaptation: Scott Pilgrim Edition

So after my second viewing (and a shower) of Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World I was inspired to write this post.

Now a disclaimer: if you talk of oh the book was better than the movie kind of talk I will shoot you in the eyes and pour acid in the sockets. We aren't doing 7th grade book reports anymore.

HOWEVER, I am merely posting this comparison to illustrate the subtleties and intricacies of adaptations and how diffcult it must be to take someone else's baby and make it yours.

SO ANYWAY

the illustration for Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World Vs. The Adaptation Process is mostly character-based, but obviously when you deal with character changes, shrinking roles, timeline restructuring, etc. inevitably plot changes come into play so bare with me.

Let's start with the losers!

Katayanagi Twins
-Even in the graphic novel they were underwhelming, in a way they were merely meant to show that despite a two-some, the evil exs thing was basically beyond scott pilgrim at that point and Ramona's growing aloofness was more problematic. In the film, what do you do with them when that element of the story is significantly removed along with Kim's kidnapping (which never made sense)? Well they are basically just another stop in the road for movie SP and although they do function in the film, they are basically moot.

Kim Pine
-Yes Alison Pill won our hearts over and really sold Kim's apathy and general "fuck off in a George Harrison" kind of way attitude, BUT it would have been so nice to understand more of her history and generally her relationship to Scott. It was great to include the "I'm sorry about me" line even if it was a tad unnecessary, but ultimately Kim's function was changed to fit the smaller time frame of the film.

Crash and the Boys
-Yes they have a moment in the film that's quite hilarious, BUT DUDE wouldn't it have sweet to see them use their mind powers to make music?? oh and the song that knocks everyone out would have been sweet too. Again all icing, but still...

Envy Adams
-Of all the things lost in the adaptation (all mostly necessary) I am probably most heartbroken about this. I think it was good that she doesn't come back at the end (something that felt a little tacked on in the graphic novel) and todd cheating on her was just too much for the film, but still ENVY ADAMS is such a sexy bitch goddess and it would have been interesting to see them to show more competition between her and Ramona and also to truly understand what happened between her and Scott illustrating how awful heartbreak really is in that universe (our universe).


now on to the winners!!!

Julie Powers
-We get it she's a total bitch and I did miss the moment in vol. 4 with Stephen Stills' song, BUT Aubrey Plaza owned Julie and really made her a more memorable (and more integral) character to the film overall. Her incessant reinforcement of Scott's past was a really nice tool on Wright's behalf because it gives us a bit of uncertainty to SP's moral fiber. He's not just an aloof slacker, he was in the business of breaking hearts.

Young Neil
-color me controversial, but Bacall and Wright did a wonderful thing with Young Neil making him way more important and giving him some really awesome moments like his introduction to Knives, and the 'punched the highlights out of her hair' moment too. Structurally it was great to have him know SP's parts and join the band blah blah anyway It just made him important character overall and hints at a possible Young Neil Vs. The World spinoff...(!!!)

Lucas Lee
-Chris Evans. 'Nuff said.

Knives Chau
-Ellen Wong took everything about Knives and gave it 10000%. I think too that in trimming the timeframe of the film and the number of events that happen in-between the beginning and ending of the story the essence of her story became much more prevalent and poignant and really quite moving. She's pretty much the same in the graphic novel and the movie, but I think in the film we were allowed to understand how it plays in SP's world a lot better.

Gideon Graves
-Even Bryan Lee O'Malley stated that even he can't compete with Jason Schwartzman and to an extent he's right. Although I miss the whole "drunk on craigslist moment" and the giant kanye ego-minded monster form of Gideon, Schwartzman is G-Man Graves, despite the whole neck control being kind of lame, (the explanation for Ramona's control was also kind of lame in the graphic novel but it was supposed to be)...I mean really the function of Gideon in the books was to illustrate that Scott could easily become him, but in the movie, Schwartzman just functions to steal the show. And be a really big dick.

Equally Winners and Losers

Scott and Ramona
-There are moments I miss in the film, but honestly the changes made were all necessary and the changes all function well and stand on their own. Would have liked more hair changes in Ramona though.

Todd
-Brandon Routh is pretty great, but I think with the restructuring of the story he still works well despite the lack of cheating bit, etc.

Stephen Stills
-No gay Stephen for the movie unfortunately, but Stephen still gets plenty of great moments. Music-wise Mark Webber shines pretty bright!

THE REAL WINNER
Wallace Wells
-but we already knew that

SO THAT HAPPENED

I've been thinking a lot about adaptations lately, recently reread The Hobbit and am flummoxed at how in the FUCK they are going to adapt that into a movie, the structure is so bizarre, but I digress. I also reread Lord of the Rings and am moving on to reread (and read) the Harry Potter series so lots of adaptations in the can. I was thinking about doing one of these on LOTR but that is an even bigger mess to untangle.

ALSO I am currently working on adapting Bryan Lee O'Malley's first graphic novel Lost At Sea into a film as bit of screenplay practice (and would be cool to make it in the future) so again the work and struggle it must take to adapt a movie and get people to ignore the "book was better than the movie" talk is really taking over my mind and I hope this piece shed light on this oft too mysterious process.

thoughts?

inception WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEUHGEHBGJEHGHHBHRHE

what's up raptors

yeah, i just barfed with excitement in the title up there. SORRY GUYS.

yesterday i just made the most important movie-related purchase of at least the past 7 months: my IMAX ticket for Inception! YAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYBUEGBHGEHEMNRBELERBJ

ok sorry i barfed AGAIN

on a scale from one to werner herzog, rank your excitement for Inception.

Transmutation-Flaw: The Faux-pa of Remaking the Icon

Standing in front of the movie theatre, staring hopelessly at the showings board, I know it's been a long Friday. I know because I must have traveled back in time, somewhere between 1951 and 1984. The obviously post-Millenium light-board flickering with advertisements and showtimes is riddled with remade fanfare. Clash of the Titans. Disney's Alice in Wonderland. A Nightmare on Elm Street. Death at a Funeral. Didn't that just come out a few years ago?

As we buy the tickets, I turn to scan upcoming movie posters, COMING SOON plastered above them in their plastic casings. The Karate Kid. Robin Hood. I'm not thinking about Pat Morita or Kevin Costner. I'm not analyzing the ethnicity of the new karate kid, nor reciting Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham lines in my head. I'm thinking about Jackie Earl Haley.

Jackie Earl Haley has a kind of silly way about him. Like Cypher from The Matrix. Biting wit, sarcasm, maybe we don't entirely take him seriously. He's currently on Fox's Human Target as the staple techno-nerd (think Abby on NCIS or early Gregg on CSI) with his own jargon and a heart-of-gold. The phrase "In English, please" is characteristically pointed at this character. But he'll turn on you. Believe it. We all did in Little Children. So, between Ronnie McGorvey and Rorschach from Watchmen, some of us tried to believe that we could accept him as Freddy Krueger, child murderer and dream assassin. We held our breath in the theatre: am I really going to be able to accept this Freddy as Freddy?

No. Sadly Not.

There are five distinct reasons why I could never accept Jackie Earl Haley as Freddy Krueger:
(1) The Make-up:: Haley kind of looks like a mix between a Naked Mole-Rat and a burned Na'vi. And is it just me or do his burns change their look throughout the film?
(2) That Voice:: Why hello, Rorschach, is that what you look like under your face-bag with the changing expressions? Didn't realize the two fictional characters existed in the same world. Maybe Silk Spectre and Dr. Manhattan can come and kill Freddy in the next one.
(3) Stop Talking, Freddy. And work on your laugh:: The only thing worse than that voice was hearing a lot of it. Krueger was very vocal about the kids learning what happened to him, why he got burned; he was constantly dropping hints that he not only needed to be vengeful, but you need to know why. Did we not learn anything from Oldboy? Exacting revenge on the ignorant is way freakier than leaving breadcrumbs.
(4) The "Have-Mercy" Pedophile:: Quit crying about how "Whatever you think I did, I didn't do!" before getting scorched to oblivion in that boiler room. Craven's Freddy murdered 20 children on Elm Street and didn't bat an eye. In fact, he enjoyed it. You take a few racy photos of a 5 year-old girl, cry about dying in a fire, then seek "revenge." Craven's Krueger was just finishing what he started. And he never cried about it.
(5) Sorry, You're just not Robert Englund:: Major apologies Haley. I know there's nothing you can do about it. But you're just not Robert Englund.

And after walking out of the theatre with my Nightmare-inclined friend looking disappointed and scarred by the direction cinema is taking, I know why this will never work. Remake after remake, Hollywood can rip characters from comics and books and recast and reboot and toy around with, but please, please, please...stop trying to Remake the Icons.

Freddy Krueger was an invention of Wes Craven who was brought to life through eight segments, EIGHT films, by Robert Englund. He created Freddy, mastered him, and turned him into a legend of the slasher screen. As far as we're concerned, Englund is Krueger (just watch Wes Craven's New Nightmare). So when a slasher newbie like Haley steps into wildly oversized shoes, he's going to fall.

And that's not the only one.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory got its remake in 2005 with the eccentric and much-beloved Johnny Depp. No way a new-kid to the weird and wild, the shoes really should have fit him when he took on Willie Wonka. But the role was flat and forced. I found his characterization lay mostly in the hair and hat and Depp's ability to use sharp, theatrical movements (kind of like the way Michael Jackson dances - something unnatural becomes natural) to accentuate the peculiar. But Willie Wonka was made and molded into Gene Wilder in 1971. His creepy-casual disregard for the children's well-being, his matter-of-fact manner, his bi-polar manic breakdown, all added a depth which Depp's Wonka severely lacked. I think, most importantly, Wilder's Wonka was inherently adult. He talked down to the children, and sometimes the adults, as a diligent CEO may speak to a McDonalds employee. Depp's Wonka was a child and came off childish, a man who did not deserve his candyland legend.

Should I even explain Gus Van Sant's 1998 mistake that was casting Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates in his remake of Psycho? I respect Van Sant's attempt to create the shot-to-shot color remake of Hitchcock's indelible thriller, but Anthony Perkin's cannot be remade or replaced as Bates. It's near blasphemy.

When it comes to using different actors throughout a series of films, I can think always of the pained attempt of Julianne Moore to play Clarice Starling in Hannibal. Jodie Foster put devotion and torment, along with a repressed naivety, into Starling. Her characterization made Starling a youthful agent, but smart and adaptable. Despite her inexperience in the field, she was crafty and courageous, doing what she needed to in order to close the case. At the end of the film, she had a further understanding of Lector, but respected and understood her inferior intelligence and could, at best, know she would always be one step behind him. Yet Moore shirked this in her reprise of Starling, and attempted to take on the "I understand him" posit. She pushed her growth of Starling away from brashly courageous in spite of her...lack of knowledge, into a kind of "I know all" confidence that made her less endearing. Less accessible. We're suppose to relate to Clarice to access Hannibal, but they both kept out of reach in the sequel.

The Shining is a peculiar case for me, particularly because I am a Stephen King fan, first and foremost. And while Kubrick's classic interpretation holds heavy (due to its diversion from the psychological freakshow that is the novel), I cannot deny the performance of my second celebrity crush, Jack Nicholson. His psycho-breakdown is iconic in its move from well-adjusted writer to homicidal maniac. "Heeeere's Johnny!" through the doorway has got to be one of the most recognizable breakthroughs in cinema-murderer history. However, in 1997, a made-for-tv movie starring Steven Weber attempted to do justice to the King's novel. The only thing lacking: Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrence. While the justice may have been served by directly portraying scenes described in the novel, Steven Weber was never as psychologically damaged (or damned) enough to remake the icon.

So, I google search the upcoming remakes and immediately I'm assaulted by the thoughts of "Who could possibly play that role?!" The list includes:
- I Spit on Your Grave; Character: Jennifer Hill
- Escape from New York; Character: Snake Plisskin
- Back to the Future; Character: Marty McFly; Character 2: Doc Brown
- Barbarella; Character: Barbarella
Some already cast icons include:
- Russell Brand as Arthur in Arthur
- Jackie Chan as Mr. Miyagi in Karate Kid

There are some who will throw their arms up and say, "But what about Heath Ledger's Joker? Can't we accept Edward Norton over Eric Bana as Bruce Banner (Hulk)? And I think we all enjoyed Al Pacino as Tony Montana in Scarface...that was a remake of an icon."

Well played, well played. But as with any one-sided argument, there tend to be exceptions. But what's more are the patterns formed by the exceptions. I called them: the Icon Rules.
Rule #1: If a character is widely accepted as many different actors, so their supporting cast may change as well. This applies to movies such as Batman and James Bond. Batman's incarnations include Michael Keaton, Adam West, Val Kilmer, Christian Bale, and George Clooney. And in such, we allow Christian Bale to have his own adversary in Joker, and do not hold a standard of Nicholson's Joker to Ledger. And Q and Money Penny do not have to hold true because Connery is gone and we accept Craig, but only because it took us Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan to get there. (I reference again Silence of Lambs. Perhaps Moore would have been an acceptable Starling had Hannibal Lector been portrayed by someone other than Anthony Hopkins?)
Rule #2: Reboots are not remakes. Reboots are these ridiculous exceptions which hold the idiom: "if it was made within the last 5 years and didn't do as well as expected, we can do it again before it goes stale." Films like Hulk, The Fantastic Four, Spiderman. Because we have yet to fully invoke the icon-presence of the character, we can accept others as trying again. Kind of like being a pinch-hitter: the pre-madonna pitchers got their chance, but frankly, we think you can do it better without getting hurt (in the figurative, career-wise way).
Rule #3: What do you mean that's a remake? If a majority of the world exists blissfully ignorant of the original, then remakes are acceptable. Perhaps even necessary. Without a strong cult following, and the likelihood of seeing the film outside of a film history class at close to zero, then remakes of iconic figures are allowed and perhaps encouraged.
Rule #4: It's foreign. Think....The Departed. Let Me In. The Ring. It's even better if you can change the name to make it nearly unable to find out there exists an original. Hollywood has some belligerent rule that it has the right to make anything itself. The characters were created, shaped, and accepted in a country other than our own, therefore creating them in a world with a different language and look tends to work with a mild respect for the first. We're not trying to do it better, we're just trying to make it more accessible to our audience.

With all the grandeur of "hope for Hollywood," I recognize that the opinions stated above are not always widely accepted. Many respect the process of character transmutation and live by the stigma of "making a character one's own," which is undeniably respectable. But the base factor of the cinematic icon, the truth of reinvention and re-imagination, the only real instances when it DOES NOT and WILL NOT work, is when the actor and character become synonymous in the filmic world.
I return to Freddy Krueger/Robert Englund.
They equal each other, mark each other, they made each other. Englund's career is solely important as an actor because of Krueger. While he can go and play many a role, embrace many an endeavor (often well), he is recognized as Krueger and Krueger as Englund.
Principle Icons that will inevitably end in tragedy should a remake occur include:
Snake Plisskin from Escape from New York
Duckie from Pretty in Pink
Nurse Ratched from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Spicoli from Fast Times at Ridgemont High
Pee Wee Herman from Pee Wee's Big Adventure & TV
John McClane from Die Hard
Ripley from Alien

I have accepted and understand that hope does not exist for these Icons of Cinema to be remade. All will continue to smile politely and say "Why yes, (Insert actors name here) did make that role their own," however, we will never truly accept them. They will be constantly compared to the original, definitely ridiculed by die-hard fans, and inevitably deemed a lesser-version of the former. Frankly, I don't know why an actor would want to portray an "Icon". But they keep on trying.

Trailer Comment Weekly, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

The much-anticipated trailer was unleashed on the universe last week to much excitement and hoopla (that week the final volume of the graphic novel series the film is based on was also announced). So without further ado (if you haven’t seen it yet):



And now, the reactions!

Dax Schaffer:

You mean, "Finally, a Michael Cera film worth watching." It seems like with both this and "Kick Ass," we've gone full circle back to "Mystery Men," instead of the continuously serious takes on super-hero stories. I welcome the sillyness, because the concept of a super hero always has been slightly silly. But I am not sure if I can accept these films as intellectual parody, of just an offshoot way of continuing to monopolize on the super-hero movie industry. Looks fun, but is there anything about these movies to say what Mystery Men didn't already say about super heroes way back when? I do rather like the visual aesthetic though, nice to see someone going full-throttle with the visual iconography of an actual comic book.

Nicola Balkind:

Could it be? Are we about to witness a film where Michael Cera plays a character other than George Michael from Arrested Development? Perhaps not, but Scott Pilgrim definitely looks to have some balls! Edgar Wright's direction looks to empower the film with his signature dark yet colourful frenetic energy. There's a certain lack of pretense in combining comic book devices with mobile camerawork where pows, thwacks, and thuds abound. A strong first trailer -- let's hope they don't give too much away in the full-length previews that follow. Perfect as a stand-alone teaser; I'm convinced!

Catie Moyer:

Comic Book Madness. Pow. Konk. Wham. But C.U.s of Michael Cera throwing brow-furrowed punches make me grimace. He looks very young in this, must be the hair. But hope remains! Edgar Wright is sure balance comedy and action. I already love Adam West Batman take on the action sequences!

Evan Koehne:

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is an appropriate title. Cera's voice is a little wimpy. Lee O'Malley, the writer, should get rich and famous off of this, which he deserves. Long Live Scott Pilgrim no matter what medium you discover him in!

Steven Ray Morris:
Currently I am on a Scott Pilgrim high and watching this trailer was exhilarating from the first frame ‘til the last. I understand the trailer is more marketed towards the general public not the comic book toting, videogame on the brain folks who have fallen in love with Bryan O’Malley’s graphic novel series. With that said, I trust Edgar Wright to deliver his third winner.



Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World comes out in theaters everywhere August 13th, 2010. Get your quarters ready!

Link:
Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World on IMDB

Why Is a Raven Like a Writing Desk?

The answer: because Linda Woolverton cannot write Lewis Carroll's characters, or think of any new dialogue.

In the aftermath of watching the new Alice in Wonderland, and the purpose-driven characters with morals and desires (yeah, this is NOT Carroll's Wonderland), we made a list for Mr. Burton.

(2010) Tim Burton's 6 Impossible Things Before Breakfast:
(1) Do not cast Johnny Depp in the film.
(2) Do not cast Helena Bonham Carter in the film.
(3) Do not use Danny Elfman to score the film.*
(4) Get out of Disney's armpit.
(5) Stop being cute-quirky, like a rubber duckie that's pink instead of yellow. Ducks are yellow, stop trying to be pink!
(6) Stop making adaptations.

I miss the days of Ed Wood, Mars Attacks, and Beetlejuice. There was something more...pure about them.
That's all for now.
I'm looking forward to Frankenweenie. It may be a remake, but it's HIS remake.

*Please note I have profound love and respect for the talents of Depp, Carter, and Elfman. I just want to see Burton try to work without them for a change.

The Wolfman's Claws: A Rebuttle.

*WARNING: This post includes some spoilers as well as prolific, overstated sarcasm*

Visual Effects? Visual Effects? I am mildly appalled. Is this all we care about anymore? Have we become so anesthetized to big budget that we no longer appreciate the base wonder of a conventional horror film?

I want to take a trip back to the 1930s. Specifically 1931, the release of Tod Browning's Dracula. I still consider this one of the scariest films of all time, and it's because it breaks into that realm of horror so often forgotten in today's films. The slow rise of Bela Lugosi from his tomb, the quiet seduction of all your senses via fog, full moons, and wolf howls so you're easily snapped by the vampire's bite. It's that classic, conventional treastise we've made with those old horror films to not spark an immediate reaction that make us jump and squirm, but create a lasting atmosphere, an ambiance, that makes us pause before we enter a dark corridor.

So, ten years later, the original Wolfman was released and adopted the same style and tone as its monster movie predecessors. Heavy shadows, fog, dark woods, mysterious gypsy curses, and a story that proves ultimately superficial to the overall fact that we're dealing with an exploitation, of sorts, of the supernatural. But we still watch, entertained, because we enjoy the spooky thrill.

Might I add both films were Universal releases.

Now, you are probably rolling your eyes right now. You're shrugging off my exploration and reverence for those which came before because it's 2010. These things don't scare us anymore. We are scared by the horrific nature of a murder. The jumps and frights of blood splashing on a camera lens. The unexpected assault on our senses when we have a close-up of a neck being ripped open. However, I've come to find that kind of thing commonplace now. Visual effects may have made this Wolfman more modernly accessable, but c'mon. We substitute CGI bears because they kinda look real enough and god forbid we have a real angry bear on set. It's not like we have trainers for these things. Let's not be bothered by liability forms when we can just pretend a bear exists and add it in later. Yes, we're all so happy for that kind of visual effect.

I believe a serious risk was taken by Johnson and company, because they didn't compromise the original for a modernized bastardization. So easily could we accept something dry and overtold as long as it looks brilliant. Costs a lot of money. Directed by James Cameron. Sorry, wrong topic.

Now here we have an original story of a man who's lost his brother to a mysterious wolflike entity. Examining the gypsy camp to find out more about this monster, the man is bitten, infected, and wrought with the overwhelming task of understanding his past to overcome his future...as a werewolf. The dry, incosequential investigator, Detective Abberline, is not the bad ass detective (I'm sorry to all of you who expected Agent Smith part four), but a narrative device simply used to move Lawrence Talbot's (Del Toro) story forward. Would the suspense have been building as strongly had he not been chased back to the Blackmoor estate? The story isn't The Detective...it's The Wolfman.

The mild sense of romance surrounding Gwen (Blunt) and her inevitable rise to heroine seems more a sense of love transference than true love. Love for the man who came to your aide when your would be husband is mauled by a supernatural entity would result in a obligatory adoration, to get a little psychological with it. She would feel somewhat responsible for what is happening to him, and thus thrust herself into a position where she may help him, and according the gypsy elders, that's love. I consider the fact reconciled.

Sure, the film has moments of campy conventionality: Sir John Talbot (Hopkins) ripping off his shirt post-transformation (it's the werewolf shirt vs. skins match of the century), and the fact that Gene Simmons provides the werewolf's howl. But the fact remains, this film revers its predecessor instating a nostalgia most adaptations cast aside for "Hollywoodization," and utilizes the advancements film techonology can offer to enhance a monster movie classic. The jump out of your seat scares and truely haunting imagery displays a wistfulness for the old school craft of horror. And I feel that many people knock this film because of the regard they hold for the actors (Del Toro, Hopkins, Weaving) and not for the subdued nature of the characters in favor a driving story.

Unfortunately, people go for names now, and hold certain expectations based on those names. That's going to disappoint, because this film is what truely classic horror was and still could be (as it proves), but it seems we just don't care anymore.

I'm going to see Scorcese's new film Shutter Island tonight. Ben Kingsley, Mark Ruffalo, Leo DeCaprio, Michelle Williams.
Fuck, I just want to go see a thriller about a mental institution.

People Looking At Art (a photo series)

Not really film related...sort of...anyway read onward!

As I got swallowed up by the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) while in New York City this past December I noticed a lot of people taking photographs of paintings...I found this a bit odd (although I soon became just as guilty). Why do we feel the need to photograph paintings? Are we going to print it huge at home and use it as a masterpiece doppelganger? Proof to our more skeptical friends? "Yes I did see the Les Demoiselles d'Avignon!! And here's the photograph to prove it!"

Anyway, I took it open myself to take photos of the people either taking photos of art, simply looking at it or even taking photos with the paintings!

Take a look...


#1


#2a


#2b


#3


#4a


#4b


#5


#6


#7


#8a


#8b


#9


#10a


#10b

I tried to come up with witty phrases for each one, but I'm not that funny and you guys and gals can do better. GO!

the wolfman has no claws

so i saw the wolfman. i've been looking forward to it with mild interest for about 2 years now. "hey. benny del toro as the fucking wolfman? anthony fucking hopkins as his dad? hugo fucking weaving as the detective hell-bent on blasting his face off with a big gun? fuck yes!" i thought.

the only thing this film has going for it are its sweet visual effects. lots of entertaining murder happens in this film. if you like watching a hairy manbeast spill people's intestines, cut off heads, joyously rip off limbs, and throw people at things, and things at people, you'll probably love it.

however, if you enjoy films where not just entertaining murder, but additional things also happen which make you, like, i dunno, give a shit, you should pass. "what about the characters, what about the drama?" i can hear you ask me. good question. unfortunately, i am also wondering these things. characters? what fucking characters? this is a film where a bunch of things happen to people, and they react in various ways, and go to various locations, and occasionally say things to each other. that's about it. while the barest thread of a character arc exists for a couple of people, hugo weaving's detective abberline is the most hilariously impotent character of all time. he basically shows up, says "we gotta get this wolf!" and pursues the wolf for a couple of scenes. what the fuck, hugo. you came out of semiretirement for THIS? and the limp-dick "no, benicio del toro! we can't be lovers, i was your brother's wife!" romance subplot was about the least engaging screen romance ever.

there were several moments were the film was so obviously watered down in the editing room. watered down with sour piss. what is the deal with that big fart of an ending?

*SPOILERS*
if the writers had any balls at all, they would have had Hugo Weaving blast his head off after he was bitten. i mean what the hell, the werewolves have been killed and he stands there in front of everyone like "...oh shit." no one bothers to point out that he's going to turn into a fucking werewolf and continue to terrorize the countryside for decades. this is his one chance in the story to prove his worth, to show whether he's truly dedicated to killing the beast once and for all. how dramatic and character-revealing, right? right at that moment i was like "yes! maybe this diabetic film that has as much energy as my grandma after a four-hour sunday brunch at Hometown Buffet will slightly redeem itself with a firecracker ending!"

but no, of course not. no one says a thing, it skips the conflict entirely and cuts away. then the film quickly ends with a shot of a full moon or whatever and the sound of a werewolf howling. HOW FUCKING SPOOKY. i suspect a suicide conclusion was filmed, then shit on by a studio executive and burned. on the plus side, i guess the ambiguous ending gives us room for sequels. SIGH.

on a final note, in the trailer, a glass-eating badass villager delivers the following badass exposition: "twas 25 years ago that me father found 'im. he was tore to pieces and half-eaten, with brens and gots spilled all round..." etc. this scene popped up in the film and the guy was DUBBED OVER in a higher pitch and with less of an accent. god dammit. you idiots.

A Theory, of Film

What is Film Theory, you ask?

Here's a step-by-step, easy to follow guide, with example essay:

When you watch a film and a character goes to the bathroom, all you ever see is an image of their face and upper body.
(Always start at the beginning of an argument, don't start with your conclusion. You're not the Orson Wells of film theory.)

This is because culturally, it has been considered lewd to depict close-ups of an anus actually pooping, while visual replacement (of "anus" with "constipated face") is more akin to literary "metaphor".
(Indicate some strange inconsistency in human behavior to get the ball rolling, and use words like "culturally," or "in contemporary culture".)

As Mulvey postulated in "The Nature of the Gaze," working closely with psychoanalytic Freudian film theories, we viewers identify ourselves with the characters we see on screen, and demand "identification of the ego with the object on the screen."
(Be sure to mention some film theorists you have been reading about in class and let someone reading know that you know what they said. Remember, to the professor these people aren't just theorists, they're friends.)

When we go to the bathroom, we think not of steady breathing, clenching sphincters, sitting over a whole in the woods, or any number of other images we could attach to "pooping," we imagine ourselves in those same medium shots we have seen John Travolta, Brad Pitt, and any numbers of screen idols in hundreds of times.
(Connect the dots for everyone and come up with a few examples, however vague they may be.)

Thus, we have become accustomed to the presentation of certain images in cinema becoming the "symbols" with which we construct a mental self-image analogous with that of the on-screen image depicting specific daily activities.
(Conclude with something deep, intellectual and convolutedly worded, or more likely, restate some famous theorist's ideas in a "contemporary" way.)

Humans are very impressionable, and drawn to order.
(Go for the gold.)

It only makes sense that continued exposure to cinematic images create the "signs" by which we create our world.
(Restate anything you said in the last paragraph. Also, any opportunity you get, use the words "signs," "signified," or "signifier." No one will ever give you a solid definition of what they actually are, so use them liberally and with panache.)

In conclusion, there should be more shots of anuses pooping than are currently in contemporary cinema.
(Make your point absolutely clear.)

Somthin's Gone Crazy

About a week ago, I attended a fine, cheap matinee showing of a film which I envied for three days straight. The theatre was vintage, with raked seating instead of stadium, and I entered down the center aisle like a red carpet first timer not knowing where to look. The back of the theatre was mildly packed with an older crowd which quickly called my attention to the fact that I was the youngest person in the house. Another wild anomaly was the sheer volume of these couples who had actually purchased theatre popcorn, an expense I always avoid due to calorie counts and $6 dissatisfaction. This is not your typical movie-going populus. Perhaps it was the matinee at 5:15pm on a Tuesday, perhaps it was the old fashioned style of the place, or perhaps it was actually just that the film I had been dying to see for all the reasons these folks would never understand had actually peaked their wise ol' interest. And who could blame them? They remember when country blues music had nothing to do with 17 year old skinny white girls.*

Crazy Heart comes off as a typical tale of the burnt-out musician who finds something for which to strive. It's a simple story about a simple man whose lifestyle just is not working for him anymore, and anyone could see it as such. As I had affectionately called it prior to viewing, it's The Wrestler set to country music. What makes the film brilliant and significant (and not The Wrestler) is Jeff Bridges. His performance is so true and scarred that "Bad" Blake is no longer a fictional country leftover, but a true musician. He is the composite of so many true stories: Kris Kristopherson, Merle Haggard, T-Bone Walker, maybe even a little Johnny Cash. And, of course, everyone is buzzing now about Bridges Oscar nomination**

Now then, as I said before, I envied this film for three days. I still do, mildly, and occasionally will ruffle through interviews and such reviewing film maker Scott Cooper's process. I still want to read the script. Cooper wrote the script (actually an adaptation) after being unable to get Haggard's life rights due to his ex-wife's interference. After spending time on tour with Haggard and putting in so much research, he was given the novel, Crazy Heart, in a culminating inspiration to write this story. This is his first script, but I suppose when you have friends like Robert Duvall it doesn't matter if it's your first time picking up a pen. After getting Bridges and T-Bone Burnett on board, it was just a matter of filming. Now, Cooper, being a first time screenwriter, was also a first time director; this includes high school plays, performance art pieces, not even a beat poetry show. Yet, the simplicity of the story, and the emphasis on character, made the shooting last a grand total of 24 days. Yes, that's right, 24 DAYS! First time writer/director...24 days.

My jealousy subsides when I watch "Bad" collapsed on the bed in his small Texas homestead nursing a bottle of whiskey. The phone rings, and Buddy giggles on the other end of the line before handing the phone to Jean (Maggie Gyllenhaal). Before the conversation surpasses our interest, "Bad" hangs up the phone swiftly and runs to the bathroom, vomiting all over creation. I am thrown back to the disparate Dude whose disinterest with follies like these is so disparate from "Bad"'s that I recognize how disarming it is to watch an old-burnt out country musician in this state. And not once does my mind travel to Jeff Bridges, as a man, as an actor. And despite all my hyped envy at the creation of this movie, I find it ultimately fulfilling that the minimalism of the narrative allows the characters to create themselves in a world free of filmmaker hands. I am happy because Crazy Heart is so untainted by the artist or visionary. It's just a story about a man and his music. Don't we all wish it was that easy?
Crazy Heart on IMDB


*I reference here Taylor Swift.
** I believe he rightly deserves the win, and for this film, too. Like no film before it could muster the impact of this performance, and I'm actually glad the academy hasn't honored him before because this one just feels so right for Bridges. A role he was made to play.

Worst Movies of 2009

I personally am not brave enough to see movies that seem like stinkers from miles away, but my colleagues willingly and sometimes unwillingly exposed themselves to big budget flops, over-indulgent epics and more.

Bring on the shitstorm!

Jackson Bishop:

Wolverine
Sure, we weren't expecting too much after the unholy shit storm that was X3, but god damn was this movie terrible. Amiga-level cg graphics, plot holes you could drive a truck through, and magic memory erasing bullets...'nuff said.

Year One
Total waste of potential; funny actors, funny director, funny writers...NOT FUNNY. Not even the cameos were funny. When Paul Rudd and David Cross as Abel and Cain aren't funny, you know something is tragically wrong.

Catie Moyer:

Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience.
Or how about Couple's Retreat?
Ninja Assassin? Because, c'mon, that's redundant, right? Ninjas are, by definition, assassins.

Seriously though, I had the unpleasant experience of seeing The Ugly Truth in theatres. Turns out Gerard Butler can do wrong...and here's the proof.

Bryan Schmidt:

1. Knowing
i didnt even see it. "oh, oh look at me, oh, im nicholas cage, hey i can see the fyoooocher! ooh, hey, oh! oh look out, dere's a bawm! oh no, look out behind yoo dere's a airplane dats gonna crash! oh my gah, im gonna die some day!" what an insignificant little piece of shit.

2. Wolverine
the filmmakers are actually extremely talented. extremely talented at taking a decent character and making him a completely insignificant little piece of shit. after this film, just hearing the words "marvel comics" makes my weener a little bit softer.

Joshua Fu:

THE LOVELY BONES (Dir. Peter Jackson) is the worst film of 2009. In effect, it's a perverse parody of a truly heinous act (child abuse and murder), played out as either an uninspired thriller featuring a mustachio'd kid killer Tucci (equipped with unexplained hyper-honed hearing) or a halfhearted acid trip in the "In-Between." There's no true protagonist, and the laziest deus ex machina I've seen on the big screen in quite some time. Tucci and Weisz make it almost watchable, but for most of the film, I was resisting the urge to fall asleep, throw up in my popcorn bucket, or some combination of the two.

Evan Koehne:

WATCHMEN
because it was a shitty movie pretending to be a masterpiece, artlessly mish-mashing comic books, revisionist history, un-subtle social commentary and key points from philosophy textbooks, and

TRANSFORMERS 2: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN
because it was loud and long and obnoxious, and I couldn't even sleep through it like I wanted to.

Steven Ray Morris:

Avatar
Sorry everyone, I have to continue my loathing of this awful awful movie. Sure it’s pretty but when you want to date someone do you only care about looks? What if your date is secretly an immature suburban boy whose imagination extends only to new paint jobs and extra limbs? BORING!

-----

What other stinkers did we miss?

Avatar (a poem)

Blue

is the new black

is the new yellow

is the new red

the poor natives will not be meant to suffer at the hands of White cinema!

It's funny how

the faceless critics grow red in their non-faces

hollering and yelling

when they say nothing of

Lucas

and his oriental lizards and frogs.

drop everything. see The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus. now.

it's 4:02 AM. i'm still awake and thinking about The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, which i saw nearly 12 hours ago at the Metro 4 theater. i'm not sure why i can't fall asleep, but it might be because i can't get this fucking film out of my head.

it might be a bit early to call, but at the moment i'm going to call this one of the essential films. steven ray morris and other Avatar haters beware, i award Avatar the same status, but for entirely different reasons. maybe in 5 years i'll feel pretty silly for lavishing such extreme praise on films i've just seen hours or weeks ago, but at the moment i feel justified. like Avatar, Parnassus is also important from a visual perspective, but where it really shines is as an intellectual film experience.

i wrote up my thoughts extensively on imdb, and rather than try to restate my thoughts again here i'll just paste them below. i think we're now in an important time in film history, where many of the best films are literally being stomped out by the very people that paid to produce them, inexplicably well-produced and then given a pocketful of change for advertising and crapped out by distributors into 100 theaters nationwide. what the FUCK are these people thinking?

we have to watch these films, and show our support for film as art as well as entertainment. if your eyes widened at the ridiculous length of this post and you instantly refused to read this whole diatribe, take only this message from me: SEE THIS FILM IN THEATERS and talk about it to anyone who will listen if it moved you in any way. this films reminds me a lot of The New World and The Assassination of Jesse James, (pretty similar to each other, as well) which are some of the best films ever made, that almost no one saw, that were often misunderstood by those who did, and that i hope will some day be appreciated. the "wide" release of Parnassus has been pathetic so far and i consider myself lucky that i've even been able to see it. the gap between film quality and public reception has become downright shocking over the last few years and often leaves me quite literally slack-jawed. when i see films like this i look around an empty theater and wonder, "what the fuck are they putting in the water? has the whole goddamn world gone INSANE?" meanwhile bullshit comedies about talking animals solving crimes in a G-rated fashion and shit take the #1 spot at the box office weekend after weekend after weekend. i'm pretty sure that water fluordation conspiracy theory is true, because 99% of people and their should-have-been-abortion children have become utterly retarded. literally.

my original post:

*some minor spoilers ahead*

having just come from seeing the film a few hours ago, i'm ripe with things to say. when i heard about this film, and especially when i saw the trailer, i thought "this looks like it will be my favorite film ever." while i'm still dwelling on that thought, i think it just might be accurate. i LOVED it in a way that's difficult to express in words. but try i shall. some of you may already be thinking "YES, EXACTLY!" others, maybe "oh god, fuck this guy!" but bear with me.

i've seen most of Gilliam's films. i love the guy. i either really like or love his work, and even in the case of Don Quixote, his unfinished work (if you haven't seen Lost in La Mancha, check it out and revel in one of the most interesting documentaries of all time). love or hate his films, he always brings a truly original voice to cinema that must be respected for its ambition and perseverance. i highly value the visual/spectacle aspect of filmmaking, so i find it unfortunate that most of his fantasy films and/or sequences in his earlier films have been hampered by low budgets and production values and cheap effects. maybe it's the liberal in me speaking, but in the case of Parnassus, money (and technology, of course) went a long way in improving the work and solving problems that pure creativity alone probably could not. god bless the producers that had the vision to fund this film. give them a round of applause for being willing to wait YEARS for a return on their investment. please reward them by seeing it over and over at your nearest arthouse theater! =)

this film doesn't even attempt photorealism, yet the world of the magic mirror is mostly quite believable, and the film looks damn good throughout. while David Lynch captures the mood of dreams better than anyone, i think Gilliam has almost equaled him in this respect, and with this film he's captured the look and feel of a dream better than any film i've yet seen. that's one thing i think is sorely lacking in fantasy films. most fantasy films ironically strive to instill strict realism into a fantastical world.

to take the Lord of the Rings as an example (one of the greatest sagas/adaptations in film history, IMO), the films are essentially a conventional war drama with magic (simplified a bit, i know) and you just take magical creatures and wizards for granted as another weapon in an otherwise realistic world. once the rules of the fantasy universe are established, you totally believe in the film as a real world, where everything happens exactly as you see it on screen. you could see the ring of power as a metaphor for atom bombs, for example. if i'm not mistaken, Tolkien saw it as a metaphor for machine guns, chemical weapons and aerial combat, things he saw as a soldier in WWI that gave the wielders of these weapons nearly absolute control of their enemies.

but for me, unlike most "fantasy films", Parnassus touches the heart of what fantasy really means.

i don't think of fantasy as just a corny literary and filmic genre of imaginary places and creatures wrapped around a conventional story; rather, it is a place of extremes. extreme indulgence of imagination and emotion, the most intuitive aspects of the human psyche, where real things are taken to the next level, and the next, and the next, until they take on a nearly unrecognizable form (e.g. The Cell) that often don't make sense to anyone but the author, yet appeal to the subconscious of many spectators in an inexplicable way. but why?

why does Tony change form in the magic mirror? (i'll ignore the fact that it's because Ledger didn't live long enough to film these scenes. it was a happy accident in any case, as these scenes work beautifully with the other actors) why the jellyfish with hand tentacles and the hot air balloon with the doctor's face in a hexagonal pattern? why the flying carpets and silly hats? the checkered floors and the gallows on a floating patch of land? why tom waits and his beautiful gravelly voice as satan? who can really say, except terry gilliam himself? i read some analysis that claims the film has some illuminati imagery, and i was convinced that there is at least SOME validity to this claim, which only adds an extra dimension of deliciousness, IMO. maybe on some level, every single mystical element of the film has some basis in reality, some rational explanation. but does the answer really matter? the mystery of their meanings is half the fun. as a spectator, the best thing we can hope for is to at least be entertained and interested in what's happening.

all of this adds up to a film that, as a whole, makes little sense, once the credits first roll. but there's so much food for thought, and the film will likely grow in meaning the more you see it, the more you learn, and the older you get. to me, this is one of the most important criteria in deciding what is a great film. and The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus is certainly that. if you have any means of seeing this film at the moment, take the time, call your boss and ask for the afternoon off; call your friends and tell them you heard from me this was truly a film worth seeing. send me an angry email if you disagree.

we're looking into the mind of Dr. Parnassus (and Terry Gilliam), and i suspect many people recognize a little bit of his magic mirror in their own dreams. for whatever reason, i find these things intriguing and i happen to find mine and Gilliam's aesthetics to be particularly sympathetic in this piece. he appeals to my lower brain, i suppose. even aside from that, the film itself is a spectacle to behold, on an extradiegetic level (sorry to get all film-theory on yall). just the fact that 4 of the hottest actors in the world (popularity-, and um, looks-wise, if that's your thing) basically stepped in for bit-parts as a single character that turns out to be a total scumbag, in one of the least-seen films by one of our generation's greatest directors is remarkable in its own right. this venture takes BALLS of the heaviest order.

after my first viewing, i admit i was a bit underwhelmed by Ledger's performance after his UTTERLY epic and career-making turn as the Joker, but repeat viewings will hopefully shed further insight into his performance. nevertheless, in tandem with the wonderful contributions of Depp, Law, and Farrell, his performance of this beautifully complex character will shed some light on his characterization. i hope the coldness/ offness of Heath Ledger's performance isn't just due to the fact that i assume that he was falling apart emotionally and physically at that point from addiction (sorry to interject this piece of reality, but it can't be avoided. on the upside, post-modernist theory allows for some rather interesting takes on art)

if you've seen this film already, you're one of the very few people that will have seen a film that a wider cult audience will be drooling over for the next several decades or more. hold on to your ticket stubs, folks. you'll smile when you find it among your 50-year old keepsakes in a box in your garage. you'll proudly tell your kids and grandkids, "i was one of the very few people on earth that saw this film when it was first released." whether you love it or hate it, i challenge you to tell me you regret the experience.

now that i've finished my thesis-length essay, i'll leave it to you to contribute to my self-indulgent musings. how about you all? what does "fantasy" mean to you? does this film fit the criteria? am i the only one that has dreams eerily reminiscent of this film?

a pre-emptive thanks for your thoughts.

Trailer Comment Weekly, Inception

A bit late, but here is the official trailer for Christopher Nolan's mind fuck of a movie (and batman break) Inception.



On to the comments!

Omar Najam:

YES!! This looks amazing!!! How much can you get your mind blown? None more!

Joshua Fu:

From what I can tell, Nolan and WB have been fairly tight-lipped concerning the story details of INCEPTION. But judging by the trailer, its mind bending (and urban landscape bending) action seems fairly reminiscent of THE MATRIX. But that's in no way a put-down, and if INCEPTION can be 2010's MATRIX, I'll be a happy camper. In fact, if it combines DARK KNIGHT's Mann-inspired sleek city shoot'em up aesthetic with THE PRESTIGE's clever storytelling, I'll sure to be there on opening day.

Evan Koehne:

What the hell is this movie about?
I don't care. Christopher Nolan can fuck my mind any way/time/place that he wants. I guess it isn't rape if you like it... James Cameron, take heed.

Catie Moyer:

Comment about trailer affectivity: I have no idea what's going on in this movie. The point is lost on me. But it's visually provocative. It's like "hey, let's make a movie adaptation of an M.C. Escher painting."

Steven Ray Morris:

All I can do is reenact the music, “BAWMMMMM BAWMMMMM BAWMMM.” This is going to kick everyone’s ass this summer.



Inception is set for release July 16th, 2010 (in IMAX too!).

Inception on IMDB