Well, hey there!

It certainly has been a while since I wrote one of these. I apologize sincerely for the delay. I spent the entire summer without internet; fortunately, though, there were only a few movies that interested me enough to want to write about them. Don’t get your hopes up - I didn’t write anything. All you have to look forward to in this blog is a brief overview of the movies you might have missed already during this Season’s Cinema 10 Line-up. To be honest, it’s looking better than ever to me, and I can’t wait to see the other selected movies.

The first movie offered for our viewing pleasure was John C. Reilly’s new film, “Cyrus (2010).” The comedy revolves around the budding relationship he pursues with a single mom played by Marissa Tomei, and her son’s (played by Jonah Hill) passive-aggressive attempts to keep them apart. From the introduction of Reilly’s character, who is caught by his ex-wife as he’s masturbating, the film becomes the definition of an indie-Comedy. The humor is unapologetic and frequently touches on how real sexual encounters are a lot less glamorous than Hollywood would suggest. Reilly and Hill are a fantastic pair, exchanging awkward glances and hushed threats not unlike those in “Step Brothers (2008),” though this film more often takes the high-road. It maintains the typical “happy ending” that would appear in any other comedy, distancing itself from a lot of the expectations put forth at the outset; it is a surprising and sophisticated film by the relatively unknown directors, Jay and Mark Duplass.



The film that followed trumps their efforts by far, however. “GasLand (2010)” made me lose any remaining faith I had in the powers-that-be. The film is director Josh Fox’s open letter to gas companies and the politicians that keep them in control; it is his attempt to expose the consequences of the “natural” and “better” solution; it is his plea for a god-damn good reason. He wants to know why his home, and those of countless others, is being destroyed for the gas that sits under his feet. More importantly, he asks why people have to get sick on tap water that is so toxic that it can be lit on fire. Told through Fox’s strikingly unsettling monotone, the documentary feels more like a horror movie than a depiction of facts. Perhaps it is that the landscape he shoots feels barren and dry, burnt even. Maybe it is the pacing or the mystery. Whatever the cause, I could not help but feel scared for the people that were interviewed. It’s like they’re being stalked down some alleyway, with the glaring exception that the villain isn’t some digitally imbedded figure, but rather is something very real and capable. It is a given that every documentary film-maker means to get across a point; he has an agenda. With all that the public is already aware of, however, this seems to be more proof that we are seen not as people, but as numbers and obstacles. We are either meant to be bought or to be run down. It is one of the most successful documentaries I can recall seeing in my life, in the sense that I was hurt and angry as I left the theater. I’m not promoting piracy, but do whatever you can to get your hands on this film.




And then there was “Looking for Eric (2010),” which I didn’t see. Heard good things, though. Oh well.

Verdict: So Far So Stoked. Glad to be writing again. Thank you, dear reader(s).

Clever title.

Sebastian Silva’s 2009 film “La Nana,” – or “The Maid,” for you non-Spanish speaking readers – is an awkwardly humorous drama that explores the life of an aging housekeeper that’s lost touch with the outside world. The picture opens on Raquel’s 41st birthday, which she accepts with a stern stiffness, receiving gifts and smiling with all of the enthusiasm of a stick figure (Ahem...) It is clear from the outset that she finds little to be happy about, and while she loathes her position, it is the only comfort she knows. And so Raquel paces the house and takes after children that she considers her own, making no verbal complaints and opts instead for the passive-aggressive route. In addition to doing the dishes and laundry, she takes it upon herself to tattle on the masturbatory habits of the son and terrorize the eldest daughter’s study-induced slumber. Needless to say, this creates some tension amongst the family members, which in turn causes more problems for Raquel, etc. etc. Making life hell for everybody proves to be too much and eventually Raquel collapses, turning herself into a heap of exhaustion. Then - although she’s been rotten to her adopted family - they hire on some new help that’s sure to relieve some of her stress. Instead of welcoming some much-needed relaxation, she retaliates by insisting her health and making life hell for each of the new maids. I could say that she finds a metaphor for her life by repeatedly locking every maid outside and turning a deaf ear to their cries from the garden, but I don’t think this movie calls for any of that. Really, all Raquel looks for during the first half of this film is a friend; not a child that she can admire or an employer, but a friend with whom she can share even the simplest of conversations that don’t revolve around the dirty clothes or the placement of pans. She finds this in the third maid, Lucy, who forces her kindness (/nudity) and refuses to be turned away by Raquel’s desires to eat alone. The two grow closer as the film comes to an end, and Raquel begins to take steps to ensure her own happiness.

The film is somewhat touching and lighthearted, but doesn’t offer many layers. It’s much more of a comedy than it is a dramatic piece, and I think the advertisement for this film suggests otherwise. The title – while appropriate – is slightly cryptic, as is the trailer that accompanies it. With dark color schemes and increasingly malicious behavior that’s riddled with a subtle kind of humor that’s anything but overt, I was expecting to be caught off guard by violence. This never comes though, and I suppose that’s a good thing. It’s the kind of movie that a person can laugh at and enjoy in the moment, but probably won’t seek out to view multiple times. I don’t think any of the content warrants or necessitates that. Raquel’s character is easily digested; she’s a hard-nosed bitch that has been stuck inside another family's home for so long that she is apt to avoid cordiality and the bright colors of the world outside. She is certainly well rounded; though her mindset is static, her character is not. She changes throughout the course of the feature, and we finally see her loosen up and find a comfortable rhythm during the last minutes of the movie. Many of the others who are introduced are left to stand on their own with only a few lines or camera shots, however. It’s not that these characters are wholly under-developed, it’s just that maybe their numbers are too great. Clearly this suggests that Raquel is inundated with a flood of people, but maybe it’s too much for the audience. I wasn’t put off necessarily, but only the four characters I mentioned had any real effect on me.

Verdict: Stoked with a lowercase "s." This has got a high rating on IMDb, and I can see why: it is a quality film with interesting characters and an unconventional shooting style. It’s funny and surprising and the casting was wonderful, even with the younger actors. As a whole film, though, "La Nana" is mostly surface and doesn’t offer anything you’ll need to ponder for hours on end.

Crystal Meth Tweakers (Spoilers ahead):

I’m told I missed something in Werner Herzog’s rendition of "The Bad Lieutenant (2009)". A friend said that all of his other films have quirky, weirdly humorous parts that seem out of place but aren’t, and I’m willing to accept that. I was certainly entertained by this film and never once did I find myself dozing off or wondering what was going on in the other parts of the theater. In that sense, the film is an achievement. But I’m just not sure how great of a film it is otherwise; is it fine cinema or just pulp?

The primary issue with this film is that the conflict seems to be detached and insignificant; it comes into play only in the last ten minutes (which are phenomenal). This is because everything comes so easily to Nicolas Cage’s character, Terence McDonagh. That is not to say that no problems arise during the course of the film. McDonagh is plagued with back pain that causes him to seek out prescription and illegal drugs, both of which he abuses. He’s also forced to deal with an alcoholic father and a prostitute girlfriend who gets him in debt with some scumbags. To top it all off, he’s a raging gambling addict who cannot control himself, feeling sure that his next big win is one game away despite his horrible track record. For a normally functioning human being, this might seem like a downward spiral, but McDonagh seems completely unaffected by all of it. He remains calm and scheming throughout, and maybe that’s what Herzog’s message is: the junkie’s only real concern is his next score, and if everything falls to pieces around him, then so be it. Still – I’m not sure, in a cinematic sense – if I buy into this. By making any real conflict unimportant, Herzog fails to create a sense of tension and drama. In other films about junkies, like Danny Boyle’s masterpiece, "Trainspotting (1996)", there absolutely is a sense of fear and dread; we sympathize with the protagonist and cringe when he’s in the grips of his withdrawal-induced hallucinations. However, with Bad Lieutenant, there’s never a point where things don’t seem like they’re going to work out. It’s as if we’re watching an addict’s humorous and absurd dance with indifference, but the picture is out of focus. We can’t see whom we are watching and so we don’t know why we should care. In the end, it all works out just as McDonagh had apparently planned; every character with whom he is even remotely at odds comes crawling at his feet, rejoicing over the wonderful things he has done.

On the last few minutes: Flawed as the film which precedes them may be, the last two scenes of this film, which show us McDonagh before a table of cocaine and then at an aquarium, are brilliant. Pressed against a tank filled with sharks, he laughs at himself and the film goes black; it’s all some sort of sick, inescapable joke to the lieutenant. These last two scenes are the heart of the conflict – we see that Terrence will never change and that’s all there is to it. It’s tragic here but nowhere else – and if so, only in retrospect.

Verdict: Almost Stoked. The more I think about it, the more I liked this movie. I would watch it again if only because I feel that there are some things I probably missed as my friend has suggested. What I don’t need to see again is the lingering and drawn out shots of the different reptiles with which McDonagh shares a tweaked-out connection.

Sorry!

Unfortunately, I won't be able to provide my three or four faithful readers with a review of this week's latest Cinema 10 film, "Coco avant Chanel (2009)." I was only able to watch part of the movie, so I won't comment on what I did see. I'll try to put some other review up here in place of this one, as there won't be a Cinema 10 screening next week. Sorry to anyone that I've deeply hurt!

God I Love South Park

I'm trying to keep up to date with these reviews, but life seems to be getting in the way a little bit. So I apologize that these aren't as frequent as they could be. I plan on writing reviews for older movies, as well, but I guess I'm too busy to start up with that just yet. But anyway, here's some more food for thought:

It seemed like Cinema 10 had its biggest audience on Monday for the screening of the Academy Award Winning film "The Cove (2009)." People that I didn't think had any interest in attending independent film turned out in droves, and I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's the allure of the Academy's distinction. Or maybe people just really dig on dolphins and dolphin killing. Either way, I'm not sure that anyone walked away disappointed. I know that I had my reservations; activist films are often subject to some negative connotations and I was worried that this would be an hour and a half of how dolphins are the greatest creatures on the planet. Though the dolphin love provided the basis for this entire documentary, it wasn't a gushy, lovesong to our cetacean friends.

On the contrary, the documentary used a plot that at times reminded me of Hollywood thrillers, particularly the footage of the covert operation to place recording equipment at the sight of the dolphin slaughter. Much of the screen time was taken up by dolphin-trainer-turned-activist Ric O'Barry as he lamented his role in popularizing dolphins and thus creating a market for their services and meat. This film was clearly a very personal endeavor for O'Barry and the director, but O'Barry definitely steals the screen as he tries over and over again to make up for the colossal wrong he feels he has committed against the world.

More importantly, "The Cove" is influential and effective. The ending message to "Text DOLPHIN to 44144" is a little hokey and actually drew laughs from the audience, but aside from that, the film is serious and pointed, only straying from the central course once or twice. The Filmmakers undoubtedly turn the audience against the fisherman that hunt the dolphins and the politicians that enable them. And they don't have to use eerie music or menacing camera angles. Their method is simple: tell the audience that politicians are allowing children to be poisoned by the mercury that contaminates dolphin meat, which is being sold to schools as a substitute for other more expensive alternatives. Done. Instantly these people are evil mother fuckers. In the end it's all about money and corruption. The outcome of dolphin hunting isn't as important as the immediate influx of money. It doesn't matter that the industry is unsustainable and cruel and harmful to everyone, just as long as a few misguided people are compensated monetarily. Lately, it seems more and more documentaries are about the horrors of capitalism, and it seems appropriate considering the current economic climate. I don't think this is a theme that's going away anytime soon.

As I said, the movie only strayed momentarily to preach some dolphin love with a heavy dose of anthropomorphism. Is that the right word? I think so. I buy that dolphins are smart and share connections with each other, but I don't really believe that they operate on the same level as human beings. Obviously as living, feeling creatures, dolphins don't deserve to be tortured or killed inhumanely, but that doesn't mean that they are the super beings that the film makers suggest them to be. There's a great episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! on the subject that you should check out. (And if you're confused by my title, make sure you check out South Park Studios and watch their "Whale Whores" episode.) But what do I know, really? I suppose I could be wrong.


Verdict: Fairly Stoked, but not Stoked beyond reason. I totally understand why this movie won an Oscar. It's powerful, engaging and entertaining in the sense that it keeps you on the edge of your seat. It sparks a weird sort of rage in people that are otherwise indifferent to the subject. I guess everyone can relate and sympathize with creatures that bare the brunt of greed and cruelty, though. Go see it.

Bright Star

To say that tonight's Cinema 10 film, "Bright Star (2009)", was anything short of beautiful would be a colossal misstep on my part. I can't say that my mind was totally blown or that I'm left absolutely speechless. If that were the case, I wouldn't exactly have much material for this blog entry. What I can say, however, is that Director Jane Campions' latest endeavor is a wonderful piece of art that might bridge on the "masterpiece" status.

The profound poetry that ran the course of this film about John Keats and his lover, Fanny Brawne was touching, but what made the film was the silence that broke up the emotional dialogue. On countless occasions since I've begun my college career, I've been fed a quote from an author whose name I've lost that runs something like this: "The hardest part about writing is trying to convince my wife that I'm working when I stare outside my window." This film captures this sentiment perfectly. Much of the picture is composed of shots of characters staring - gazing, even - at something or someone in the distance. The audience is forced to wonder at what they're contemplating. While much of the message is straightforward and precise, the audience must create their own meaning, just like they must with every piece of important literature.

Even masterpieces have their flaws, though, I suppose. The film is a little slow at the outset; the first few minutes are slightly boring and trite, but it unfolds into something incredible quickly. Every relationship presented in the film is significant and plays a role in the final outcome, and is therefore enjoyable and engaging. I was a little put off by the attire at first, as high class British dress tends to rub me the wrong way, but the film transcends the class war stereotype that is so often the subject of movies set in the 1800s and focuses instead on the conflict of expectations established in the aforementioned relationships. If that run-on sentence makes strikes a chord at all; sorry.

Verdict: Moving. This is the first and last time I'll sum up a movie without somehow using the word "Stoked." I think that while I find the word funny and useful, to say it now would almost be to sully what this film was about. I hate to say that "Bright Star" was moving because that's cliche and boring, but there aren't too many other words in my vocabulary that come to mind at the moment. Do whatever you can to get your hands on this.

Alice in Wonderland

So I've seen "Alice In Wonderland (2010)" twice now, once at a private midnight screening and once at a public midnight screening. I'm only writing this now because I need something to occupy the time between now and work in a half hour. It's one of those movies where you get about what you expect to get. It's a Tim Burton spin on an old Disney Classic, but frankly, the original is much more entertaining and profound. This one just seems to be full of a lot of clutter that detracts from the plot. Burton's use of CGI and 3D effects is so overwhelming that I often found myself confused about the plot because I was too busy looking at something else going on in that scene. Even more troublesome is the fact that sometimes it's hard to pick out the focus character of a given shot because there are so many distractions. The best part was Johnny Depp's take on the Mad Hatter which was nothing short of hilarious and troubling, making for a well-rounded, enjoyable character. Everything else just seems kind of boring and undeveloped; what I took away from both viewings was that it's a three-hour movie crammed into a two hour time slot.

What I keep finding myself coming back to is the 3D element utilized here. People are paying in excess of ten dollars a seat to see a 3D movie that doesn't really use 3D to its fullest potential. Since "Avatar (2009)" came out in December, a new bar has been set. James Cameron used 3D to create a world so vast and immense and beautiful that it was hard to distance one's self from the movie and the real world. Plot-wise, Avatar sucked. It was the same story that's been told four hundred times over. But god dammit, it looked fantastic. It was visually stunning and for that reason, any movie that uses 3D or creates some sort of new world has to be able to capture the sort of wonder that Avatar induced, or else it just cannot compare. In short: I found myself taking off my glasses at numerous points and didn't see too much of a difference.

Verdict: Meh... less than Stoked. If you think you're going to love this movie, you probably will. It will meet your expectations, and exceed them if you happen to have your standards set pretty low. This movie's nothing spectacular and fails to compete with its animated predecessor.