Having literally just written about Tim Burton's Batman and filled with a sense that The Dark Knight has truly over shadowed all other theatrical versions of Batman. Nolan's first foray into the Batman franchise however deserves to be given it's due credit for resurrecting the franchise from the utter failure that was Batman and Robin.
A few things forth discussing on this film are the way Nolan created a more real to life telling of the Batman story and how Nolan has amped up his demands on Batman himself.
The first aspect revolves around how Nolan has managed to make Batman films that more closely resemble a gangster drama than a comic book film. Nolan uses Chicago as part of his back drop and it gives the film a real gritty feel compared with the direction that Joel Schumacher's films had taken. Actually, a film in which you dressed a dog up as Batman might have a grittier feel to it than Schumacher's Batman. But Nolan takes a long and hard look at what it would take to create Batman. We see what happens to Bruce Wayans parents, we also get a sense of the work the Wayan family did. We also get to understand the significance of Bats on Bruce Wayan and we see Bruce seek out an understanding to the criminal mind. It is this pursuit that leads Bruce to his training with the League of Shadows, a training that would prepare Bruce for taking on the role of Batman.
Back in Gotham, Bruce takes on the criminal world that is destroying Gotham City. One of the elements to the story that Nolan highlights is the corruption that is running rampant in the city. This corruption causes there to be as much fear and anger directed in Batman's direction by the establishment as there is by the mobsters. It's a fascinating story that Nolan is telling and he is not limiting himself to the typical comic book formula throughout. Instead, Nolan is confidently telling a story that does not focus on a super hero versus super villain but on a hero taking on villains in all forms.
The other aspect that Nolan masterfully changes is the physical demands he puts his Batman through. Michael Keaton took his punches in the Burton films, but in Batman and Robin and honestly believe that we did not see George Clooney engaged in any physical way. Christian Bale's Batman gets dropped in icy water, climbs mountains, gets involved in sword fights, is set on fire and flies throw the skies just to scratch the surface. Nolan wants there to be a sense of danger involved in being Batman beyond what previous Batman films had done. Bale himself is always being described as an actor who is willing to take on any physical challenge necessary for a role and his performance as Batman is no different. You don't realize how little the previous actors who played Batman were required to do physically until you see what Bale goes through. It's remarkable.
Other aspects I love about Nolans take on Batman include the depth he has given to the character of Alfred, the look inside Wayan Enterprises and the treatment of Lt. (soon to be commissioner) Gordon. The film deals with villains in a unique way for a comic book film in the sense that we see several characters as potential arch villains but it's not until 3/4 of the way through that the film reveals it's true arch villain. Of course, when that villain is revealed he immediately makes a powerful impact and takes the film to another level.
All the Batman films are mine of course and while my wife enjoys the Nolan films I think there are times that she gets sick of me wanting to watch them repeatedly. I don't have a personal story related to this film, but my wife has a great one. I remember telling me that she was going to see it because she was chaperoning a date her younger brother was going on. The film was released in June 2005 and my brother law will be marrying the girl he went to see Batman Begins with. While I would like to think all of our lives are improved by seeing Nolan's first Batman film, they truly can say that their lives have only gotten better since they saw Batman Begins.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
BATMAN!!!
I feel like I am going to have to break out the boxing gloves for this one. You see, I am very aware that in the last few years Christopher Nolan has rebooted the Batman franchise. Christian Bale is a great Batman and The Dark Knight is currently the 3rd highest domestic grossing film of all time. The 2 Batman films that Christopher Nolan has done are arguably two of the best comic book films ever made.
But I am not talking about Mr. Nolan's vision of Batman. I'm talking about Tim Burtons vision of Batman and I find comparing the two directors works to be a completely fruitless endeavor. Under no circumstances do I believe the quality of Nolan's work should be used to detract from the quality of Burton's work. And on a similar subject, even more pointless is trying to compare Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker to that of Jack Nicholson. Nolan's work is darker and transcends a feeling of being closer to a real life mobster dramas than a cartoon. Burton's focus may not have been true to the comic book but it reflected the feeling and style of a comic book world.
The Burton vision is filled with a dark sense. It gives the impression that we are watching Batman from is very beginning. He is getting his name out and making an impression on Gotham City. We also see Jack Nicholson as second in command mobster Jack Napier and Harvey Dent is the recently elected district attorney determined to bring the mob down. Batman catches wind that something is going down at the chemical plant. There is a shoot out between the cops hired to kill Napier and his gang members and Batman arrives and drops Napier into a vat of chemicals creating The Joker.
From here on The Joker takes over as mob leader and begins running his twisted plans on Gotham City. Caught in the middle of this story is Vicky Vale, a reporter who is intrigued by the Batman story and who has caught the eye of the Joker.
What I defend in this film is that it achieves it's own vision of the Batman story successfully and skillfully. To this day I love Nicholson's performance as the Joker. He is maniacal and enjoyable and hits every line with a sense glee. Michael Keaton is a great Bruce Wayan and a good Batman. The rest of the characters are all played well and the story is enjoyable.
The reason I feel defensive in discussing this film is that I know this film does not compare with the work of Christopher Nolan, but it still should not detract from this film. The best comparison I could make would be to use a classic like caper film like the Sting to Ocean's Eleven. If you grow up today and see a film like Ocean's Eleven packed full of twists and little things you catch on repeat viewing it makes a film like The Sting seem sorta simple. But The Sting is still considered a classic because of it's place in film history and the fact that films like Ocean's Eleven may never have gotten made with out it. Of course the Nolan films are deeper and offer more. Of course Ledger's performance has more depth and is infinitely more captivating. So I submit to anyone reading this to remember that Tim Burton's original "darker" version of Batman is what paved the way for directors like Nolan to take comic book material to an even darker more realistic level. Plus, it is still considerably better than Joel Schumacher's ridiculous takes on Batman.
But I am not talking about Mr. Nolan's vision of Batman. I'm talking about Tim Burtons vision of Batman and I find comparing the two directors works to be a completely fruitless endeavor. Under no circumstances do I believe the quality of Nolan's work should be used to detract from the quality of Burton's work. And on a similar subject, even more pointless is trying to compare Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker to that of Jack Nicholson. Nolan's work is darker and transcends a feeling of being closer to a real life mobster dramas than a cartoon. Burton's focus may not have been true to the comic book but it reflected the feeling and style of a comic book world.
The Burton vision is filled with a dark sense. It gives the impression that we are watching Batman from is very beginning. He is getting his name out and making an impression on Gotham City. We also see Jack Nicholson as second in command mobster Jack Napier and Harvey Dent is the recently elected district attorney determined to bring the mob down. Batman catches wind that something is going down at the chemical plant. There is a shoot out between the cops hired to kill Napier and his gang members and Batman arrives and drops Napier into a vat of chemicals creating The Joker.
From here on The Joker takes over as mob leader and begins running his twisted plans on Gotham City. Caught in the middle of this story is Vicky Vale, a reporter who is intrigued by the Batman story and who has caught the eye of the Joker.
What I defend in this film is that it achieves it's own vision of the Batman story successfully and skillfully. To this day I love Nicholson's performance as the Joker. He is maniacal and enjoyable and hits every line with a sense glee. Michael Keaton is a great Bruce Wayan and a good Batman. The rest of the characters are all played well and the story is enjoyable.
The reason I feel defensive in discussing this film is that I know this film does not compare with the work of Christopher Nolan, but it still should not detract from this film. The best comparison I could make would be to use a classic like caper film like the Sting to Ocean's Eleven. If you grow up today and see a film like Ocean's Eleven packed full of twists and little things you catch on repeat viewing it makes a film like The Sting seem sorta simple. But The Sting is still considered a classic because of it's place in film history and the fact that films like Ocean's Eleven may never have gotten made with out it. Of course the Nolan films are deeper and offer more. Of course Ledger's performance has more depth and is infinitely more captivating. So I submit to anyone reading this to remember that Tim Burton's original "darker" version of Batman is what paved the way for directors like Nolan to take comic book material to an even darker more realistic level. Plus, it is still considerably better than Joel Schumacher's ridiculous takes on Batman.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Away We Go
This one is my wife's film. In fact, that may be an understatement given how much she loved this film when she saw it in theaters. From the moment she came home I knew this film would need to be her birthday present. It was in a sorta round about way. I made the mistake of involving my kids in the decision making process for their moms birthday and asked them to choose either this film or Marley and Me. They choose the one with a dog on the cover. Heidi would have been happy with Marley and Me but she wanted Away We Go. We exchanged it and ended up getting Marley and Me for like 5 bucks the day after Thanksgiving so I think it all worked out the way it was supposed to. At least, I believe that until the day comes when I finally have to watch Marley and Me.
Regarding Away We Go, it is a delightful little film that I would argue improves with a second viewing. It stars Jim from The Office (do I even need to type out John Krasinski?) and Maya Rudolph who discover that they are pregnant. They are in their early 30's and are still trying to get things figured out. They aren't married because Verona (Rudolph) doesn't "believe in it" (her real reason is much more moving) and they still aren't fully settled regarding their home and careers. They find out that Burt's (Jim from The Office) parents are moving to Europe 3 months before the baby is due, leaving them no reason to stay in the town they are in.
They travel to Arizona to meet Verona's old boss and her later her sister. They take a train to WI where Burt has a job interview and a childhood friend to catch up with. They head to Montreal where some friends from college live and then to Miami to help out Burt's brother who is in a crisis.
Some of the characters we meet of this trip are boorish and the attempts at humor feel more awkward and uncomfortable than they are worth. But the times when the film is trying to be serious are right on and feel very genuine. That's no small trick for director Sam Mendes to pull off considering we are only with these characters for a few moments and yet they are able to elicit real emotion from us. The first time you watch the film the comical characters are so over the top at times that it distracts from the moments of heartbreaking brilliance the film has to offer. But on repeat viewing the films brilliance and care for the characters shines through and we are privy to some great things in this film.
On a personal note, there is part in the film that left me wanting to cry my eyes out while watching it a second time. It's regarding their college friends who have several adopted children at home. They meet up, they have laughs, they have drinks (responsibly, of course) and then the husband lets Burt know that only days before his wife had her fifth miscarriage. The scene itself only lasts a few minutes and yet he says the same things you think of as a husband when your wife has a miscarriage. You don't know if your supposed to name the baby. You don't know if your supposed to bury the baby. Whenever you can though you try to carry on and still share laughs with your friends but inside their is always a part of you that feels broken and you know you can't fix it. You sometimes wonder if it's somehow your fault and if there are things you could have done differently to change things. And worst of all you want to do everything you can for you wife and yet it is the one time you feel the most helpless. The best you can do is listen, hold each other and continue to love what you have along with the memory of the one who is waiting for you.
Regarding Away We Go, it is a delightful little film that I would argue improves with a second viewing. It stars Jim from The Office (do I even need to type out John Krasinski?) and Maya Rudolph who discover that they are pregnant. They are in their early 30's and are still trying to get things figured out. They aren't married because Verona (Rudolph) doesn't "believe in it" (her real reason is much more moving) and they still aren't fully settled regarding their home and careers. They find out that Burt's (Jim from The Office) parents are moving to Europe 3 months before the baby is due, leaving them no reason to stay in the town they are in.
They travel to Arizona to meet Verona's old boss and her later her sister. They take a train to WI where Burt has a job interview and a childhood friend to catch up with. They head to Montreal where some friends from college live and then to Miami to help out Burt's brother who is in a crisis.
Some of the characters we meet of this trip are boorish and the attempts at humor feel more awkward and uncomfortable than they are worth. But the times when the film is trying to be serious are right on and feel very genuine. That's no small trick for director Sam Mendes to pull off considering we are only with these characters for a few moments and yet they are able to elicit real emotion from us. The first time you watch the film the comical characters are so over the top at times that it distracts from the moments of heartbreaking brilliance the film has to offer. But on repeat viewing the films brilliance and care for the characters shines through and we are privy to some great things in this film.
On a personal note, there is part in the film that left me wanting to cry my eyes out while watching it a second time. It's regarding their college friends who have several adopted children at home. They meet up, they have laughs, they have drinks (responsibly, of course) and then the husband lets Burt know that only days before his wife had her fifth miscarriage. The scene itself only lasts a few minutes and yet he says the same things you think of as a husband when your wife has a miscarriage. You don't know if your supposed to name the baby. You don't know if your supposed to bury the baby. Whenever you can though you try to carry on and still share laughs with your friends but inside their is always a part of you that feels broken and you know you can't fix it. You sometimes wonder if it's somehow your fault and if there are things you could have done differently to change things. And worst of all you want to do everything you can for you wife and yet it is the one time you feel the most helpless. The best you can do is listen, hold each other and continue to love what you have along with the memory of the one who is waiting for you.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Almost Famous
There was a time in my life when I could have been engaged in a conversation with classmates or people at a party and we would start talking about movies. Someone would mention a movie like Scent of a Woman and all but one of us would start nodding in agreement. Then I would turn to the poor soul who said nothing and when they breathlessly uttered the words "I haven't seen it" I would jump done their throat and insist that the next thing they should do in their life is see that movie. I have done that seemingly 100 times in my life and the only thing I can say is that mercifully I have toned it down to a point were I almost never do it anymore.
However, if you are reading this and you have never seen Almost Famous than you need to stop reading now and before you doing anything else with your life SEE THIS FILM!
For the record this is my film although Heidi is also a fan. I actually bought it for a second time in my life recently which is why I am going slightly outside of alphabetical order to talk about the film now. The reason behind my buying it a second time is that I went through a somewhat ill advised period in which I attempted to purge my movie collection of R-rated films before having children. Of course the wife then wanted Constant Gardner and I quickly realized that just because we have the films doesn't mean the kids have to watch them (at least not until they are old enough and then they will be required to watch them with me).
So, why do I love Almost Famous enough to have purchased it twice? It's a good question and one I couldn't have fully answered until watching it again. I had forgotten just how much this film makes you love life. I watch it and even through the painful scenes there is a sense of joy that reminds us that some of life's greats wisdom comes from it's most painful movie.
The film is said to be a semi-autobiographical telling of writer/director Cameron Crowe's life. We meet William as a youngster whose college professor mom is trying to provide him and his sister with the cliff notes to life. She has her own bizarre 1970's approaches to parenting such as celebrating Christmas in September and banning rock music such as Simon and Garfunkel. William is not only being pushed to be a lawyer, but he is being pushed to be the youngest lawyer in the country which is why he is 15 during his senior year of high school.
Of course, being 15, William's main interest is rock and roll. He is a talented writer and works on his school newspaper while sending pieces he has written to various rock journals in the area. He gets an assignment from Cream magazine to cover a Black Sabbath show and he meets the opening act Stillwater and hangs out in their dressing room.
He also meets Penny Lane. She is a "groupie" ... sorry, "Band Aid" which would be sad given how young she is if it wasn't for the fact that she seems to have a good enough head on her shoulders to know that eventually she needs to find a new crowd. The one thing standing in her way though is her feeling for Stillwater's lead guitarist Russell.
William's talent catches the eye of Rolling Stone magazine and he is given an assignment to go on tour with Stillwater. From here you can basically put the rest together. William loves Penny, Penny loves Russell, Russell loves the attention Penny gives him and watching the three of them (along with the rest of the cast) tour the country is undeniably intoxicating.
The film's cast is terrific. William is played masterfully by Patrick Fugit, Billy Crudup plays the great flawed hero Russell, Frances McDormand is Williams lovingly overbearing mother and add to that Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jason Lee, Zooey Deschanel, Jimmy Fallon, Anna Paquin, and Rain Wilson. All that brings us to Penny Lane who was played by Kate Hudson. I remember seeing this film almost 10 years ago and thinking that Kate Hudson would be the decades greatest actress. Her performance in this film ranks at the very top of the list of all great female performances that I have seen in my life. From the moment we meet Penny Lane she steals the show and every time she is on the screen we can feel the warmth and infatuation Cameron Crowe must have had for his real life band aid. She is every boys first crush and watching her brings back all those feelings you had as a teen when you first meet someone that is actually worth asking out. In fact, I have so much admiration for this performance that I will refrain from going into details about the disaster of cliche filled career she has had since this film.
I am tempted to continue on out of some fear that someone who might read this may not be convinced that they should see this. One personal memory regarding the film I have is that I had one of the best dates of my life seeing this film. I had actually already seen it once, but the film was actually more enjoyable seeing it a second time and seeing it have the same effect on someone I like that it had had on me. Good times.
In all seriousness, I really don't like the movie snob in me who tells people "You haven't seen 'insert mediocre film here', you have to see it!" But, seriously, if you haven't seen Almost Famous you have to see it!
However, if you are reading this and you have never seen Almost Famous than you need to stop reading now and before you doing anything else with your life SEE THIS FILM!
For the record this is my film although Heidi is also a fan. I actually bought it for a second time in my life recently which is why I am going slightly outside of alphabetical order to talk about the film now. The reason behind my buying it a second time is that I went through a somewhat ill advised period in which I attempted to purge my movie collection of R-rated films before having children. Of course the wife then wanted Constant Gardner and I quickly realized that just because we have the films doesn't mean the kids have to watch them (at least not until they are old enough and then they will be required to watch them with me).
So, why do I love Almost Famous enough to have purchased it twice? It's a good question and one I couldn't have fully answered until watching it again. I had forgotten just how much this film makes you love life. I watch it and even through the painful scenes there is a sense of joy that reminds us that some of life's greats wisdom comes from it's most painful movie.
The film is said to be a semi-autobiographical telling of writer/director Cameron Crowe's life. We meet William as a youngster whose college professor mom is trying to provide him and his sister with the cliff notes to life. She has her own bizarre 1970's approaches to parenting such as celebrating Christmas in September and banning rock music such as Simon and Garfunkel. William is not only being pushed to be a lawyer, but he is being pushed to be the youngest lawyer in the country which is why he is 15 during his senior year of high school.
Of course, being 15, William's main interest is rock and roll. He is a talented writer and works on his school newspaper while sending pieces he has written to various rock journals in the area. He gets an assignment from Cream magazine to cover a Black Sabbath show and he meets the opening act Stillwater and hangs out in their dressing room.
He also meets Penny Lane. She is a "groupie" ... sorry, "Band Aid" which would be sad given how young she is if it wasn't for the fact that she seems to have a good enough head on her shoulders to know that eventually she needs to find a new crowd. The one thing standing in her way though is her feeling for Stillwater's lead guitarist Russell.
William's talent catches the eye of Rolling Stone magazine and he is given an assignment to go on tour with Stillwater. From here you can basically put the rest together. William loves Penny, Penny loves Russell, Russell loves the attention Penny gives him and watching the three of them (along with the rest of the cast) tour the country is undeniably intoxicating.
The film's cast is terrific. William is played masterfully by Patrick Fugit, Billy Crudup plays the great flawed hero Russell, Frances McDormand is Williams lovingly overbearing mother and add to that Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jason Lee, Zooey Deschanel, Jimmy Fallon, Anna Paquin, and Rain Wilson. All that brings us to Penny Lane who was played by Kate Hudson. I remember seeing this film almost 10 years ago and thinking that Kate Hudson would be the decades greatest actress. Her performance in this film ranks at the very top of the list of all great female performances that I have seen in my life. From the moment we meet Penny Lane she steals the show and every time she is on the screen we can feel the warmth and infatuation Cameron Crowe must have had for his real life band aid. She is every boys first crush and watching her brings back all those feelings you had as a teen when you first meet someone that is actually worth asking out. In fact, I have so much admiration for this performance that I will refrain from going into details about the disaster of cliche filled career she has had since this film.
I am tempted to continue on out of some fear that someone who might read this may not be convinced that they should see this. One personal memory regarding the film I have is that I had one of the best dates of my life seeing this film. I had actually already seen it once, but the film was actually more enjoyable seeing it a second time and seeing it have the same effect on someone I like that it had had on me. Good times.
In all seriousness, I really don't like the movie snob in me who tells people "You haven't seen 'insert mediocre film here', you have to see it!" But, seriously, if you haven't seen Almost Famous you have to see it!
The Aviator
LEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Okay, I got that out of the way. This one is my films and while I thought my wife liked it when she saw she said she had no interest in it when I bought it. Oh well, perhaps this is further evidence that I need to listen to here more or at least better.
For those who are unfamiliar with the film, Aviator is a biopic about the life of the eccentric and reclusive billionaire Howard Hughes. Along with Leo it boasts an impressive cast which includes Cate Blanchett, Alec Bladwin, John C. Reilly, Alan Alda, Kate Beckinsale, Jude Law and Ian Holm and is directed by Martin Scorsese.
The film itself is a sprawling impressive epic that is fueled by strong performances and fantastic visuals. Howard Hughes' life is that of a man who was born into wealth and spent every moment there after pushing the envelope and trying to take things further. We open seeing Hughes on the set of his film "Hell's Angel's." Hughes is determined to create a spectacle the likes of which has never been seen before on film and is willing to pour millions of his own money into doing so. The film makes him a star and becomes a playboy of sorts as he engages in relationships with Katherine Hepburn, Ava Gardner and Jean Harlow to name a few.
In his life outside of Hollywood, Hughes is determined to push the limits of aeronautics forward. We see him setting records for speed of travel and traveling around the world. His company is contracted by the U.S. government to develop war planes including the Hercules which may be better remembered as the Spruce Goose.
I'm not sure what it is Scorsese is saying about Hughes in this film. We see Hughes mentally breakdown as his eccentricities turn into compulsions. We see him take on congress and Pan America's monopoly for the right to fly commercial flights internationally. The film treats Hughes as a sort of hero and it sets up the head of PanAm Juan Trippe and Senator Brewster as sorta villains trying to tear down Hughes. The scenes were Hughes is meeting with Brewster's senate committee are set up to be a climax and we see Hughes fly Hercules when many believed it would never fly.
While the film wants Hughes to be a hero, it does not shy away from his flaws. His relationships with woman are superficial, he throws money around like it grows on trees and his compulsions turn him into a shell of the man he was in the beginning.
Like the film Amistad which I previously wrote about, this film does a fantastic job of telling a story whose historical significance has been lost over the years. And like Amistad, it doesn't completely convey the importance of the story the way you imagine the filmmakers see it. You watch and you know why it's important but it ultimate goes back to being one of the forgotten stories in history.
It is a film worth watching for the performances. I remember when Leo came out with Gangs of New York and Catch Me if you Can in 2002 and telling a friend of mine who was still caught up in the post Titanic "I hate Leo" backlash that both films were most sees. He refused because Leo was in them, but following the release of the Aviator he called me and said that Leo had won him over. The story is captivating and I perhaps it also shows how we take for granted the road that needed to be paved in order for commercial airline travel to be what it is today. But, I leave this film putting Howard Hughes back into the same historical place I found him before watching this film. This is not a historical film I would use in a history class, but it is an opportunity to watch great actors and great story tellers do what they do best.
Okay, I got that out of the way. This one is my films and while I thought my wife liked it when she saw she said she had no interest in it when I bought it. Oh well, perhaps this is further evidence that I need to listen to here more or at least better.
For those who are unfamiliar with the film, Aviator is a biopic about the life of the eccentric and reclusive billionaire Howard Hughes. Along with Leo it boasts an impressive cast which includes Cate Blanchett, Alec Bladwin, John C. Reilly, Alan Alda, Kate Beckinsale, Jude Law and Ian Holm and is directed by Martin Scorsese.
The film itself is a sprawling impressive epic that is fueled by strong performances and fantastic visuals. Howard Hughes' life is that of a man who was born into wealth and spent every moment there after pushing the envelope and trying to take things further. We open seeing Hughes on the set of his film "Hell's Angel's." Hughes is determined to create a spectacle the likes of which has never been seen before on film and is willing to pour millions of his own money into doing so. The film makes him a star and becomes a playboy of sorts as he engages in relationships with Katherine Hepburn, Ava Gardner and Jean Harlow to name a few.
In his life outside of Hollywood, Hughes is determined to push the limits of aeronautics forward. We see him setting records for speed of travel and traveling around the world. His company is contracted by the U.S. government to develop war planes including the Hercules which may be better remembered as the Spruce Goose.
I'm not sure what it is Scorsese is saying about Hughes in this film. We see Hughes mentally breakdown as his eccentricities turn into compulsions. We see him take on congress and Pan America's monopoly for the right to fly commercial flights internationally. The film treats Hughes as a sort of hero and it sets up the head of PanAm Juan Trippe and Senator Brewster as sorta villains trying to tear down Hughes. The scenes were Hughes is meeting with Brewster's senate committee are set up to be a climax and we see Hughes fly Hercules when many believed it would never fly.
While the film wants Hughes to be a hero, it does not shy away from his flaws. His relationships with woman are superficial, he throws money around like it grows on trees and his compulsions turn him into a shell of the man he was in the beginning.
Like the film Amistad which I previously wrote about, this film does a fantastic job of telling a story whose historical significance has been lost over the years. And like Amistad, it doesn't completely convey the importance of the story the way you imagine the filmmakers see it. You watch and you know why it's important but it ultimate goes back to being one of the forgotten stories in history.
It is a film worth watching for the performances. I remember when Leo came out with Gangs of New York and Catch Me if you Can in 2002 and telling a friend of mine who was still caught up in the post Titanic "I hate Leo" backlash that both films were most sees. He refused because Leo was in them, but following the release of the Aviator he called me and said that Leo had won him over. The story is captivating and I perhaps it also shows how we take for granted the road that needed to be paved in order for commercial airline travel to be what it is today. But, I leave this film putting Howard Hughes back into the same historical place I found him before watching this film. This is not a historical film I would use in a history class, but it is an opportunity to watch great actors and great story tellers do what they do best.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
An Education
I got to go back to the theaters last night and I am reminded of how lucky I am to have a wife that would rather see a film like An Education than the juggernaut of all RomComs Valentines Day. Thanks to the Academy Awards desperation to gain more viewers by expanding the nominees for best picture from 5 to 10 I was given a reason to take interest in this British Dramedy.
The film takes place in England in 1961 and centers around Jenny, a 16 year old going to an all girls schools whose parents want her to study hard so that she can attend Oxford after private school. That is of course until an older man comes by and Jenny's life takes a turn. The older man is David and he is an unscrupulous individual whose is able to charm Jenny's parents into allowing her to join in him on one seemingly unlikely adventure after another. We see Jenny enjoying her life and having fun like never before. Oxford is no longer her goal as she begins to see such pursuits as being closer to death than life sense they interfere with eating in fancy restaurants, listening to wonderful music and traveling all over. Everything is great until ...
No need for spoilers here. The film is filled with wonderful performances and an even mix of sharp humor and compelling drama. What drew me to the film first though was knowing that the screenplay was written by Nick Hornby. Hornby's work was the base for High Fidelity and About a Boy which are two of my favorite films. Like About a Boy, An Education skillfully creates a world in which the viewer can actually see themselves wanting a life like the lead character's while knowing that their is something inherently shallow in that life. And like any skilled story teller, Hornby is able to pull the rug out from under his characters in a way that makes us understand why it was necessary to do so.
I don't know if this film gets nominated for an Academy Award if there are only 5 slots, but I can say that it is worthy of the acknowledgement.
The film takes place in England in 1961 and centers around Jenny, a 16 year old going to an all girls schools whose parents want her to study hard so that she can attend Oxford after private school. That is of course until an older man comes by and Jenny's life takes a turn. The older man is David and he is an unscrupulous individual whose is able to charm Jenny's parents into allowing her to join in him on one seemingly unlikely adventure after another. We see Jenny enjoying her life and having fun like never before. Oxford is no longer her goal as she begins to see such pursuits as being closer to death than life sense they interfere with eating in fancy restaurants, listening to wonderful music and traveling all over. Everything is great until ...
No need for spoilers here. The film is filled with wonderful performances and an even mix of sharp humor and compelling drama. What drew me to the film first though was knowing that the screenplay was written by Nick Hornby. Hornby's work was the base for High Fidelity and About a Boy which are two of my favorite films. Like About a Boy, An Education skillfully creates a world in which the viewer can actually see themselves wanting a life like the lead character's while knowing that their is something inherently shallow in that life. And like any skilled story teller, Hornby is able to pull the rug out from under his characters in a way that makes us understand why it was necessary to do so.
I don't know if this film gets nominated for an Academy Award if there are only 5 slots, but I can say that it is worthy of the acknowledgement.
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
I recently had a good friend of mine tell him that he considered The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford to be the past decades best film. I remembered getting it from netflix and needing 3 sittings to finish it, but otherwise I thought it was very good but when I was creating a list of what I believed were the decades top films I left it out. Then I saw it in the Walmart $5 bin, picked it up and now I regret leaving it out of my top 50 of the past decade.
The best way I can describe this film is to say that it is an epic western told in a similar style to a classic Greek epic poem. It is 2 hours and 40 mins long and the films director Andrew Dominik uses every second to create a mood and style that is so engrossing it makes your skin tingle with excitement. It is not a biopic of Jesse James or Robert Ford for that matter, but instead it is a carefully crafted retelling of American folklore and legend.
The films boasts an incredible cast lead by Brad Pitt as Jesse James, Casey Affleck in an academy award nominated performance as Robert Ford and Sam Rockwell as the regret filled Charley Ford. The movie picks up at the point in time when Frank James has decided to leave his brother and the famed James Gang for retirement and Jesse struggles to make sense out of what direction he would go next. As the James Gang commits their final train robbery Robert Ford makes his pitch to join the game. The two men remain together following the robbery and as Jesse becomes more suspicious Robert's admiration for Jesse turns to distrust which leads him to put into place a plan to turn Jesse in.
Of course, much like the film Titanic, the title of this film essentially gives much of the story away. We know on the day that Jesse meets Robert that Robert will one day kill him. And yet when the final encounter between the two men takes place there is a feeling of shock. The film grabs you with it's almost hypnotic narration (possibly the best narration in film history) and it creates a world that feels like a great painting. The characters are all rich with depth and we see and feel the conflict they go through and the internal demons they are dealing with. We feel every look and we feel what it is like for each character to live in a world in which they feel as though their in constant danger.
In watching this film a second time I thought of a higher profile film that portrays the life of a famous villain in American History, Public Enemies. While that one was more successful commercially, it was carried a distinct flaw. Each film had a main character that was destined to end the life of the famed villain, but were Public Enemies failed to give any life to it's assailant, the success of Assassination is that we get to know Robert Ford for all of his good and bad qualities and when the day comes that he must bring down Jesse James we understand what it means to him and the emotion of the moment is overwhelming.
It's safe to say given the box office grosses and relatively unsuccessful DVD run that if you are reading this you probably have not seen this film. It is not a film for everyone. It is challenging and time consuming, but if you give it your full attention it will overwhelm you with it's beauty and incredible sense of story telling.
The best way I can describe this film is to say that it is an epic western told in a similar style to a classic Greek epic poem. It is 2 hours and 40 mins long and the films director Andrew Dominik uses every second to create a mood and style that is so engrossing it makes your skin tingle with excitement. It is not a biopic of Jesse James or Robert Ford for that matter, but instead it is a carefully crafted retelling of American folklore and legend.
The films boasts an incredible cast lead by Brad Pitt as Jesse James, Casey Affleck in an academy award nominated performance as Robert Ford and Sam Rockwell as the regret filled Charley Ford. The movie picks up at the point in time when Frank James has decided to leave his brother and the famed James Gang for retirement and Jesse struggles to make sense out of what direction he would go next. As the James Gang commits their final train robbery Robert Ford makes his pitch to join the game. The two men remain together following the robbery and as Jesse becomes more suspicious Robert's admiration for Jesse turns to distrust which leads him to put into place a plan to turn Jesse in.
Of course, much like the film Titanic, the title of this film essentially gives much of the story away. We know on the day that Jesse meets Robert that Robert will one day kill him. And yet when the final encounter between the two men takes place there is a feeling of shock. The film grabs you with it's almost hypnotic narration (possibly the best narration in film history) and it creates a world that feels like a great painting. The characters are all rich with depth and we see and feel the conflict they go through and the internal demons they are dealing with. We feel every look and we feel what it is like for each character to live in a world in which they feel as though their in constant danger.
In watching this film a second time I thought of a higher profile film that portrays the life of a famous villain in American History, Public Enemies. While that one was more successful commercially, it was carried a distinct flaw. Each film had a main character that was destined to end the life of the famed villain, but were Public Enemies failed to give any life to it's assailant, the success of Assassination is that we get to know Robert Ford for all of his good and bad qualities and when the day comes that he must bring down Jesse James we understand what it means to him and the emotion of the moment is overwhelming.
It's safe to say given the box office grosses and relatively unsuccessful DVD run that if you are reading this you probably have not seen this film. It is not a film for everyone. It is challenging and time consuming, but if you give it your full attention it will overwhelm you with it's beauty and incredible sense of story telling.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
As Good As It Gets
The game desert island is a simple, superficial way to get to know a person. It consists of choosing a category and then picking 5 things that fit into it as the five you would take with you to a desert island knowing they would be all you have for the remainder of your life. You can do this with books, albums and of course films. I mention all of this because As Good As It Gets is the first film I would pick when choosing my five desert island films.
Now don't get confused, I am not trying to argue the place of As Good As It Gets among the all time great films. It is flawed and in many ways it can be described as something of an unromantic romantic comedy. I know people who find it frustrating or are willing to say that it is good but forgettable.
So the question arises, why is this film one of my desert island films? It's difficult to give a measurable answer to that question but I can say that this film resonates with me like no other.
For those who are unfamiliar with the film, it's the story of a man who has no social skills who is quietly in love with a woman who seemingly has no interest in him. If that doesn't do much for you it may help to know that Jack Nicholson plays the lead character Melvin Udall. Melvin is an obsessive compulsive novelist who has created a life for people in which he keeps people away by being unconscionably rude. His love interest is a waitress who waits on him primarily because no one else is willing to deal with him. We also meet Melvin's neighbor Simon and as a result of a series of strange events the three find themselves on a road trip to Baltimore. To be completely honest, this is the best I can do at describing the films plot which is virtually non-existent for the films first hour and seems thrown in almost as an after thought.
So, what is that makes me love this film? First, I love the hope that film has for Melvin. I first saw this film in high school at a point in my life when I had been on zero dates. To be even more specific, the first time I ever asked a girl on a date it was with the idea of seeing this film with her. The date never happened though and I watched this film in a packed theater on a Sunday afternoon without anyone to share the experience with. What I saw was a character in Melvin that had created his social barriers but that hope still remained for him. That is what resonates with me to this day, the hope that remains for everyone no matter what obstacles they have created.
Of course I find the humor in the story to be effective. It is directed by James L. Brooks who as a producer for the Simpson's is usually credited with the shows more sentimental moments. He has a unique touch in which he cares for his characters regardless of their mistakes.
This is a film I could go on about, but for some reason I am feeling like I am coming down with a case of writers block. Perhaps I need to accept that there may not be a single person out there who feels the same way I do about this film. Of course, that is what I love about films, the way everyone is entitled to their own opinions and the way each film has the potential to have a different impact on every viewer.
Now don't get confused, I am not trying to argue the place of As Good As It Gets among the all time great films. It is flawed and in many ways it can be described as something of an unromantic romantic comedy. I know people who find it frustrating or are willing to say that it is good but forgettable.
So the question arises, why is this film one of my desert island films? It's difficult to give a measurable answer to that question but I can say that this film resonates with me like no other.
For those who are unfamiliar with the film, it's the story of a man who has no social skills who is quietly in love with a woman who seemingly has no interest in him. If that doesn't do much for you it may help to know that Jack Nicholson plays the lead character Melvin Udall. Melvin is an obsessive compulsive novelist who has created a life for people in which he keeps people away by being unconscionably rude. His love interest is a waitress who waits on him primarily because no one else is willing to deal with him. We also meet Melvin's neighbor Simon and as a result of a series of strange events the three find themselves on a road trip to Baltimore. To be completely honest, this is the best I can do at describing the films plot which is virtually non-existent for the films first hour and seems thrown in almost as an after thought.
So, what is that makes me love this film? First, I love the hope that film has for Melvin. I first saw this film in high school at a point in my life when I had been on zero dates. To be even more specific, the first time I ever asked a girl on a date it was with the idea of seeing this film with her. The date never happened though and I watched this film in a packed theater on a Sunday afternoon without anyone to share the experience with. What I saw was a character in Melvin that had created his social barriers but that hope still remained for him. That is what resonates with me to this day, the hope that remains for everyone no matter what obstacles they have created.
Of course I find the humor in the story to be effective. It is directed by James L. Brooks who as a producer for the Simpson's is usually credited with the shows more sentimental moments. He has a unique touch in which he cares for his characters regardless of their mistakes.
This is a film I could go on about, but for some reason I am feeling like I am coming down with a case of writers block. Perhaps I need to accept that there may not be a single person out there who feels the same way I do about this film. Of course, that is what I love about films, the way everyone is entitled to their own opinions and the way each film has the potential to have a different impact on every viewer.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy!!!
To call this film "the most quotable movie of all time" is like saying you need water to live. It's obvious and an incredible understatement all at the same time. I thought about typing out my favorite quotes here and then realized I was typing out the entire script.
This of course is my movie and is one that makes me appreciate me wife not only because she likes it, but because she tolerates letting me watch it so much that it becomes obnoxious. Thank you for that honey.
There's not a whole lot of sense in breaking down the plot here or going over the fine points of the films. Those things are fine and I could even give you a bit regarding how accurate the films opening statement regarding it being a true film in which only the names and events have been changed, but that's not the point. The point is that Will Ferrell, Paul Rudd, David Koechner and Steve Carell are very funny and they have very funny friends that are willing to come along and add there own moments to the film.
I will always remember seeing this for the first time in Steubenville, OH with my friend Todd who was visiting from MI. That part was significant because Todd was the only friend that visited me in Steubenville partially because no one else was willing to come that close to Wast Virginia. I also remember watching the Anchorman movie that was made from deleted scenes with Todd at his apartment. Seriously, how many films are so funny that their deleted scenes are worth splicing together to make a movie.
Of course, if you have never scene Anchorman you need to know that it is a comedy that requires repeat viewings. The things these characters are saying are so unbelievable that it's hard to catch the humor on one viewing, but as I have re-watched it now dozens of times I feel like virtually every line is funny. Some of it is Vulgar and the unrated version contains a few more F-bombs than the theatrical version but I think what separates this film from R-Rated comedies is that I could catch it on TV and nothing would be lost from editing and yet the film is just as "edgy" as any R-Rated comedy I have ever seen. I think what I love most about this film and other Will Ferrell comedies is that you get an impression while watching them that these guys are really just trying to make each other laugh. Which in the end may be the simplest way to make a successful comedy.
This of course is my movie and is one that makes me appreciate me wife not only because she likes it, but because she tolerates letting me watch it so much that it becomes obnoxious. Thank you for that honey.
There's not a whole lot of sense in breaking down the plot here or going over the fine points of the films. Those things are fine and I could even give you a bit regarding how accurate the films opening statement regarding it being a true film in which only the names and events have been changed, but that's not the point. The point is that Will Ferrell, Paul Rudd, David Koechner and Steve Carell are very funny and they have very funny friends that are willing to come along and add there own moments to the film.
I will always remember seeing this for the first time in Steubenville, OH with my friend Todd who was visiting from MI. That part was significant because Todd was the only friend that visited me in Steubenville partially because no one else was willing to come that close to Wast Virginia. I also remember watching the Anchorman movie that was made from deleted scenes with Todd at his apartment. Seriously, how many films are so funny that their deleted scenes are worth splicing together to make a movie.
Of course, if you have never scene Anchorman you need to know that it is a comedy that requires repeat viewings. The things these characters are saying are so unbelievable that it's hard to catch the humor on one viewing, but as I have re-watched it now dozens of times I feel like virtually every line is funny. Some of it is Vulgar and the unrated version contains a few more F-bombs than the theatrical version but I think what separates this film from R-Rated comedies is that I could catch it on TV and nothing would be lost from editing and yet the film is just as "edgy" as any R-Rated comedy I have ever seen. I think what I love most about this film and other Will Ferrell comedies is that you get an impression while watching them that these guys are really just trying to make each other laugh. Which in the end may be the simplest way to make a successful comedy.
Amistad
In a previous post I addressed the issue of length in these posts by defending the length as being a result of the craziness in my head (I may have used different words but the point is the same). I bring that up because as I sit here thinking about Amistad I don't have too much to say. I don't think I want to know what that says about me.
I'll start off by saying that this is my film, but my wife is a fan. I bought it with the hope of someday using it in a classroom although I don't think I would show the entire film unless it's an AP class (and even then it would need to be a very mature AP class). The one personal memory is an embarrassing one and I will leave names out to spare the innocent. The film was in theaters in 1997 and was released when a 17 year old version of me had finally worked up the courage to ask a girl out on a date. She said no, then called me later and said yes, but. That but had to do with a friend she had feelings for but wasn't sure if it was going anywhere. Upon hearing this I came up with the brilliant idea of confronting the guy about his feelings, then I went to see Amistad and afterwords I explained to the girl that I talked to the guy (telling him her feeling for him) and I excitedly told her that he doesn't feel the same way towards her thinking she would be fine with that and we would go on our date and all would be good. It's a testament to that girls ability to forgive that about a month later she started talking to me again as friends.
As for the movie there are a few things that standout. First of all, what happened to Matthew McConaughey. I'm all for a man being able to do whatever he needs to to make a living but since Amistad he has done one action film with dragons, an under-rated WWII film and a boat load of crappy Rom-Coms! Seriously, this guy left the '90's as a credible actor and now seeing one of his films requires you to turn in your man card.
And on that note, why isn't Sir Anthony Hopkins held accountable for his decade of garbage. When Amistad came out, Mr. Hopkins was considered one of the top 5 actors going, since Amistad his best work has been in the Red Dragon where he played Hannibal Lector ... again! Since Amistad Mr. Hopkins work has included The Mask of Zorro, Mission Impossible 2, Alexander, Hannibal (worst sequel ever!), All the King's Men and Hearts of Atlantis. It's interesting to go back and watch a film like this in which both men deliver strong performances and then to realize that 12 years later they haven't done a single significant film. Crazy.
Of course the film gets great work out of Morgan Freeman and Djimon Hounsou steals the show as the slave who manages a mutiny aboard the ship he is traveling on to America. The story for those who are not familiar with it follows Hounsou's character from Africa as he reaches America and is taken into custody to become a part of a property dispute between Cuba, America and Spain. McConaughey plays the lawyer who believes the answer to Hounsou's freedom is through property laws and Morgan Freeman comes along for the ride as an free man working in the abolitionist movement. There is a sense of vulgarness to the idea of basing a mans freedom on property laws but the film understands that a triumph of the human spirit by any means is still significant. The film is directed by Steven Speilberg and ranks favorably with Munich and Saving Private Ryan in regards to his more serious work, but is not on a par with Schindler's List. One of my favorite aspects of the film is the way president Van Buren is portrayed and his willingness to act not against the defendants out of racism but as a means to appease the southern slave owners how are already shouting about secession. It is an aspect of our countries history that is not always well understood but for 30 years leading up to the Civil War our federal leaders made some of the most inhumane decisions imaginable in the name of appeasing southern states and avoiding a Civil War. It was a war that would come anyway and while Amistad does not dwell on this aspect of our history it's inclusion is fascinating.
This film does remind us of why Spielberg is a great filmmaker and the story is very moving. If I had one criticism of the film though, it would be that while I leave the film knowing it was an important story, I don't leave with a sense of knowing why it was important. It's an aspect of history that Spielberg struggles with as he closes and one I can't give an answer for. Still, if you never seen it I would recommend you try to.
I'll start off by saying that this is my film, but my wife is a fan. I bought it with the hope of someday using it in a classroom although I don't think I would show the entire film unless it's an AP class (and even then it would need to be a very mature AP class). The one personal memory is an embarrassing one and I will leave names out to spare the innocent. The film was in theaters in 1997 and was released when a 17 year old version of me had finally worked up the courage to ask a girl out on a date. She said no, then called me later and said yes, but. That but had to do with a friend she had feelings for but wasn't sure if it was going anywhere. Upon hearing this I came up with the brilliant idea of confronting the guy about his feelings, then I went to see Amistad and afterwords I explained to the girl that I talked to the guy (telling him her feeling for him) and I excitedly told her that he doesn't feel the same way towards her thinking she would be fine with that and we would go on our date and all would be good. It's a testament to that girls ability to forgive that about a month later she started talking to me again as friends.
As for the movie there are a few things that standout. First of all, what happened to Matthew McConaughey. I'm all for a man being able to do whatever he needs to to make a living but since Amistad he has done one action film with dragons, an under-rated WWII film and a boat load of crappy Rom-Coms! Seriously, this guy left the '90's as a credible actor and now seeing one of his films requires you to turn in your man card.
And on that note, why isn't Sir Anthony Hopkins held accountable for his decade of garbage. When Amistad came out, Mr. Hopkins was considered one of the top 5 actors going, since Amistad his best work has been in the Red Dragon where he played Hannibal Lector ... again! Since Amistad Mr. Hopkins work has included The Mask of Zorro, Mission Impossible 2, Alexander, Hannibal (worst sequel ever!), All the King's Men and Hearts of Atlantis. It's interesting to go back and watch a film like this in which both men deliver strong performances and then to realize that 12 years later they haven't done a single significant film. Crazy.
Of course the film gets great work out of Morgan Freeman and Djimon Hounsou steals the show as the slave who manages a mutiny aboard the ship he is traveling on to America. The story for those who are not familiar with it follows Hounsou's character from Africa as he reaches America and is taken into custody to become a part of a property dispute between Cuba, America and Spain. McConaughey plays the lawyer who believes the answer to Hounsou's freedom is through property laws and Morgan Freeman comes along for the ride as an free man working in the abolitionist movement. There is a sense of vulgarness to the idea of basing a mans freedom on property laws but the film understands that a triumph of the human spirit by any means is still significant. The film is directed by Steven Speilberg and ranks favorably with Munich and Saving Private Ryan in regards to his more serious work, but is not on a par with Schindler's List. One of my favorite aspects of the film is the way president Van Buren is portrayed and his willingness to act not against the defendants out of racism but as a means to appease the southern slave owners how are already shouting about secession. It is an aspect of our countries history that is not always well understood but for 30 years leading up to the Civil War our federal leaders made some of the most inhumane decisions imaginable in the name of appeasing southern states and avoiding a Civil War. It was a war that would come anyway and while Amistad does not dwell on this aspect of our history it's inclusion is fascinating.
This film does remind us of why Spielberg is a great filmmaker and the story is very moving. If I had one criticism of the film though, it would be that while I leave the film knowing it was an important story, I don't leave with a sense of knowing why it was important. It's an aspect of history that Spielberg struggles with as he closes and one I can't give an answer for. Still, if you never seen it I would recommend you try to.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
All the Presidents Men
This is the first film in my collection that is included in the AFI top 100 films of all time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI%27s_100_Years%E2%80%A6100_Movies_(10th_Anniversary_Edition) It's ranking is number 77. It's my film and I mention the connection to the AFI top 100 because I have known too many people who dismiss it as boring. For me, it is anything but boring.
For those not familiar with the film it's the story of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the 2 journalists at the Washington Post who worked together on the Watergate story that eventually lead to President Nixon resigning from office. Playing the roles of Woodward and Bernstein are Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford both of whom I am not worthy of even critiquing when it comes to their acting ability. The films supporting cast is equally terrific and includes a terrific performance by Jane Alexander who won a best supporting actress Oscar.
There really is very little reason to critique the film. As I have mentioned, the American Film Institute already believes it is worthy of being considered one of the 100 greatest films in the history of American Cinema. What I do want to do is to just point out some of the things that make this event in our history so significant.
First of all this film depicts a stark change in the role our nations media plays in politics. There is a thought in the film that had the Post placed one of it's senior political writers in charge of the story the story may have died without many of the dots being connected. Woodward and Bernstein were young and idealistic and what they found is that the story continued to evolve in ways that their peers didn't want to think about. If you believe the difference between Clinton and JFK was media coverage then you must understand that Watergate was that change in media coverage. And while no one regrets the revelations that the Watergate stories brought about it's interesting to see now that our media seems to have positioned itself at an opposite extreme in which it continually is feeding off of negative press. Perhaps that's an over statement from a cynical twenty something, but I do believe there is no denying that the media has come to love a negative story in ways we could not imagine back in the days before Watergate.
I also think it is interesting to watch this film and consider the place of Mr. Nixon in history. I had a professor who was a presidential historian who believed the presidency could be broken into two extremes: Teddy Roosevelt and Howard Taft. He then added that Nixon was too far off the charts to include. What we see depicted in this films is that Nixon had such a solid foothold on the presidency that his actions seemed inconceivable to his contemporaries. There was no democrat who was going to give him a serious challenge in 1972. So why do it? There is no good answer to that question but it shows that as a president Nixon believed that whatever the president does is okay so long as he believes it is in the nations best interest. And in 1972 he believed it was in the nations best interest that he stop at nothing to insure his re-election.
I thought about this while watching online a segment between Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly in which Jon Stewart said his chief complaint with our current president is that he sees the congress as his equal while Mr. Stewart believes the president should be throwing his weight around more. I do not intend to debate the above statement but I would always turn to Nixon as a reminder that our President should adhere to the provisions given to the president in the constitution and not be tempted to believe they are above that. I don't personally see Stewart as encouraging the President to behave in similar ways to what Nixon did but as a democratic society I would encourage all that the closer we stay in line with the constitution the closer we will stay in line with the ideals of democracy.
Getting back to the film, it is certainly worth a view. I purchased it with an eye on using it in the classroom someday and while I still hope to do so I must say that I was surprised a PG rated film could have so many F-bombs. Oh well, it's still an incredible film and one that must be watched while weighing the cultural changes that have stemmed from the Watergate investigation.
For those not familiar with the film it's the story of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the 2 journalists at the Washington Post who worked together on the Watergate story that eventually lead to President Nixon resigning from office. Playing the roles of Woodward and Bernstein are Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford both of whom I am not worthy of even critiquing when it comes to their acting ability. The films supporting cast is equally terrific and includes a terrific performance by Jane Alexander who won a best supporting actress Oscar.
There really is very little reason to critique the film. As I have mentioned, the American Film Institute already believes it is worthy of being considered one of the 100 greatest films in the history of American Cinema. What I do want to do is to just point out some of the things that make this event in our history so significant.
First of all this film depicts a stark change in the role our nations media plays in politics. There is a thought in the film that had the Post placed one of it's senior political writers in charge of the story the story may have died without many of the dots being connected. Woodward and Bernstein were young and idealistic and what they found is that the story continued to evolve in ways that their peers didn't want to think about. If you believe the difference between Clinton and JFK was media coverage then you must understand that Watergate was that change in media coverage. And while no one regrets the revelations that the Watergate stories brought about it's interesting to see now that our media seems to have positioned itself at an opposite extreme in which it continually is feeding off of negative press. Perhaps that's an over statement from a cynical twenty something, but I do believe there is no denying that the media has come to love a negative story in ways we could not imagine back in the days before Watergate.
I also think it is interesting to watch this film and consider the place of Mr. Nixon in history. I had a professor who was a presidential historian who believed the presidency could be broken into two extremes: Teddy Roosevelt and Howard Taft. He then added that Nixon was too far off the charts to include. What we see depicted in this films is that Nixon had such a solid foothold on the presidency that his actions seemed inconceivable to his contemporaries. There was no democrat who was going to give him a serious challenge in 1972. So why do it? There is no good answer to that question but it shows that as a president Nixon believed that whatever the president does is okay so long as he believes it is in the nations best interest. And in 1972 he believed it was in the nations best interest that he stop at nothing to insure his re-election.
I thought about this while watching online a segment between Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly in which Jon Stewart said his chief complaint with our current president is that he sees the congress as his equal while Mr. Stewart believes the president should be throwing his weight around more. I do not intend to debate the above statement but I would always turn to Nixon as a reminder that our President should adhere to the provisions given to the president in the constitution and not be tempted to believe they are above that. I don't personally see Stewart as encouraging the President to behave in similar ways to what Nixon did but as a democratic society I would encourage all that the closer we stay in line with the constitution the closer we will stay in line with the ideals of democracy.
Getting back to the film, it is certainly worth a view. I purchased it with an eye on using it in the classroom someday and while I still hope to do so I must say that I was surprised a PG rated film could have so many F-bombs. Oh well, it's still an incredible film and one that must be watched while weighing the cultural changes that have stemmed from the Watergate investigation.
Akeelah and the Bee
Ah yes, back to the movies I own. It's worth noting that it's Feb. and I am 2 movies in. I am already planning on doing a lot of film watching once school is done and there are no more new episodes of Lost, The Office or 30 Rock.
This one belongs to the wife but is by no means one that I dislike. It may actually be my favorite of the ones that belong to her.
The film itself falls right in line with such films as Rudy, Miracle, Hoosiers and Rocky. Like these films before it, Akeelah and the Bee succeeds because it is not about the event itself that the characters are striving toward but the human spirit that brings them there. And like the sports films I mentioned, Akeelah and the Bee succeeds because we want to see Akeelah to succeed.
Akeelah is a 12 year old girl growing up in the Los Angeles ghetto. When we first see her she is in school and is doing her best to "fit in." It's an interesting paradigm as even her teacher aids in her attempts to "fit in" by returning her perfect score on a spelling test to her face down. But the school's principal as a goal of bringing respect and positive attention to his beleaguered school by involving Akeelah and her perfect spelling skills in the national spelling bee.
What follows is relatively predictable. Akeelah experience's various highs and lows on her journey and we empathize with her throughout even when we know that she will eventually achieve her goal.
The success of a film like this is not dependent on the highs and lows a character experiences but instead on how much we believe the characters. In Akeelah we see a very poignant connection that Akeelah has with her deceased father in which her spelling skills represent a connection she feels with her father. Beyond Akeelah, we see a cavalcade of characters who could have merely been representations of some stereotype but instead they come acrossed as very real and genuine in their actions and their reception to Akeelah and her gift. In particular I admire that the film doesn't go for any easy jokes relating to spelling bee kids being "weird."
The supporting performances are all effective. Laurence Fishburne does come across as Morpheus the college professor but that isn't a bad thing. Angela Bassett represents a single mom who is overwhelmed and just trying to do her best and the supporting kids all rise above the idea of being mere caricatures. When it comes to films I enjoy, I find the ones that respect their characters enough to allow them to rise above the limits of mere caricatures are the ones I enjoy the most. Akeelah and the Bee does this as well as any film I intend to write about.
This one belongs to the wife but is by no means one that I dislike. It may actually be my favorite of the ones that belong to her.
The film itself falls right in line with such films as Rudy, Miracle, Hoosiers and Rocky. Like these films before it, Akeelah and the Bee succeeds because it is not about the event itself that the characters are striving toward but the human spirit that brings them there. And like the sports films I mentioned, Akeelah and the Bee succeeds because we want to see Akeelah to succeed.
Akeelah is a 12 year old girl growing up in the Los Angeles ghetto. When we first see her she is in school and is doing her best to "fit in." It's an interesting paradigm as even her teacher aids in her attempts to "fit in" by returning her perfect score on a spelling test to her face down. But the school's principal as a goal of bringing respect and positive attention to his beleaguered school by involving Akeelah and her perfect spelling skills in the national spelling bee.
What follows is relatively predictable. Akeelah experience's various highs and lows on her journey and we empathize with her throughout even when we know that she will eventually achieve her goal.
The success of a film like this is not dependent on the highs and lows a character experiences but instead on how much we believe the characters. In Akeelah we see a very poignant connection that Akeelah has with her deceased father in which her spelling skills represent a connection she feels with her father. Beyond Akeelah, we see a cavalcade of characters who could have merely been representations of some stereotype but instead they come acrossed as very real and genuine in their actions and their reception to Akeelah and her gift. In particular I admire that the film doesn't go for any easy jokes relating to spelling bee kids being "weird."
The supporting performances are all effective. Laurence Fishburne does come across as Morpheus the college professor but that isn't a bad thing. Angela Bassett represents a single mom who is overwhelmed and just trying to do her best and the supporting kids all rise above the idea of being mere caricatures. When it comes to films I enjoy, I find the ones that respect their characters enough to allow them to rise above the limits of mere caricatures are the ones I enjoy the most. Akeelah and the Bee does this as well as any film I intend to write about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
