Lock that down!

Friends with Benefits is one of the most hypocritically hilarious movies I've seen in awhile. I mean that in the most positive way that I can. Somehow our film outlook has been somewhat reduced films that critically lambaste the genre it inhabits rather than actually presenting intriguing narrative. Such is our postmodern condition. I'm going to rip off a podcast (filmspotting.net) that I love and describe it the way they did. Martin Scorsese made personal films. Today, people make films in homage to his films. FWB fits into this condition as it it seems less interested in buffing the stereotypes of romantic comedies, preferring just to snigger in the corner and throw Cheetos at its head.

I don't really need to get into the plot because it's pretty self-explanatory. Justin Timberlake, plays Dylan, an artistic director who is being charmed by a headhunter named Jamie played by Mila Kunis. Jamie's persuasive nature is undeniable and gets Dylan to relocate to become the art director at GQ. Both coming out of a bad relationship, they decide that their relationship can sustain a little little sex, provided they do not catch feelings in the process.

Forthrightly concerned with seperating itself from the typical drivel at the local movie-plex, the film begins its onslaught on protoypical romantic comedies with the quickly edited opening, crosscutting between what appears to be a conversation between Dylan and Jamie. However, they aren't actually talking; they haven't even met yet. They're both having a similarly banal disagreement with their significant other, moments before being dumped by Andy Samberg and Emma Stone, irrespectively. The scene plays upon the inevitable heartbreak that rom-coms portray and the ever popular statement of the rom-com genre, "It's so tough to find someone sane in LA/NY." I actually liked the opening. I found this sequence and other little digs to the prototypical rom-coms to be entertaining. In fact, there is one scene where Jamie walks past a wall of movie posters promoting Katherine Heigl. She drunkenly screams, "Shut up, Katherine Heigl! You stupid liar!" It is perhaps ironic though that the film tends to fall into these trappings. But it's worth it!



One notable strength of the film is the relationship built between Mila and Justin. The film actually spends a lot of time selling the friendship between these two. The sex scenes are pretty hilarious, completely unsexy, and have a purposefully light tone because it actually portrays two buddies having sex together. They square off intellectually and emotionally which is great because most films don't really sell that relationship (cough*No Strings Attached, I'm looking at you) too well. Mila is amazing who seems perfect as the foul-mouthed guy's girls, but does not lose all her feminine qualities. She also made me laugh which most girls onscreen do not. Justin Timberlake is great, once again transporting his charisma from the stage to the screen in an effortlessly cool way (Will Smith anyone?). These two work well together and present an interesting conception of male and female relationships.

Friends with Benefits flips the gender roles of its genre. Mila Kunis' character, the fast-talking, non-bullshitter, plays the masculine role by courting JT's character. She whisks him around the city, taking him out to dinner and drinks, showing him the beauty of NY in the way you'd expect a man to do on a first date. She's a lot more domineering and forceful as well. Of course, it could be a component of her being from NY, but nonetheless she does take on those conventional character traits. JT's character is kind feminized in this way as well; he is a lot more mild-mannered, laid-back, and all too swept away by Kunis' aggressive charm. Continuing with this theory, naturally JT would be the one to bring up the FWB arrangement. Usually it's the the girl who brings up the sex only relationship because a man would come off too sleazy if he brings it up. It works here because, by and large, Justin Timberlake is feminized by virtue of the subverted conventional gender politics (that's worth a blog entry in of itself).

It is a fun ride, filled with funny, believable character, especially Woody Harrelson who kills every scene he is in and presents what I think to be a fairly noteworthy conception of a gay man. The film presents enough intriguing elements to atone for its conventionally structured plot line while also more effectively portraying the main relationship than your typical romantic comedy. It's certainly a DVD purchase for me.

Peace.

Tom Wilkinson as Arthur Edens

The film Michael Clayton has a bevy of scintillating performances, not the least of which given by Tom Wilkinson. Wilkinson may enjoy the distinction of being That Guy for some people. That Guy who you see in a lot of films, but never know his name. This British actor's supporting turn is a beautiful addition to the movie given Wilkinson's interpretation of an overworked lawyer with a crisis of conscience. His performance emphasizes the thin line between derangement and genius.

A little context first, Wilkinson plays Arthur Edens, a senior litigator of Kenner, Bauch, and Ledeen, in the midst of a 6-year case involving dangerous insecticides and a large corporation called U North. The film's main action centers on Arthur Edens mental collapse and the fallout that results from his ridiculous behavior. Edens reaches his breaking point with the case, no longer able to support the venomous actions of the evil corporation. He soon goes rogue sending the firm and the company into a mad dash to prevent his outlandish actions.

Michael Clayton - "I'm not the enemy" by warnerbrospictures

Wilkinson's character, until this point in the film, is bat-shit crazy. In an effort to cleanse his mind and cast off his sedation he skips his prescribed medication. This results in him taking off his clothes in the middle of a deposition and professing his love for a witness in the case while chasing her naked across a parking lot. So at this point, his character has little credibility; he is certainly a wild-card that must be accounted for, but has not true authority in terms of intellect. The excellent part about this scene is his emotional turn: the audience thinks of him as a loon for most of the film, but in this scene, Edens character is revealed to be more of a threat than once expected. Yes, he's crazy, but he still has a sharp legal mind that will demand more skill for Michael Clayton to threaten or trick him.

Take a look at the blocking of this scene. Wilkinson plays a majority of the scene deferring to Clooney. His shoulders are hunched forward; he's looking down. Wilkinson's blocking suggests that he is ashamed, like he's crazy or something. The audience is comfortable with this notion considering the fact that he is off his medication and acting irrationally. Now, the turning point of the scene happens midway through when Clayton tells Edens, "Don't make it easy for them." It's truly great direction by Tony Gilroy because at this crucial moment, they lock eyes, almost like a standoff in a Western. There is a noticeable shift in tone in the scene. Afterwards, Edens, composed with a slight sense of compassion, points out that Clayton is nothing more than a bag-man and that he is in no position to make him do anything. With a straight and nonplussed attitude, he firmly delivers the line, assured, and confident. He continues his hunched stance, but slowly puffs his chest out. During the scene, he engages eye contact more and more as he continues his speech, challenging Clayton both argumentatively and physically.

The scene is all about power. Clayton attempts to bluff Edens into thinking that Edens is running out of options and needs to relinquish control. But with Edens' sharp mind and legal prowess, he does not relent; he's holding the Aces.

Finely acted and directed, this is one of my favorite scenes of the film. The end is killer as well.

Michael Clayton
I'm not the enemy

Arthur Edens
Then, who are you?

Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting

Good acting. Like pornography, you might not know how to describe it, but you know it when you see it. Having directed a couple of films in my day (and thinking I know a thing or two about it), I thought it would be fun to do a series on acting. In this series, I'll highlight performances that I really liked or disliked and tell you why or why not I thought they were effective.

Acting is organic and humane; it's something that is ineffable for most people because it draws upon our experience of fellow human beings, something we're all so accustomed to dealing with. Slight vocal inflections, longing gazes, sly smiles are elements that make up a great acting performance. An actresses' job is to communicate with their body the character's goal in a scene. They characterize these goals within a scene and carry them over the length of a film portraying that character's changes (some people call this change an arc). Now, my acting experience is limited to a couple turns as the Cowardly Lion and Ebenezer Scrooge back in elementary school, but having worked with numerous actors, directors, and listened to hours of commentary I think I've centered on a good barometer of Truth in acting. Hopefully, you'll have a few things to look for after reading this.

Robin Williams as Sean Maguire

It's fair to say that he was the inspiration for this list. Specifically, this scene right here.

To set this scene up a bit, Robin Williams plays Sean Maguire, a widowed therapist tasked with counseling Will Hunting (Matt Damon), a genius mathematician with a violent past. After Hunting flippantly mocks Maguire in their first meeting, Maguire takes him to the park to show him that he's not another therapist that will put up with Hunting's behavior.

The first thing I want to point out in this performance is Williams' use of his eyes. They tend to peer out to the distance during the scene, like he's surveying. Contrasting his eyes with Damon's, whose eyes are staring down and forward, you can immediately gather that Williams is older, wiser, and more experienced. He's going to use these qualities in his speech. There is also a sadness and gravity that you can feel through the screen. I believe an actor's greatest tool is his eyes. It's very hard to lie with your eyes; that's why they call them the windows of your soul.

If you look at his facial expressions, you'll notice that his eyes sparingly change though his mouth and cheeks may show a slight smile or purse. This is contrast. Complexity is another important element in an actor's arsenal. In my experience, we don't always say what we mean or portray the emotions that we feel. Maguire's face portrays a mix vulnerability, pity, and wisdom. He doesn't overplay his pity for Will. Early in the film, Will has scared away therapist who have tried the pity card already. In order for us to root for him as Will's therapist, he has to straighten out Will Hunting with empathy, strength, and care. That is what Will needs. At this moment, for me at least, you really buy him as the only guy who can save this kid, the only guy who can help Will save himself. That is Williams' goal in this scene.

What's exciting about this scene is the intensity of it. If you noticed, Gus Van Zant doesn't cut away from Williams. He just leaves the audience there in that moment entranced. Music, often used as a crutch of emotion for lack-luster performances, doesn't cut in until the last 20 or so seconds of his speech. You just kind of stare, hanging on to every word, like Will Hunting. Williams' goal of getting through to Hunting is complete by Damon's performance.

I think Williams' success in the scene and the film is accountable to his career as a comedian. Comedians have the propensity to be amazing dramatic actors. Comedians and actors share one crucial element, something that I respect a lot: vulnerability. Standing up and making fun of yourself, your life story, and your personality to a roomful of hostile, drunken, paying customers is a frightening nightmare for most people; they do it every night. Acting involves a similar amount of bravery, especially when your acting in front of an exhausted, hungry crew of people waiting for you to remember your lines so they can break for lunch. That's why I think Jamie Foxx, Robin Williams, Whoopi Goldberg, and Jim Carrey are such great dramatic actors. You can't fake that vulnerability.

Good acting is about bearing a character's soul. In order to tell a good performance from a bad one, you just have to think, "Did they commit?" "All the way?" Take a look at Williams performance, you can see in his eyes that he's not remembering those lines, he's getting at the root of what his character is trying to say in that scene. He's bringing every ounce of heart he can to that role.

So I hope this was helpful. I'm going to try to keep this series up as much as I can.

"You're in love with a fantasy"

Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris is yet another reminder of how much better a filmmaker Woody Allen is than me, not that I needed any more proof.

Continuing his insane run of a movie per year, Woody Allen crafts another gem as far as I'm concerned. Full disclosure: I recently directed a movie that was greatly inspired by Allen's 1979 film, Manhattan. Romanticism and nostalgia is an underlying theme in the film, especially in the first scene.

Midnight in Paris takes up the theme of nostalgia, like my film Nostalgia (check it out here http://vimeo.com/23241296). Owen Wilson plays a romantic Hollywood screenwriter at a time of great crisis. Tired of hacking away at pedantic screenplays, he has just finished his novel and appears to be searching for some sort of confirmation. On vacation with his fiance, played beautifully by Rachel McAdams, he finds himself transfixed by Paris wanting to just exist in it and breathe in the beauty and artistry. The beginning scene is hilarious as Wilson's character, Gil, pontificates about the beauty of walking the streets of Paris in the rain. His fiance doesn't quite get it, neither do her friends who'd rather spend the nights dancing away at the more touristy of Paris. Gil walks the streets of Paris to find some of the magic he knows exists and winds up transporting back into Paris of the 20's with the likes of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, and Gertrude Stein (don't worry I had no idea who that was either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertrude_Stein).


Midnight in Paris is at the surface a gorgeous film, though how hard is it to make Paris look beautiful right? That's not to diminish the work of Darius Khondji who I think brings some beautiful golden hues to the city lights of Paris and does an admirable job. Digging deeper, past the surface, you can find an assiduous eye to the condition of nostalgia. The issue of looking back can be a fun and exciting distraction, but it leads you to a place discontent. There is an inevitable disconnection with the present that comes with it. Allen recognizes the good and bad parts of our proclivity to look back

It's difficult imagining that, at some point, people will look at the oughts , enthralled with the culture, art, and general "je nais sais quoi". This appears to be Allen's underlying suggestion. Amidst the time traveling magical realism and the zany presence of literary and art figures (Whaddup Dali), there is a man seeking to locate himself within the breadth of artistry and romance. Midnight in Paris examines a man existentially and shows the faults and concerns of a life lived in the past.

In any case, Midnight in Paris resides at the top of the list for my favorite of 2011 obviously. I would check it out if I were you.

And Owen Wilson does a spot on Woody Allen impression.

"To Me, You Are Perfect"

Every once in awhile, a movie comes along and just knocks you off your feet. I'm talking once you finish watching it, you just want to tell the world about it and scream from the roof tops. Love Actually is a beautifully, elegant rumination on one of the most common conditions of life: being in love. Through its effortless performances and genuinely witty storylines, the film weaves together a number of stories that essentially describe how love is and how it should be.

For me at least, the best movies tend to be difficult to synopsize. Love Actually is a lot like that. You can say it's about love, but that tends to cheapen it's precious treatment of the subject. The film's beauty starts in it's wonderful opening, showing embraces of travelers and family members at the arrival gate of Heathrow airport. In short cuts, the film shows with its harsh lighting and crude long lens camera work the beauty that still remains in the smaller moments of love that aren't glamorized. It's at this moment that the film shows it's meaty core of simply wanting to be honest and real. They do an admirable job of just capturing reality, not forcing, which they continue later in the film with its fictional plot.

As the film progresses, we're introduced to the starkly different characters: a prime minister, a fashion consultant, a 10-year old and his grieving step dad, and an aging former pop star. They all are dodge in and out of each other's stories in an effective mosaic of occurrences. Recent films have tried to imitate this sort of vigenette-esque approach to one high-concept like Valentine's Day or He's Just Not that Into You. Love Actually, I'd imagine, is the blueprint from which these films attempted to draw from. But I think what those other films are missing is the substance of simplicity. Love Actually never dawdles from its central message of foolishness, courage, impetuousness, and hope. It doesn't cheapen it's delivery with tawdry storylines and improbable twists.

Through all these stories, the film centers upon one main message: Yes, there is love and as you get older, you learn that it's not what you thought it was. Still, in the end it's worth it, no matter how inconvenient.

I love Love Actually. And although it may be incredibly populist, I don't care. Please, check it out

Top 5 Most Anticipated Films for summer 2011

Wow, 2011. You're really trying to be something special. I'm a bit underwhelmed with the films...again. For the first time in a long time, Pixar is not on my top 5 list for summer movies. *Gasp* I regretfully say there isn't much I'm looking forward to. I've seen Thor and Bridesmaids already so that definitely affects how my list turned out. Still, it was tough to scrounge these choices up. But I will say that there is only one prequel on my list. The rest are again *Gasp* original properties.

5. The Tree of Life and X-men: First Class

These two disparate films share the 5th spot. Unfortunately, that is about the only congruence I can point out.





Starting with The Tree of Life, this Terrance Malick film has an intriguingly simple premise. It follows a boy throughout his life and the lingering effect his stern father has on him. From the man who makes a film about once a decade, I confess that my interest in this progress lies mostly in the trailer, the talent, and the fact that there appears to be some sort of existential exploration involved. Right up my alley. And the images in the trailer look gorgeous. Malick is really playing with composition and light. A lot of the shots appear to have some point of view shots that really engross the viewer into the young boy's position. It's really gorgeous work.





X-men: First Class is at the other end of the spectrum, but I think I can articulate my interest a little more. In terms of comic book movies, X-Men shares a spot in the pantheon along with The Dark Knight, Ironman, and maybe Spiderman. Bryan Singer mined a really interesting allegory of Civil Rights in the first X-men, and X-men: First Class appears to exist at the origin of this story. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender, two very talented actors, are also taking up the lead roles of Professor X and Magneto respectfully. The trailer I embedded focuses on that relationship, which hopefully will make up the meat of the film. I don't know how that whole Cold War thing will insert into the picture, but I'm interested.

4. Colombiana

You may not know this about me, but Zoe Saldana and I are pretty cool. If by cool you mean I met her once in an airport and was too starstruck (and lovestruck) to say much more than my name. However you interpret our deep, meaningful connection, I've been following her career ever since. This will be her first starring vehicle which is pretty cool considering the work she's done in the past couple of years in blockbusters that don't really take advantage of her talents. Colombiana looks like a throwback revenge flick channeling Kill Bill and Carlito's Way. The trailer is good despite it's overly-present narration.

3. Friends with Benefits

No Strings Attached and Friends with Benefits prove the ever-constant coincidental nature of Hollywood as two films with very similar premises coming out in a very short duration of time. There's Deep Impact and Armageddon, Wyatt Earp and Tombstone, and even two Snow White movies coming out next year. Having seen No Strings Attached, it does an admirable job in being an edgy rom-com for both genders, but is completely uneven in terms of performances. FWB looks like it's come to play. Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis have an interesting chemistry in the trailer. And did you see Woody Harrelson? Gotta love it.

2. Super 8

Filmmaking? Check. JJ Abrams? Check. Steven Spielberg? Check.

Thematically, the precociousness of youth is always a winner in film. What you have in this film is two highly vaunted filmmakers channeling their youth in an admittedly indulgent, but intriguing premise. It's no secret that Abrams and Spielberg spent their youth making little Super 8 films. When I heard that they were making a project that evokes this type of nostalgia about the innocence of artistic expression of youth, combining it with a monster movie that obviously draws on Jaws and E.T., needless to say, I got a little moist. Abrams is a really talented filmmaker with a strong voice so I can only salivate at what he has next.

1. 30 minutes or less

A pizza delivery guy gets a bomb strapped to his chest by two criminals. They inform said pizza delivery guy that he has mere hours to rob a bank. As far as the slacker genre goes, this premise is fairly unconventional. Starring Aziz Ansari and Jesse Eisenberg, 30 minutes or less is shaping up to be oddly, fun. I can't really say why I'm drawn to this comedy. Although it feels a bit like Pineapple Express, I think where this comedy can go right where PE went wrong is the resistance to be too "genre." They've got to stay away from winking at the audience too much, playing itself as a comical jaunt of action cliches rather than actually telling a story.

So there you have it folks. I promise to keep you guys updated on my little musings and how the films turned out.

Are you f*cking kidding me?

Chick flicks.

I don't know any other genre that garners more groans from the male population than this dainty collection of female-targeted films. Although I'm sure every film buff would like to think of themselves as open-minded when it comes to all films (I certainly hope I am), it appears that general discourse allows this particular genre to be disregarded. Admittedly, my eyes glaze over when someone mentions "chick flick" in a review or a trailer features a line to the effect of "if only I could find that one guy." It's generally ok to disregard chick flicks as maudlin, cheesy, and pedestrian. Perhaps it is the boys club that is film criticism in the digital age where men dominate the discourse of film discussion on the internet via the blogosphere. In any case, Bridesmaids gave me a little something to chew on. I remember thinking while watching the trailer that this film might have a little something more to it than the usual fare. It looks like a pedantic chick flick, but feels like an Apatow film. You know the type don't you. A man-boy illogically scores a ridiculously attractive female, but has to shirk his juvenile ways in order to enjoy adulthood. They may include what some might refer to as sexually perverse humor with crass and incisive dialogue throughout.

Bridesmaids pretty much covers all of that, except with markedly more estrogen. At its best, I can call it a guy's movie masquerading as a chick flick. Or maybe a chick flick masquerading as a guy movie (does dick flick sound catchier?). For that reason alone, I can't really say that I'm too crazy about it. I love raunch as much as the next guy. And I have to say, I've seen a couple of chick flicks in my day that I didn't immediately fall write off. However, I can't help but wonder if the attraction to this film is more conceptual than built off of actual merit. Does the mash-up of two disparate genres completely validate it or does it genuinely have something to say?

Bridesmaids follows presumably 30 something named Annie, played wonderfully by Kristen Wiig, as she attempts to survive being maid of honor to her best friend Lillian, played by Maya Rudolph. Obviously, tension surmounts between the bride and maid of honor, but the dearth of conflict arises from the rivalry she has with one of the other bridesmaids, the affluent and super bridesmaid Helen (Rose Byrne). These two relationships cover a fertile foundation of female jealousy and envy which the film mines considerably. The script provides enough life to get you going through the film. In terms of pacing, the film trudges through the usual set pieces of a wedding comedy (bridesmaids fitting, zany rehearsal dinner, disastrous wedding shower) but really colors them through its fantastic characters. The acting is the strength of this film by a long-shot. Kristen Wiig is a sympathetic and funny protagonist. Though she plays a punching bag, she never annoys the audience by sulking or being too self-pitying. Maya Rudolph and Rose Byrne are also very strong, rounding out the three principal character. The supporting cast is deft in providing a gallery of different women. They act a collage of womanhood, making up several different stages of a woman's life: the haplessly married woman, the bushy-tailed, newly engaged, and the enthusiastically single.

Whatever negatives in the film lie on a structural level. Sometimes the narration is a little fuzzy on how Annie's main flaw within the film, her laziness and woe is me attitude, manifests itself in ruining her best friend's wedding. Certain moments lend themselves to scrutiny as to whether or not Annie's problems are a cause of the raucous set pieces the film indulges or whether she should be blamed for what happens. For instance, there is a scene where Annie chooses a Brazilian restaurant for the bridesmaids to get to know each other. Afterwards, they have a fitting for bridesmaids dresses. Let's just say it doesn't end very well gastronomically. The whole series of events implicitly point to Annie's inability to cope with her friends upcoming nuptials, but the whole snafu doesn't appear to be her fault. She's blamed for come adverse consequences that aren't completely her own. The film tends toward these type of moments which holds Annie as the scapegoat for some of the adverse events in the film, fixing blame on her that isn't quite integrated into her own flaws as a protagonist. Not to say that her flaws are not established, they just tend to be not as well entwined.

Minute shortcomings aside, my fear with a film like this is that its evocation of male movies implicitly state that there is something wrong with chick flicks or female-targeted films. Comedy tends to be gender based; this type of gender mashing appears to suggest some type of evaluation of one over the other. "It's a chick flick that guys can watch" instead of it's a guy movie that girls can sit through." I'm a little worried that a film that takes this as its ideology, alienates a genre of film that gets unfairly disrespected.

That said, I think Bridesmaids is worth a night out. I probably would have liked it better on cable as a delightful discovery. If you love Kristen Wiig...wait even if you don't love her, you'll love her here.