A rant on modern theater-going

Going to the movies is, and forever will be a delight for me. The feeling of immersing oneself in another world — another person’s mind — for an hour and a half hooked me long before I even considered film as a career path. Unfortunately, the pristine days of watching movies at the cinema have given way to the tide of Torrential downloads, Amazonian digital streams, and that red bastard Netflix, who’ve conspired to destroy my precious and delicate experience. While there is value in living in a time where many varied movies are available through DVD, streaming online, and pay cable, they pale in comparison to that feeling of sinking in a seat at the cinema and taking in an enormous projection of a film with appropriately sized scope. These varied options, under the veil of convenience, have culled to transform the theater experience into the abysmal state it inhabits now. Watching a movie just ain’t what it used to be.

I should prompt you with the occasion that inspired this rant. This past weekend, I watched, or rather, tried to watch a film that had been out for awhile entitled Like Crazy. As the lights came down, and trailers began to roll, a moment which never ceases to delight me, I noticed a persistent flicker on the image. I gave it some time, thinking perhaps it was a bug momentarily gumming up the works. Nope, it kept flickering. Looking around, I searched for someone with that look of “This is bullshit. I’m going to get the manager.” Unfortunately, it was just me who sported the look of disdain. 

I politely excused myself and went searching for someone, anyone to preserve my sacred experience with the film. I had to go damn near to the front ticket booth to let someone know, who assured me the problem would be addressed immediately. Returning to my spot, I gave the man in the projection booth a little time to work his magic.

So I waited. And I waited. And I waited some more.

The film began, and I couldn’t surrender myself because I was too distracted by the flickering. I looked around and everyone else seemed unfettered by the poor presentation. What is it? Everyone has $14.25 to blow on a broken projector?  So I gave up, cut my losses and, most importantly, got a refund.
Unfortunately, this typifies a prevalent state within the US theater experience. Most of today’s theaters suffer from a supreme lack of funds, lack of good material, and dip in interest. I saw Like Crazy at the ArcLight which, at one point, was the Cadillac of watching movies. A couple of years ago, I ventured to the ArcLight in Hollywood and was blown away by the atmosphere, the snazzy decorum, of teeny boppers and old families, and the elegant presentation right down to the attendant who introduced the film to the audience. Although having an attendant introduce a film is unnecessary, it shows a real panache and departure from the less enthusiastic theater chains.

Regrettably, the ArcLight has fallen off, giving a remarkable impression of a jogger limping to the finish line.  The busied lobby of yesterday transformed into a moderately populated chasm of teenyboppers, probably less interested in watching a movie than theater hopping. The attendants cycled through the introduction as if we were one in the line of many introductions to be done, breezing apathetically with little regard to diction or comprehension. Standards have dropped, and I fear that the convenience model of digital streaming has given us the state of movie watching we inhabit now.

What happened to my beloved night at the movies, an event I’ve clung to since my early teenage years. Nowadays, people are more interested in returning texts, rudely yelling at the characters on screen, or worse: discussing with their neighbors.

I love a movie that inspires dialogue, but that dialogue should be after the movie and with the appropriate people. That appropriate person is not me ... or anyone else for that matter.

These are the basics people. No talking. No cell phones. Sit your ass down and get lost. I yearn for that lost cinematic paradise.

Admittedly, there is some irony in discouraging communication in such a communal experience as an outing to the movies. Surrendering oneself to the collection of images requires a concentration and a connection with the material. Witnessing the images in a film almost resembles a type of shared dreaming state, where the viewer lies completely apart from the person next to them and within the film. Yet still, the viewer is captivated in this experience of the film while others are so this position is complicated. Yet still more reason to engage with the film, in a manner, engaging further with your neighbor through shared emotion rather than speech.

That’s so cool. Why would anyone want to mess with that? Why wouldn’t anyone want to preserve that?

Some institutions will be around forever, cinema being one of them; I hope we can preserve what we can of this incredible experience, something so complex and delicate and all at the same time shared amongst an auditorium of silent watchers. Now certainly, if streaming and digital exhibition has taught us anything, it’s the experience of watching a film is malleable. But however malleable the experience, some elements cannot be translated like the feeling of letting a film envelope you, your eyes darting from spot to spot during an intense action sequence, or that stunned feeling after watching an intense story where you no one in the packed theater can move an inch. That’s the cinema that I know and love. I hope we can hold onto it a little longer.

Hoop Dreams

Watching Hoop Dreams came at a rather serendipitous time for me. No, I don't harbor dreams of becoming a NBA legend; I gave that up when I realized that I had to get used to 5'6 for the rest of my life. Some of you may know I moved to Los Angeles to realize my dreams of becoming a cinematographer. So Hoop Dreams, a film about two boys with dreams of playing in the NBA struck close to home.

Hoop Dreams follows the story of Arthur Agee and William Gates, two kids from inner city Chicago who dreamed of playing in the NBA. As trite as that sounds, the film tells a compelling and respectful story about the dreams that define us in our youth. In 3 hours, director Steve James takes us through the financial hardships, social difficulties, and family problems of these two young men and shows their transformation in light of these burdens. Although focusing on basketball, resiliency is at the root of this film. Hoop Dreams describes the complications of following one's dreams, inviting the viewer to ponder where his own dreams were waylaid by the obstacles of life. Naturally, some dreams remain intact, while some change with age or circumstance.

Appropriately, the narration of this film evokes a sense of allegiance with the two main character, of wanting to root for the boys as their constantly derailed by financial issues or wrenching defeats. The editing ramps on like a roller coaster, elevating you with their accomplishments, but depressing you after a mistake. Though at the same time, the film never sentimentalizes the characters. A great film doesn't simply make you feel for the characters; pity or compassion shouldn't make a great film out of a good one. The boys tell their stories with dignity; the voice narration remains stark with a core of sympathy. Hoop Dreams succeeds in balancing whatever feelings the story inspires with the respect and genuineness with which it is told.

One can read the story as a tragedy; two boys crushed under the weight of their own shortcomings. Part VI of Aristotle's Poetics defines a tragic story as inspiring pity or terror. Pity and terror derives from the connection the story inspires with the viewer. Those stories that make you see yourself on the screen (or page) make you locate his faults within your own grand tale. Hoop Dreams places your own dashed dreams or damning obstacles in your way right up on the screen. It had that effect on me. I'm sure it will on you. But one should understand that the boys captured on film follow their dreams with conviction; Hoop Dreams greatest accomplishment is by celebrating that conviction and challenging the viewer to proceed with that same verve.

The Ides of March

The Ides of March just sounds like a cool name. Right? And while it certainly tips the viewer to the film's somewhat tragic elements, the film doesn't deliver as much as it aspires to in the tragic realm. Though it recalls some of the Shakespearean themes with the title, the film refuses to truly dig the dagger into the back of the tragic genre. Following the tale of power and politics (Aren't they sort of the same thing?) on the campaign trail, The Ides of March paints a sobering view of the American political climate displaying the back-room deals, the tawdry scandals, and the overall lack of accountability. Ryan Gosling plays Stephen Myers, a rising star in the political word as a press secretary working for presidential hopeful Mike Morris, the favored democratic candidate. I use the term "hopeful" because the film was supposed to be made in the midst of the '08 campaign, but the producers decided that they didn't want to be Debby-downer while everyone was keeping hope alive.

Political intrigue is a logical realm for high-stakes drama; I think Clooney as director does a well enough job of capitalizing on it, though the film is not as high-minded as one would hope.

Let's take a look at the lead performance by one Ryan Gosling. I liked his execution more than his actual interpretation. I don't think the role had as much bite, by that I mean he is a little too "lamb to the slaughter" then I think the material deserved. As I hinted earlier, the film has a stated relationship with the tragedy that it doesn't quite deliver on. Myers' transformation from a idealistic staffer to a disillusioned veteran, though convincing doesn't sear the heart in the way that tragedy is meant to. He leaves too many remnants of his former self in the final scenes. I don't want to give too much away, but pay attention to the last shot and you'll know what I mean.

That said I think he holds his own in most of the scenes that he gets into with some truly amazing actors. Paul Giamatti slays as usual; Phillip Seymour Hoffman delivers as well. There aren't any bad performances. Of course, you wouldn't expect anything less from a star studded cast. But there aren't any fireworks between these guys. The script doesn't deliver the whip smart dialogue or brilliant soliloquys you crave for a movie about politics which basically translates into a movie about bullshitters. And if I know one thing about bullshitters, they really know how to talk.

The direction of the film is very solid. There are a couple of scene in which Clooney relies mainly on the camera to tell the story, which is the mark of any great director. Although the tale is somewhat predictable he does a sharp job on some reveals. It's a movie that gets better as time wears on, which oddly is when the film actuates some of its Hollywood thriller beats and turns away from being a political survey. From a visual stand point, a couple shots jump out at you one specifically is a beautifully silhouetted scene between PS Hoffman and Gosling against a backward American flag. The two discuss some of the wheeling and dealing that happens on the political trail with a solid, but not so subtle reminder of the themes of the film.

All and all, I had a positive experience with this one. It takes a second to set up the tension and stakes, but the performances are enough to keep the film afloat. Though tragically, there isn't much more.

Best of the year ...so far

Taking a break from my series on fine performances (I have a female performance coming up), I shall bring some closure to the first half of the year by presenting my Best of the year so far list. The year hasn't totally depressed me. As is common these days, there aren't many good ones, but the good ones are really good--yeah I was an English major. With no further adieu, here's my little list.

5. X-Men: First Class

I certainly didn't expect much out of this one considering it is a prequel and anything with -quel gives me hives. Though the film's main draw is the titanic acting talent it enlists (Fassbender and McAvoy), it has a little more going for it than talent; it found a way to really return to the roots of the franchise: prejudice, fear, and paranoia. Matthew Vaughan molds a more than acceptable tale of two fundamental philosophies butting heads, which is the foundation of the franchise. Unfortunately, there probably will not be a sequel, but in the imagination of my mind, I think it sets the first X-men up wonderfully.This movie holds the spot as the only action/superhero film, which is symptomatic of a fairly depressing demonstration of quality in Hollywood recently. Nonetheless, the film really delivers on the action and intensity of what a superhero/summer movie should be.

4. Friends with Benefits
I don't want to spend too much time espousing the love I have for this movie. There is something very smartalecky about FWB that separates it from most of the films I've seen this year. It is certainly conscious of the genre it inhabits and does a great job of pointing out the issues inherent in the conception of love purported by these mischievous filmmakers. At one point, Mila Kunis's character exclaims her dislike for Katherine Heigl calling her a liar for perpetuating these hopeless stereotypes of the new age woman and love. Now, is it utterly original? Maybe not, but it does a wonderful job of being fresh and inviting. That might seem oxymoronic, but, personally, I believe that if you can do something a million times, you get points if you can do it a million different ways. It's a film with personality and in the words of Jules from Pulp Fiction, personality goes a long way.

3.Crazy Stupid Love

2 rom coms in a row? Who are you and what have you done with Quintin? Crazy, Stupid, Love goes a step further than FWB. Whereas FWB masquerades as something more than a proto-rom com, CSL really surprises the audience with its take on the innocence of love and the craziness it inspires. CSL embraces the kitsch of being in love, but understands that things don't always go as planned. Aside from a few missteps, it's really easy to root for every character on screen. There really is no villain in the film. Even the cheater wife, played by Julianne Moore, isn't the cliche bitch that you'd expect. She has an immense amount of pathos, and I could connect with her. CSL is also finely directed (check out that first scene), which is one of the best compliments I like to give to films. Please go check it out.

2.Midnight in Paris

A gorgeous love letter to Paris? A lovely exercise of nostalgia? A welcome reminder that Woody Allen is still just as enthusiastic and bushy tailed as any young filmmaker out here? All of the above. Allen's MP is his highest grossing film ever most likely do to the number of stars he has in it, but it's no surprise given his deft direction and just plain resonant storyline and themes. You can have a lot of fun with this film, and I don't think the film plays as a hallow exercise and just another excuse for Woody to imagine himself speaking with Fitzgerald and Hemingway.

1. The Tree of Life

What else is there to say about this beautifully challenging film? I missed out on writing on this film because I just couldn't really justify writing on it without seeing it twice. I have since decided that that little proclivity doesn't apply to Best of list. It's very comforting to think that movies like this can be released on such a large-scale. Terrance Malick created quite a gorgeous film with such a beautiful use of natural light. TTL's scenes glower with a mystique of purity and communicate a sense of wonderment and awe at the world we inhabit. I think the most exciting part about this film is the confidence and trust with audience that Malick gives. In a world where things are reduced artistically to be more palatable, Malick gives immense slack with the audience to interpret much of the film. TTL for Oscar '12.

Don Cheadle as Mouse Alexander

Continuing my series on acting, I would like to feature one hell of a breakout role. Last Sunday, I watched Devil in a Blue Dress with my mother, and although I detest watching films on television because they tend to be chopped up beyond recognition of the artist's original intention, I figured I would suffer through my misgivings of the medium. I had been meaning to see it and figured I could get a blog entry out of it. I began the movie thinking that I would write an entry on Denzel Washington (playing Easy Rawlins), but, surprisingly, somewhere around the 50-60 minute mark, it became clear who has the more affecting performance in the film.

Don Cheadle plays Mouse Alexander, a small time crook with a noticeable affinity for shooting, violence, and scene-stealing. Although the film explains little about the past relationship between Easy and Mouse, maybe something about a past murder and other hoodwinks, the relationship plays fine without the burden of the exposition or backstory.

Mouse is the embodiment of a loose cannon. His penchant for violence is a variable that works for and against Easy within the film, requiring Easy to calculate Mouse's possible actions into every decision. Cheadle's Mouse is played with a knowing exuberance of the character's brash and unapologetic style.

A lot of times, when you have a violent character on screen, many actors and directors try to push him more to the crazy or deranged side of the spectrum. They have a calmness about them that distances the audience from their actions because the most logical reaction to shooting a person in the face or whatever other heinous deeds would be outrage. For evidence see Hannibal Lector in The Silence of the Lambs, Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men, or myriad of other serial killers portrayed on screen. This isn't so with Don Cheadle. Mouse isn't crazy, he's simply wild; he's not out of control, he's simply working with a different set of morals.

Pay attention to Cheadle's demeanor within the above scene. He raises his voice. He gets impatient. Qualities like this tend to forge a connection between the audience and the character. For a character who has a history of shooting with little provocation, it provides an interesting kinship with the audience. His character, in essence, actuates our own desires when the audience is given that connection with the character; he reacts the way that we would. This character is so successful because of his fervor and candor. Whereas most people would be reticent about shooting a person in the arm, Mouse does not share that view. He's a man with little patience and a big gun.

Introducing a wild card into the film, Cheadle's performance is aided by his chemistry with Denzel Washington. It's nice to see two titans of the acting game before they became what they are today. I love both performances, but I give the edge to Cheadle, not only because he does more with less screen time, but his character's frankness and loyalty are fiendishly compelling aspects of his performance.

Best Line:

"I'm tryin' to do right...I mean you know, now"

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?