Wow, what I lazy ass I have been with my blog this week! Okay, more like incredibly busy, but still, I feel neglectful... (is that a word?)
A good friend and fellow Movie Geek saw my list of favorite/least favorite movies and promised to make his own (which he never did, by the way) and said, if he could, he would put Moulin Rouge as the worst in every category. And that happens to be one of my all-time favorite films. Now, I could write a whole post about Moulin Rouge, but that's not what I want to talk about today. I think the root of its power, to me anyway, is the use of music to convey the intensity of the story. And it's also the strong musicality of the movie that makes people hate it.
For some reason, music speaks to our souls in a way that mere words cannot. I admit I have a bit of an obsession with movie music and download an awful lot of soundtracks. By listening to the music, I am taken back to the pivotal moment of the story and can relive it in my head. It's what keeps the story alive in my heart.
But even if you don't obsess over soundtracks, you have still been touched by the power of the musical score. Would The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars or Harry Potter be anything at all without the music behind the action? It's what gets our hearts racing and lets us know when to pay attention, something important is coming our way. Think of any scary movie - even the cheesy ones - and you'll realize you always know when something big (bad?) is going to happen. The music tells you so.
It's when the music becomes a much more obvious aspect of a film (or TV show or play) that people begin to get uncomfortable. My husband doesn't like anything with spontaneous singing and dancing (with the exception of cartoons and Christmas shows, for some reason) and I think that's because no one does that in real life. It's not social acceptable to express our joys, heartaches and excitement with synchronized musical numbers. Unfortunately. It makes people uncomfortable. For some reason.
So if music affects me in such a powerfully positive way, why do blatant musicals affect others so negatively? For example, I love Broadway shows but have always lived far FAR away from that world so I don't get to see many. When I had the chance to see Les Miserables, I jumped at it and my husband was happy to come along. Of course, I already knew all the music and cried through most of the show. My husband was bored. After the play, the only thing he had to say was, "I don't know why they couldn't just talk." It's okay I still love him...
I was able to see Wicked on New Years Eve this year (AMAZING!) and the next one I would love to see is American Idiot, based on the music of Green Day. When I read a review of it, someone said the soundtrack is "bubblegum" music, comparable to Glee and Kids Bop. I was offended. Obviously, this person does not understand the power of music in telling a story. Plays based on someones music (like American Idiot, Mamma Mia, etc) and even Glee isn't about re-recording existing music... it's about re-inventing music and using it to express feelings, themes, morals, basically the entire story, in a new way. We relate to the music we already know and are familiar with and that pulls us into the telling of the story.
So that's why I think music is so important in movies, TV, and theater. Whether consciously or not, the musical score carries our emotions and gets us connected to the story. Which, of course, is the whole point of telling a story. But you have to be open to the experience.
So, what's your favorite soundtrack?
Friday, February 4, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Hornets and Pilgrims and Schmucks, oh my!
It was an incredibly busy weekend for me and movie watching! I watched 3 movies, two of which I really liked and one I could have done without.
The Green Hornet
I was pleasantly surprised by this movie! I was expecting a bumbling-idiot sort of hero who somehow saves the day in the end. Something along the lines of Blankman or Get Smart. This is partly because of the way it was advertised and partly because... well, it's Seth Rogen. I was as surprised by Rogen's transformation from raunchy sexual humor to everyman's superhero as I was by Jake Gyllenhaal's transformation from awkward scrawny kid to epic adventure hero. Rogen wholly embraced the new genre and role and made Britt Reid believable and well-rounded. I really liked the character development, as I was just about to write the character off as a selfish jackass when he got the proverbial slap-in-the-face and the character transformed.
In fact, the entire cast was great! Jay Chou was amazing as Kato, with moves as impressive as Jackie Chan, while infinitely less choppy. Kato kicked ass and if it he hadn't needed Reid's money, he would have ruled the superhero world on his own! Cameron Diaz, as always, brings flare and beauty to the screen, and does so gracefully. I am always impressed with a celebrity who embraces their age openly and doesn't look like they're made of plastic. I loved James Franco's small part as the drug lord on high. But I think my favorite character was Chudnofsky, played for Christoph Waltz. This character desperately wanted to be as powerful, charismatic and feared as Colonel Landa, the role Waltz played in Inglorious Basterds and for which he won an Academy Award. But Chudnofsky just can't get the love. And his frustration is so apparent... and almost... well, cute!
Now, I haven't ever read the Green Hornet comics, but I very much enjoyed the "comic book" feel of the film with several fun special effects and the cinematography we have come to expect of superhero movies. The plot developed nicely. There were a few minor errors I noticed, the most obvious being that the newspaper staff were talking about the outlandish things the Green Hornet was doing, including shooting out a red light camera.... which he doesn't do until the next scene.
The 3D was unnecessary and was only really "cool" during the end credits. If you're gonna go 3D, go full out! They did a neat scene transition at the very end with a comic book feel and a great 3D hornet. If they had incorporated that throughout the film, it would have made the 3D worthwhile. As it was, I could have done without the uncomfortable glasses.
Overall, really fun movie - oh, and the score was great! Worth seeing, but if it's available in 2D, I would save the extra $3.
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
Okay, this movie isn't gonna be for everyone. I can see how some people are going to hate it. That said, I loved it! It was so cute!
Scott Pilgrim was a graphic novel and is now an old-school type pixelated video game. So the movie was filmed as a graphic novel/video game hybrid that was so much fun to watch! But, you have to embrace the process and concept to really enjoy it. For example, when he "kills" an enemy they disappear and coins fall on the ground. And when he does something that develops his character, he earns a new weapon or an extra life.
Again, I've never read the graphic novel, so I can't compare it to that, but the story was original and well-developed and the characters were hilarious! Scott Pilgrim is the type of character Michael Cera fits so perfectly. Mary Elizabeth Winstead lends a great balance of cynicism, heart and deadpan humor to Ramona Flowers. And Kieran Culkin is hilarious as Scott's gay roommate.
Overall, this is a super fun movie that I will definitely add to my "I need to own that!" list. Truly entertaining!
Dinner for Schmucks
I rented this movie because my husband loves "dumb humor" and I have to admit, many of them are really entertaining. He seemed to like this movie, though probably not enough to own it. I, on the other hand, really didn't like it at all. It's not an all-time worst, but I certainly won't be watching it again.
The premise of this movie is that Paul Rudd's character, Tim, wants a promotion and he's told that he's in the running for it. But the last "deciding factor" is a dinner to which each of the candidates are invited and they must each bring a guest. The catch is that the guest must be a "schmuck," someone weird and freakish... and the one with the most freakish guest will get the promotion.
Along comes Barry, (Steve Carrell) who becomes Tim's schmuck. Predictably, once Tim gets to know Barry and learns his sad story, he feels bad and has a change of heart. It reminded me a little of Planes, Trains and Automobiles where John Candy played the "schmuck" character and Steve Martin's character is stuck with him and hates him... until he gets to know him and his sad story, then has a change of heart. The difference is that John Candy and Steve Martin are (were) amazingly talented comedians and developed their characters well.
The problem with Dinner for Schmucks is that the characters are far too stereo-typical and completely unbelievable. Paul Rudd plays the only "straight man" and does him well, but that's kind of Paul Rudd's thing. It seems Steve Carrell is much like Jim Carrey, Will Ferrell and so many other comedians today - he does one part really well and everything he does is that same character! Barry's stupidity and knack for ruining people's lives is too over-the-top. I've never in my life met someone as obnoxiously annoying as he is and couldn't imagine this being a real person. Along the same lines, Tim's co-workers were truly horrible people, openly laughing in the faces of the dinner guests and making fun of them behind their backs. The whole concept was so terribly cruel and I couldn't imagine anyone actually doing that in real life. Not only that, it's not like Barry's "sad story" is really all that sad. His wife left him. Oh bummer. She didn't die or anything, he just had his heart broken by a floozy woman.
The shining light in this movie was Zach Galifianakis, who I've never really liked, but he played Barry's crazy mind-controlling boss so well! I probably liked this because his over-obnoxiousness worked so well for the character he was portraying.
Overall, watch this movie if there's nothing else on... Don't waste money on it.
The Green Hornet
I was pleasantly surprised by this movie! I was expecting a bumbling-idiot sort of hero who somehow saves the day in the end. Something along the lines of Blankman or Get Smart. This is partly because of the way it was advertised and partly because... well, it's Seth Rogen. I was as surprised by Rogen's transformation from raunchy sexual humor to everyman's superhero as I was by Jake Gyllenhaal's transformation from awkward scrawny kid to epic adventure hero. Rogen wholly embraced the new genre and role and made Britt Reid believable and well-rounded. I really liked the character development, as I was just about to write the character off as a selfish jackass when he got the proverbial slap-in-the-face and the character transformed.
In fact, the entire cast was great! Jay Chou was amazing as Kato, with moves as impressive as Jackie Chan, while infinitely less choppy. Kato kicked ass and if it he hadn't needed Reid's money, he would have ruled the superhero world on his own! Cameron Diaz, as always, brings flare and beauty to the screen, and does so gracefully. I am always impressed with a celebrity who embraces their age openly and doesn't look like they're made of plastic. I loved James Franco's small part as the drug lord on high. But I think my favorite character was Chudnofsky, played for Christoph Waltz. This character desperately wanted to be as powerful, charismatic and feared as Colonel Landa, the role Waltz played in Inglorious Basterds and for which he won an Academy Award. But Chudnofsky just can't get the love. And his frustration is so apparent... and almost... well, cute!
Now, I haven't ever read the Green Hornet comics, but I very much enjoyed the "comic book" feel of the film with several fun special effects and the cinematography we have come to expect of superhero movies. The plot developed nicely. There were a few minor errors I noticed, the most obvious being that the newspaper staff were talking about the outlandish things the Green Hornet was doing, including shooting out a red light camera.... which he doesn't do until the next scene.
The 3D was unnecessary and was only really "cool" during the end credits. If you're gonna go 3D, go full out! They did a neat scene transition at the very end with a comic book feel and a great 3D hornet. If they had incorporated that throughout the film, it would have made the 3D worthwhile. As it was, I could have done without the uncomfortable glasses.
Overall, really fun movie - oh, and the score was great! Worth seeing, but if it's available in 2D, I would save the extra $3.
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
Okay, this movie isn't gonna be for everyone. I can see how some people are going to hate it. That said, I loved it! It was so cute!
Scott Pilgrim was a graphic novel and is now an old-school type pixelated video game. So the movie was filmed as a graphic novel/video game hybrid that was so much fun to watch! But, you have to embrace the process and concept to really enjoy it. For example, when he "kills" an enemy they disappear and coins fall on the ground. And when he does something that develops his character, he earns a new weapon or an extra life.
Again, I've never read the graphic novel, so I can't compare it to that, but the story was original and well-developed and the characters were hilarious! Scott Pilgrim is the type of character Michael Cera fits so perfectly. Mary Elizabeth Winstead lends a great balance of cynicism, heart and deadpan humor to Ramona Flowers. And Kieran Culkin is hilarious as Scott's gay roommate.
Overall, this is a super fun movie that I will definitely add to my "I need to own that!" list. Truly entertaining!
Dinner for Schmucks
I rented this movie because my husband loves "dumb humor" and I have to admit, many of them are really entertaining. He seemed to like this movie, though probably not enough to own it. I, on the other hand, really didn't like it at all. It's not an all-time worst, but I certainly won't be watching it again.
The premise of this movie is that Paul Rudd's character, Tim, wants a promotion and he's told that he's in the running for it. But the last "deciding factor" is a dinner to which each of the candidates are invited and they must each bring a guest. The catch is that the guest must be a "schmuck," someone weird and freakish... and the one with the most freakish guest will get the promotion.
Along comes Barry, (Steve Carrell) who becomes Tim's schmuck. Predictably, once Tim gets to know Barry and learns his sad story, he feels bad and has a change of heart. It reminded me a little of Planes, Trains and Automobiles where John Candy played the "schmuck" character and Steve Martin's character is stuck with him and hates him... until he gets to know him and his sad story, then has a change of heart. The difference is that John Candy and Steve Martin are (were) amazingly talented comedians and developed their characters well.
The problem with Dinner for Schmucks is that the characters are far too stereo-typical and completely unbelievable. Paul Rudd plays the only "straight man" and does him well, but that's kind of Paul Rudd's thing. It seems Steve Carrell is much like Jim Carrey, Will Ferrell and so many other comedians today - he does one part really well and everything he does is that same character! Barry's stupidity and knack for ruining people's lives is too over-the-top. I've never in my life met someone as obnoxiously annoying as he is and couldn't imagine this being a real person. Along the same lines, Tim's co-workers were truly horrible people, openly laughing in the faces of the dinner guests and making fun of them behind their backs. The whole concept was so terribly cruel and I couldn't imagine anyone actually doing that in real life. Not only that, it's not like Barry's "sad story" is really all that sad. His wife left him. Oh bummer. She didn't die or anything, he just had his heart broken by a floozy woman.
The shining light in this movie was Zach Galifianakis, who I've never really liked, but he played Barry's crazy mind-controlling boss so well! I probably liked this because his over-obnoxiousness worked so well for the character he was portraying.
Overall, watch this movie if there's nothing else on... Don't waste money on it.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
The Obsessive Mind of the Movie Audience
It's strange how the mind works... I had a thought yesterday afternoon and it seems everywhere I have looked since then, things seems to relate and compound on what I was thinking.
After I posted yesterday about Inception, I remembered another point I wanted to make. I really love the scene when they go to Malaysia to get Yusuf and he shows them the dozens of people who come in everyday to dream for hours on end. They can only live in the fantasy world and come there to be woken up into the real world. I thought this was such a telling statement on human psychology.
I even laughed to myself because I used to work with people who would play World of Warcraft for 4-5 hours a day, up to 12 hours on their day off, and all they talk about at work is where they went, who they killed, what they discovered, what gear they picked up and how they are better than you - in a game! I chuckle because they never talked about their actual 3-dimensional lives.
This morning FX was showing The Talented Mr. Ripley (the newer one with Matt Damon, Gwyneth Paltrow and Jude Law), which I love so I watched it. Tom Ripley is one of these people. He creates a whole world in which he can escape and be someone new.
But then I realized what I am doing here - the entire reason I began this blog was to verbalize the thoughts and revelations and feelings I have about one of my own obsessions: movies, TV, books, basically the story of a life other than my own. How sad.
So what drives us to live our lives pretending? I know most people have boring lives. Rarely does anyone lead a life as interesting as that portrayed on film. But some people take it further than a mere distraction. I know when I hear a good story, my mind replays it over and over for days. Hence, the need to form my thoughts into words to escape the vicious analytical cycle.
I think I know where my obsession with story formed. I had a truly crappy childhood. My obsession with movies began at about 12 years old. I would watch them over and over, memorize entire scenes, buy all the Teen Beat magazines to learn all about my favorite actors - this was long before the Internet brought so much more information instantly to our fingertips. I was obsessed with favorite actors. At that time it was Sean Astin, and later turned to Michael J. Fox and Neil Patrick Harris. Then I began to do theater myself and that opened a whole world to me where I could escape my own nightmare and be someone else, somewhere else, for a little while. Unfortunately, I always had to go home again, so I began to pretend I was one of these characters all the time. It wasn't until I met my husband that I began to live my own life.
Okay, that is far more information about myself than I would normally share, but since there are pretty much 2 people who will read this - one who knows me really well now and one who knew me then :-) - I feel okay saying it. I need to get all this out of my head to see where it leads and hope it leaves me feeling better.
So, anyway, I immerse myself in story to escape. Even though my life now is fairly idyllic. Okay, I hate my job, but who doesn't, really? I have a happy marriage, good (though somewhat aggravating) kids who love me. Yet I still feel the need to escape. Why is that?
Is it that the people in the stories are so much more interesting? I know when I watch a movie or TV show, especially the ones I really like, the reason I enjoy them is because I can see myself in the character's place, going through their experiences and reacting to the their world. This, ultimately, is the secret to exceptional film - creating characters that the audience relate to, ones they can see themselves as, and truly care about their well-being. Without that, we just don't care. We're not invested in the story and don't hang on the outcome.
Unfortunately, some people take this too far and begin to feel they know these people. And most probably don't know if they are connecting to the characters or the actors. The tabloids create a million-dollar industry! All because we think we know these people, that we can share in their joys, empathize with their pain and - above all- laugh at them and their misfortunes. Again, how sad.
Now, I don't really care about "celebrity stories." I think that everyone should have a personal life and they have a right to keep that private. I was standing in line the other day when John Travolta and Kelly Preston were on the cover of a magazine with their new baby. I glanced at it and moved on to the candy bars... But the woman behind me started telling her friend a drawn-out story about how she thinks they used (gasp) a surrogate because no one really saw her pregnant! Who the hell cares??? Isn't that their right? It's not illegal, and she is 48 years old, why not?
It is truly frightening to me how quickly you could go from being a fan of a show, character, or celebrity, to being a stalker. Especially if you happen to cross paths with one of these people and imagine you had a real-life connection. I don't think I would want to be a celebrity if this is the kind of scrutiny and inspection I would receive.
Now, I'm not saying I don't have favorite actors that I feel a connection to, because I do. You should have seen how happy and proud I was when Chris Colfer won his very first award for acting last week at the Golden Globes. A virtual nobody who was being recognized for portraying a character. I actually felt pride - like I had anything to do with it! But I am aware that no one in Hollywood (or New York, or anywhere else for that matter) has any clue I even exist and if I walked up to them on the street I would be just another face. In fact, I'm betting I wouldn't even like most of them once I got to know them.
I'm really not sure what my point is today. I'm feeling very random and rambled. I just wanted to spend a moment exploring the obsessive mind. I hope this doesn't mean I will turn into a stalker and serial killer. It's a fine line to walk, isn't it?
After I posted yesterday about Inception, I remembered another point I wanted to make. I really love the scene when they go to Malaysia to get Yusuf and he shows them the dozens of people who come in everyday to dream for hours on end. They can only live in the fantasy world and come there to be woken up into the real world. I thought this was such a telling statement on human psychology.
I even laughed to myself because I used to work with people who would play World of Warcraft for 4-5 hours a day, up to 12 hours on their day off, and all they talk about at work is where they went, who they killed, what they discovered, what gear they picked up and how they are better than you - in a game! I chuckle because they never talked about their actual 3-dimensional lives.
This morning FX was showing The Talented Mr. Ripley (the newer one with Matt Damon, Gwyneth Paltrow and Jude Law), which I love so I watched it. Tom Ripley is one of these people. He creates a whole world in which he can escape and be someone new.
But then I realized what I am doing here - the entire reason I began this blog was to verbalize the thoughts and revelations and feelings I have about one of my own obsessions: movies, TV, books, basically the story of a life other than my own. How sad.
So what drives us to live our lives pretending? I know most people have boring lives. Rarely does anyone lead a life as interesting as that portrayed on film. But some people take it further than a mere distraction. I know when I hear a good story, my mind replays it over and over for days. Hence, the need to form my thoughts into words to escape the vicious analytical cycle.
I think I know where my obsession with story formed. I had a truly crappy childhood. My obsession with movies began at about 12 years old. I would watch them over and over, memorize entire scenes, buy all the Teen Beat magazines to learn all about my favorite actors - this was long before the Internet brought so much more information instantly to our fingertips. I was obsessed with favorite actors. At that time it was Sean Astin, and later turned to Michael J. Fox and Neil Patrick Harris. Then I began to do theater myself and that opened a whole world to me where I could escape my own nightmare and be someone else, somewhere else, for a little while. Unfortunately, I always had to go home again, so I began to pretend I was one of these characters all the time. It wasn't until I met my husband that I began to live my own life.
Okay, that is far more information about myself than I would normally share, but since there are pretty much 2 people who will read this - one who knows me really well now and one who knew me then :-) - I feel okay saying it. I need to get all this out of my head to see where it leads and hope it leaves me feeling better.
So, anyway, I immerse myself in story to escape. Even though my life now is fairly idyllic. Okay, I hate my job, but who doesn't, really? I have a happy marriage, good (though somewhat aggravating) kids who love me. Yet I still feel the need to escape. Why is that?
Is it that the people in the stories are so much more interesting? I know when I watch a movie or TV show, especially the ones I really like, the reason I enjoy them is because I can see myself in the character's place, going through their experiences and reacting to the their world. This, ultimately, is the secret to exceptional film - creating characters that the audience relate to, ones they can see themselves as, and truly care about their well-being. Without that, we just don't care. We're not invested in the story and don't hang on the outcome.
Unfortunately, some people take this too far and begin to feel they know these people. And most probably don't know if they are connecting to the characters or the actors. The tabloids create a million-dollar industry! All because we think we know these people, that we can share in their joys, empathize with their pain and - above all- laugh at them and their misfortunes. Again, how sad.
Now, I don't really care about "celebrity stories." I think that everyone should have a personal life and they have a right to keep that private. I was standing in line the other day when John Travolta and Kelly Preston were on the cover of a magazine with their new baby. I glanced at it and moved on to the candy bars... But the woman behind me started telling her friend a drawn-out story about how she thinks they used (gasp) a surrogate because no one really saw her pregnant! Who the hell cares??? Isn't that their right? It's not illegal, and she is 48 years old, why not?
It is truly frightening to me how quickly you could go from being a fan of a show, character, or celebrity, to being a stalker. Especially if you happen to cross paths with one of these people and imagine you had a real-life connection. I don't think I would want to be a celebrity if this is the kind of scrutiny and inspection I would receive.
Now, I'm not saying I don't have favorite actors that I feel a connection to, because I do. You should have seen how happy and proud I was when Chris Colfer won his very first award for acting last week at the Golden Globes. A virtual nobody who was being recognized for portraying a character. I actually felt pride - like I had anything to do with it! But I am aware that no one in Hollywood (or New York, or anywhere else for that matter) has any clue I even exist and if I walked up to them on the street I would be just another face. In fact, I'm betting I wouldn't even like most of them once I got to know them.
I'm really not sure what my point is today. I'm feeling very random and rambled. I just wanted to spend a moment exploring the obsessive mind. I hope this doesn't mean I will turn into a stalker and serial killer. It's a fine line to walk, isn't it?
Friday, January 21, 2011
The Imaginative Beauty that is Inception
Someone commented to me this morning that they found it interesting that I held Inception in such high esteem. He felt it tried too hard to be confusing and copy The Matrix, and didn't understand the point. So, I'm here today to defend my opinion of my favorite movie of at least the last few years. The effects and cinematography were amazing, the acting was skillful and the entire composition left me wanting more.
Even if you take this movie at face value, it can be really enjoyable if you pay attention. Granted it can be a little daunting with four different "places" going at the same time, but what I love about this movie is that it works for most audiences, no matter how deep you want to look into it. But only if you're the type of person who really likes to delve headlong into a story. It isn't for everyone and that's what makes differing opinions so great!
Taking the story as it is presented, it is an interesting concept, delving into people's dreams and manipulating them. The confusion, in my opinion, is not so much in keeping up with the story, but in the "weird stuff" that happens in all of our dreams - let's face it, analyzing anyone's dream in the light of our order-based world makes us look crazy!
When I first watched Inception, I asked the question "Do you think he's awake or asleep at the end?" on Facebook. Two movie geek friends pointed me in the direction of learning the "real story" of Inception, but every single other person who answered said he was awake. I understand the desire for a happy ending, where everything comes out the way its supposed to... but I thought it was very clear that he was still asleep. My first clue was the kids themselves. When he sees them at the end, they are the same age, in the same poses and in the exact same clothes they have been through the entire movie! Classic dream occurrence: we see things the way we want to see them.
Also, the fact that they left him submerged in the van tells us he's still "down there" - and they know it and don't try to do anything about it. Finally, when he is walking through the airport, and going through customs, the only faces you can see clearly are the main characters - every single other person is blurry. Again this is something we all do in dreams: we only create the details that are important and everything else blurs into the background.
Leaving the movie right there, I still loved it! But then again, I love movies that you really have to think about.
BUT, then I read into the message behind this movie and what it truly represents and was BLOWN AWAY!!
To begin, whose totem was the top? Was it Cobb's totem at all? Wasn't it Mal's? And Arthur makes a point of telling Ariadne that she can't touch his totem - only he should know the weight and feel of it. In fact, as he's saying this, we see a close up of Cobb spinning the top. This is a clue. Does it really matter is the top falls for Cobb when it's not his totem?
Turns out, this is entire film, start to finish is a dream! Look closely and you'll see clues everywhere. when they're in Malaysia and he's running through streets, alleys and between buildings, every shot it very narrower and narrower. The walls are literally closing in around him. Classic dream. When he finally makes it out, the "bad guys" are instantly in front of him... then Saito is suddenly there to save him....? Where the heck did he come from? He's not even in Malaysia! In fact, Cobb tells Ariadne the easiest way to tell when you're in a dream: ask yourself, "How did I get here?" There are several places in the movie where the characters (supposedly awake) magically jump from place to place - with no thought at to how they got there. There are a few places where it rapidly changes from night to day or vice versa. Now, sometimes this happens in movies, but it's usually an editing error... My favorite clue to the fact that it's a dream is the chalkboard in the classroom when Cobb visits Michael Caine's character (Is this is father? Father-in-law?). Look again at the chalkboard below. Have you ever seen anything like this is a classroom? The visual impact is striking - yet look closely and notice that all the words are gibberish! Not to mention that he would need quite the stepladder to draw at the very top of the board like that.
Okay, so it's all a dream, right...? This is where I got a little cranky! A dream? What's the point? What a cop-out! I mean, we're back to 1981 when it didn't really matter who shot JR because the entire season of Dallas had been a dream!
But wait, there's more! This is the "real" meaning and symbolism behind the film: the movie is about the process of making a movie! Now, I truly hate when people try to say there's symbolism where there isn't any. Trust me, I think maybe Mark Twain just wanted to write a story about a kid and a black guy riding a raft down the Mississippi River... But this correlation is, for one thing, the actual documented intent of Christopher Nolan, and is so obvious and beautiful when you really look at it. Here's how the players come together:
Cobb, the extractor - this is the director, in this case he is Christopher Nolan
himself. He is the one in charge of the story, takes you where you need to go,
and shows you what you need to see.
Eames, the forger - this is the actor. I love how this is done! He changes forms within the dreams... in fact, when he "becomes" Peter Browning, he sits down at a multi-faced mirror. In one shot, there are several reflections of Tom Hardy and one reflection shows Tom Berenger. The next shot, all the mirrors show Tom Berenger, and only the "real" person is still Tom Hardy. The next shot he turns away from the mirror as Tom Berenger. How cool is that?? Also fun to note, Eames is kind of a primadonna. He thinks nothing can happen without him and argues with just about everyone. :-)
Saito, the tourist - this is the money man. Notice how he imagines himself as a big player in the whole event. No one else wants him to come along, but they agree because he's backing it.
Mal, the "shade" - this is the little piece of the director that he can't keep out of the project. No matter how he tries to distance himself from the work, his soul will come through. Interesting, though, that Christopher Nolan sees this as so detrimental.
Robert Fischer, the mark - this is you, the audience. Everything happens in his mind with the intent of making him think about his world, examine himself and (hopefully) change his own way of thinking about his world. Notice, this has to be done in a subtle, intricate way so that he doesn't feel like the movie (or dream) is telling him what to take away from it. Truly good movies do this - even Inception!
The layers/labyrinth nature of the dream - these are complex plot points, subplots and plot twists. This is what makes a movie interesting and thought-provoking and is the difference between a movie you think is boring and pointless and one you really enjoy!
"Riding the kick" out of all layers of the dream - this is the need to tie up all loose ends before the end of the film. When one is left out, you leave with a frustrated, "lost" feeling.
I still have questions that I am going to have to think awhile longer to answer... Such as, why is it so incredibly important that no one dies while in the dream? Granted, this would be a setback in the making of a movie, but I get the feeling it means more than that.
Even if you take this movie at face value, it can be really enjoyable if you pay attention. Granted it can be a little daunting with four different "places" going at the same time, but what I love about this movie is that it works for most audiences, no matter how deep you want to look into it. But only if you're the type of person who really likes to delve headlong into a story. It isn't for everyone and that's what makes differing opinions so great!
Taking the story as it is presented, it is an interesting concept, delving into people's dreams and manipulating them. The confusion, in my opinion, is not so much in keeping up with the story, but in the "weird stuff" that happens in all of our dreams - let's face it, analyzing anyone's dream in the light of our order-based world makes us look crazy!
---------------------------------- BEWARE! ----------------------------------
THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS!
When I first watched Inception, I asked the question "Do you think he's awake or asleep at the end?" on Facebook. Two movie geek friends pointed me in the direction of learning the "real story" of Inception, but every single other person who answered said he was awake. I understand the desire for a happy ending, where everything comes out the way its supposed to... but I thought it was very clear that he was still asleep. My first clue was the kids themselves. When he sees them at the end, they are the same age, in the same poses and in the exact same clothes they have been through the entire movie! Classic dream occurrence: we see things the way we want to see them.
Also, the fact that they left him submerged in the van tells us he's still "down there" - and they know it and don't try to do anything about it. Finally, when he is walking through the airport, and going through customs, the only faces you can see clearly are the main characters - every single other person is blurry. Again this is something we all do in dreams: we only create the details that are important and everything else blurs into the background.
Leaving the movie right there, I still loved it! But then again, I love movies that you really have to think about.
BUT, then I read into the message behind this movie and what it truly represents and was BLOWN AWAY!!
To begin, whose totem was the top? Was it Cobb's totem at all? Wasn't it Mal's? And Arthur makes a point of telling Ariadne that she can't touch his totem - only he should know the weight and feel of it. In fact, as he's saying this, we see a close up of Cobb spinning the top. This is a clue. Does it really matter is the top falls for Cobb when it's not his totem?
Okay, so it's all a dream, right...? This is where I got a little cranky! A dream? What's the point? What a cop-out! I mean, we're back to 1981 when it didn't really matter who shot JR because the entire season of Dallas had been a dream!
But wait, there's more! This is the "real" meaning and symbolism behind the film: the movie is about the process of making a movie! Now, I truly hate when people try to say there's symbolism where there isn't any. Trust me, I think maybe Mark Twain just wanted to write a story about a kid and a black guy riding a raft down the Mississippi River... But this correlation is, for one thing, the actual documented intent of Christopher Nolan, and is so obvious and beautiful when you really look at it. Here's how the players come together:
Cobb, the extractor - this is the director, in this case he is Christopher Nolan
himself. He is the one in charge of the story, takes you where you need to go,
and shows you what you need to see.
Ariadne, the architect - this is the screenplay writer. She creates the world in which the characters live.
Arthur, the point man - this is the producer. He makes sure everyone is where they should be, doing what they should be. He pulls it all together.
Eames, the forger - this is the actor. I love how this is done! He changes forms within the dreams... in fact, when he "becomes" Peter Browning, he sits down at a multi-faced mirror. In one shot, there are several reflections of Tom Hardy and one reflection shows Tom Berenger. The next shot, all the mirrors show Tom Berenger, and only the "real" person is still Tom Hardy. The next shot he turns away from the mirror as Tom Berenger. How cool is that?? Also fun to note, Eames is kind of a primadonna. He thinks nothing can happen without him and argues with just about everyone. :-)
Saito, the tourist - this is the money man. Notice how he imagines himself as a big player in the whole event. No one else wants him to come along, but they agree because he's backing it.
Mal, the "shade" - this is the little piece of the director that he can't keep out of the project. No matter how he tries to distance himself from the work, his soul will come through. Interesting, though, that Christopher Nolan sees this as so detrimental.
Robert Fischer, the mark - this is you, the audience. Everything happens in his mind with the intent of making him think about his world, examine himself and (hopefully) change his own way of thinking about his world. Notice, this has to be done in a subtle, intricate way so that he doesn't feel like the movie (or dream) is telling him what to take away from it. Truly good movies do this - even Inception!
Yusuf, the chemist - this is the technical team. They make sure everything "works" both behind the scenes and on screen.
The dream itself - this is the movie, the finished project
"Riding the kick" out of all layers of the dream - this is the need to tie up all loose ends before the end of the film. When one is left out, you leave with a frustrated, "lost" feeling.
So, in a nutshell (okay, I'll admit a rather LARGE nutshell) that is my take on Inception. I hope this has opened your eyes and your mind and I encourage you to tell me what you think. Did you not buy the concept at all? Did you see other connections that I missed? Did you think the entire thing was a piece of excrement? I won't mind either way, I swear! I welcome the discussion!
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Movies that make me grumpy...
I was planning to write about Inception today because it makes me so incredibly happy! BUT, it has been a horrible morning and now I'm cranky...
So, in keeping with that mindset, I am instead going to talk about movies I really don't like! As you can see from yesterday's post, there are LOTS of them but only a handful that really really bother me. My friend's list of her favorites also sparked a lot of things in my brain I hadn't thought of yesterday... Like the American Pie series - how could I have overlooked my hatred for that??
But my number one most disliked movie right now is Twilight. Pretty much the whole series, but Eclipse was at least better than Twilight and New Moon was slightly better than that....
First of all, I read the books - before the movies. At my daughter's suggestion (we share lots of book series) I read all 4 books. And liked them. At least the first three - I thought Breaking Dawn was far too hokey and "perfect" and really began to wonder if Bella had any flaws at all! I mean, really, from a storytelling point of view, why would you create a character who not only can do no wrong, but also is spectacular in so many ways? I can't sympathize or connect with that character - instead I want to punch her in the face.
That being said, I really did like the first 3 books. I was full-on Team Edward as I read them too, and felt that she had found her soul mate in him. But when I watch the movie, I am repulsed by Robert Pattinson's pasty white, scrawny, pre-pubescent body and these looks he gives her that are supposed to be passionate and full of love just come off as obsessive, possessive and creepy. And I'm pretty sure the book actually had some plot to it - even quite a bit of action. Yet in the movie, you see very little of that, it's just all love story. If they profess their undying love for each other one more time, I may throw up. We get it. Move on.
Aside from the mediocre efforts of Taylor Lautner, the acting in this movie is just horrible. Anyone who thinks differently can only do so because they are "all so hot!" Seriously, I don't know what happened because I've seen Kristen Stewart in other things that were quite good - case in point, check out the movie Speak. But I can't stand the sappy, weak performance she gives in this film! Really, Bella was a very strong character, not some simpering stubborn child. And I can't see Robert Pattinson in anything anymore without reliving his horrible acting in Twilight. I can't even get behind Cedric Diggory anymore and I'm a huge Harry Potter fan! By the way, I never even thought he was cute then...
Which brings me to Jacob... okay, I will admit Taylor Lautner is hot. And I'm pretty sure he knows it too. Watching the movies, I became full-on Team Jacob - but not just because he's cuter. And tan. It was in the portrayal of characters. Edward became so possessive of Bella and did insane things "for her own good" and Jacob was always the friend she needed. I know where my loyalties would lie. Lautner portrays Jacob as such a sweet caring soul and Pattinson portrays Edward as borderline psychotic. Who would you choose??
I suppose I should lay off the actors because, of course, there are hundreds of minds involved in creating a film. Maybe it's Catherine Hardwicke's fault for asking for these performances (I pick on her because, as I said, the subsequent movies were a little better)... at the very least it's the director's fault for allowing it to continue. It is just as much Stephanie Meyer's fault for allowing her story to be portrayed as a teenage soap opera that plays to nothing but a 14-year-old girl's hormones. That's not the message or feeling her books portray at all.
In the end, I think I could contain my dislike for Twilight if it weren't for the ever-present media frenzy and craziness of the fans! It's a shame that such a thing would affect my opinion, but it does. I have come to associate Twilight with young girls in black, who actually appear to be in search of a vampire... Seriously? You know they're not real, right?
And, seriously, no one can come up with an original fantasy story anymore - book or film. Don't even get me started on the shocking similarities between Twilight and True Blood, in characters, plot AND audience fervor! (By the way, True Blood would be my top most hated TV show. It's truly just vampire porn.) Walk through the "teen" section of a bookstore sometime and count how many books are about vampires these days. I stopped when I didn't know what came after 999 kajillion... Granted, the same was true of wizards 10 years ago... Find your own cash cow, people!
People are so sick of hearing about Twilight and that in itself is ruining the films and these kids' careers. Remember Leonardo DiCaprio after Titanic? How many years (and how many amazing performances) did it take for him to be taken seriously again?? I am shocked and pleased that Daniel Radcliffe appears to be holding his own in a post-Harry Potter world and desperately hope he doesn't become trapped by this phenomenon. It's hard to get an image out of your head when it is pounded in by thousands of insane fans!
So, there's my soapbox - feel free to step upon it yourself and let me know what you think.
And what's your most-hated film?
So, in keeping with that mindset, I am instead going to talk about movies I really don't like! As you can see from yesterday's post, there are LOTS of them but only a handful that really really bother me. My friend's list of her favorites also sparked a lot of things in my brain I hadn't thought of yesterday... Like the American Pie series - how could I have overlooked my hatred for that??
But my number one most disliked movie right now is Twilight. Pretty much the whole series, but Eclipse was at least better than Twilight and New Moon was slightly better than that....
First of all, I read the books - before the movies. At my daughter's suggestion (we share lots of book series) I read all 4 books. And liked them. At least the first three - I thought Breaking Dawn was far too hokey and "perfect" and really began to wonder if Bella had any flaws at all! I mean, really, from a storytelling point of view, why would you create a character who not only can do no wrong, but also is spectacular in so many ways? I can't sympathize or connect with that character - instead I want to punch her in the face.
That being said, I really did like the first 3 books. I was full-on Team Edward as I read them too, and felt that she had found her soul mate in him. But when I watch the movie, I am repulsed by Robert Pattinson's pasty white, scrawny, pre-pubescent body and these looks he gives her that are supposed to be passionate and full of love just come off as obsessive, possessive and creepy. And I'm pretty sure the book actually had some plot to it - even quite a bit of action. Yet in the movie, you see very little of that, it's just all love story. If they profess their undying love for each other one more time, I may throw up. We get it. Move on.
Aside from the mediocre efforts of Taylor Lautner, the acting in this movie is just horrible. Anyone who thinks differently can only do so because they are "all so hot!" Seriously, I don't know what happened because I've seen Kristen Stewart in other things that were quite good - case in point, check out the movie Speak. But I can't stand the sappy, weak performance she gives in this film! Really, Bella was a very strong character, not some simpering stubborn child. And I can't see Robert Pattinson in anything anymore without reliving his horrible acting in Twilight. I can't even get behind Cedric Diggory anymore and I'm a huge Harry Potter fan! By the way, I never even thought he was cute then...
Which brings me to Jacob... okay, I will admit Taylor Lautner is hot. And I'm pretty sure he knows it too. Watching the movies, I became full-on Team Jacob - but not just because he's cuter. And tan. It was in the portrayal of characters. Edward became so possessive of Bella and did insane things "for her own good" and Jacob was always the friend she needed. I know where my loyalties would lie. Lautner portrays Jacob as such a sweet caring soul and Pattinson portrays Edward as borderline psychotic. Who would you choose??
I suppose I should lay off the actors because, of course, there are hundreds of minds involved in creating a film. Maybe it's Catherine Hardwicke's fault for asking for these performances (I pick on her because, as I said, the subsequent movies were a little better)... at the very least it's the director's fault for allowing it to continue. It is just as much Stephanie Meyer's fault for allowing her story to be portrayed as a teenage soap opera that plays to nothing but a 14-year-old girl's hormones. That's not the message or feeling her books portray at all.
In the end, I think I could contain my dislike for Twilight if it weren't for the ever-present media frenzy and craziness of the fans! It's a shame that such a thing would affect my opinion, but it does. I have come to associate Twilight with young girls in black, who actually appear to be in search of a vampire... Seriously? You know they're not real, right?
And, seriously, no one can come up with an original fantasy story anymore - book or film. Don't even get me started on the shocking similarities between Twilight and True Blood, in characters, plot AND audience fervor! (By the way, True Blood would be my top most hated TV show. It's truly just vampire porn.) Walk through the "teen" section of a bookstore sometime and count how many books are about vampires these days. I stopped when I didn't know what came after 999 kajillion... Granted, the same was true of wizards 10 years ago... Find your own cash cow, people!
People are so sick of hearing about Twilight and that in itself is ruining the films and these kids' careers. Remember Leonardo DiCaprio after Titanic? How many years (and how many amazing performances) did it take for him to be taken seriously again?? I am shocked and pleased that Daniel Radcliffe appears to be holding his own in a post-Harry Potter world and desperately hope he doesn't become trapped by this phenomenon. It's hard to get an image out of your head when it is pounded in by thousands of insane fans!
So, there's my soapbox - feel free to step upon it yourself and let me know what you think.
And what's your most-hated film?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)