I'm pretty fucking bummed about the Oscars. I'm sure a number of you are as well.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you that race should be a deciding factor in Oscar nominations. If I didn't feel any minority performances of the past year deserved attention, I wouldn't be so angry. Dejected perhaps, but not angry.
HOWEVER, the fact remains that 2015 saw some excellent performances from actors of varying ethnic and racial backgrounds, and not a single one of those performances is being recognized this year. That's sad. That's tragic.
But it isn't unusual.
In just a few hours we celebrate the 88th Academy Awards. We've been doing this for 88 years now.
Out of 88 Best Leading Actor winners, four have been black men. Sidney Poitier, Denzel Washington, Jamie Foxx, and Forest Whitaker.
In 88 years, just one black actress has won the Academy Award for Best Actress in a Leading role. Halle Berry for her role in Monster's Ball. This was in 2001, and in the 15 years since Halle Berry's win, no black woman has won the award.
Four black men have won the award for Best Supporting Actor, one of those actors of course being Denzel himself.
The Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor is the only Oscar Morgan Freeman has ever received. He won in 2004, at age 67.
Six actresses total have won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. The first was Hattie McDaniel in 1939 for the role of Mammy in Gone With the Wind, a role which only helped to perpetuate the social acceptability of portraying racial stereotypes in film.
Hattie was the first black person to win or be nominated for an Oscar. You won't learn about her in school. I certainly didn't.
Do these numbers sound low to you yet? They should be sounding low.
Like stomach-upsettingly low.
Here's just one more statistic.
Three black directors have been nominated for the best director Academy Award. John Singleton in 1991, Lee Daniels in 2009, and Steve McQueen in 2013. All three of them lost. All three of them were men.
Check out the lists here if you'd like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_black_Academy_Award_winners_and_nominees#References
The Oscars is not the only award show with this problem, but it is the most prominent. There has to be a certain level of accountability on the part of the Academy for things such as a disgusting lack of representation for African Americans, considering that the Oscars is (perhaps unfortunately) the public's go-to source on what movies and movie-makers are good/bad.
I've only discussed the statistics for African American actors here, but dig a little deeper and you'll find that the problem is often even more severe for other races. Latino actors, Native American actors, Asian American actors, think about the last time you saw nominations in acting categories for any of those people. Granted now we're getting into a bigger issue. The issue of racial preference in Hollywood. A lot of these actors and actresses you won't see nominated simply because they don't get roles, or rather, they don't get the roles they deserve.
That's a longer piece for a different day.
A lot of you are going to watch the Oscars tonight, and I'm not telling you not to. I'll be watching too. This year, however, I only ask that you do more than just watch. I ask that you analyze. I ask that you talk with the people around you about what you see, and what you don't see. I ask that you identify your concerns, and that you voice them. Be loud about it. Be obvious with your sadness or your rage, or your disappointment, should you feel those things. Give them no choice but to listen, whoever "them" may be to you, or to me.
Thanks for reading. Good tidings to all.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Big Mac with Fries
Before we begin, here's some updates on the future of this blog and how things might change going forward.
I love doing this, I sincerely do, so much so that I'd probably still do it even if nobody read these things but y'all do and I sincerely appreciate that. You guys are the real MVPs, and I am grateful everyday for your interest in what I write.
Moving forward, I want to spice things up a bit. I adore writing, but I love making movies even more, and I feel like with the film equipment I have at my disposal here at school, I should be making more of an effort to combine my desire to discuss film with my passion for producing video content. So I want to start vlogging. Now this doesn't mean my written blog will fall by the wayside. The wonderful thing about this blog I find is that no matter what day it is, and no matter where I am (generally) I can churn out a written piece. No lighting or post-production required. So this blog will stay up and running, I just might be posting a little less frequently than usual.
So yeah, vlogs are coming, be on the lookout for those. In addition, I have a lot of ideas for things like podcasts, short films, stories, etc., that ,may or may not come of this as well, so when those things become reality, I'll let you all know.
And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.
MACBETH!
I'm a fan of William Shakespeare. I think we have him to thank for a lot of what we know about modern storytelling. I enjoy studying his work, I enjoy putting on his plays, I enjoy watching his stuff be performed. In fact I prefer watching Shakespeare to reading it, as I'm sure many do.
There's a wit to every line, a subtlety that I'm sad to say I don't think I'll ever really master. The guy knew what he was doing.
He knew how to tell a story, and how to do it well.
Adaptations of his work are all over the place. From films to novels to plays to songs, people are constantly reshaping his stuff, at times trying to make sense of it in a modern context, using his themes and characters against the backdrop of their own stories, or maybe even just copying and pasting his plays into cool and weird "what if" scenarios. There are really no limits on what one can try with Shakespeare. Unfortunately, not every adaptation works. In fact, a lot of them fail.
Here's what I feel the real difficulty is. When it comes to adapting Shakespeare, you have every prior attempt at an adaptation working against you. The play itself has been done before, a bunch of times, over hundreds of years. Not only that, but most cool and original ideas/approaches to adapting the work have also already been tried. The challenge isn't doing it, the challenge is doing it different. As I stated briefly in my Speed Racer review, when an adaptation doesn't feel different from the source material or other previous adaptations, it feels unnecessary. It feels as though you had nothing to add. That's a problem.
Late last year, a Macbeth film adaption hit select theaters, and as is customary of most amazing independent movies, was never talked about again. I had the opportunity to watch it last night so I did. Here's how I feel about it.
Justin Kurzel's 2015 Macbeth is the most faithful film adaptation of the Scottish play I've seen in my lifetime. Disclaimer: I haven't seen the Orson Welles version, but I've looked into it. It looks...fine, but I highly doubt it'll exemplify the points I am about to make. I have also seen the Roman Polanski version (not a fan) and the Patrick Stewart production (loved it, but Kurzel's is better in my opinion).
Please allow me to explain myself.
This movie changes some shit around, I'm not disputing that. The important distinction to keep in mind here is that a faithful adaptation of something need not be a carbon copy of it. The movie Sin City is faithful to it's source material, and it just so happens to be EXACTLY the same as the comics on which it is based. To me, however, Sin City's visual similarities to the comics aren't what make it faithful. I feel, personally, that faithful and identical are two different things.
I read part of a New York Times review of Macbeth that made a great point about why so many Macbeth productions fail and I really dug it so I'm gonna use it here to defend my points. Manhola Dargis argues in her review that the role of Macbeth is such a difficult one to portray realistically, because the character goes from noble hero to cowardly tyrant in such a short amount of time. She compliments Fassbender's portrayal, claiming that his transformation in the film works so well because at the beginning of the film Macbeth is already broken. He is already, in more ways than one, insane. All he needs is a little push for that madness to rear its ugly face.
This brings me to the first key difference between the play and the film, and the one I think might be what people either didn't like or misunderstood.
(By the way this isn't a spoiler in my eyes, but if you really want to know NOTHING about this movie going in, just skip the next paragraph. I'm about to discuss something that occurs in the literal first moments of the movie, and overall the movie still largely follows the Macbeth story you probably know very well by now, so I promise this isn't a big deal. Still though, just a warning).
In Kurzel's adaptation, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth have lost a child, and the film opens with the funeral. This is a major departure from the play, in which the witches meet and discuss Macbeth's fate on the battlefield as opposed to at the funeral of his kid. Now here's why I think that this choice is ok. For starters, making this change in no way affects the play as it is written. If you don't like that Macbeth and Lady Macbeth have a child in this one interpretation of the story, keep in mind that Shakespeare's original work is still intact, and still contains no mention of the child, so nothing has actually been changed, nor does the creative team behind Kurzel's version owe you a 100% accurate telling of the Macbeth tale. The second reason why I'm ok with this change is I feel it helps nudge the two lead characters in a direction more appropriate to the story. Mac and Lady Mac don't necessarily feel sinister, or overly-ambitious at any point in the movie, they just feel hollow. Not in a bad way, either. They feel like empty people, depressed and dissatisfied in every sense of the word, searching for some reason to go on. When Macbeth hears from the witches that he will be king, he takes it as the first sign of good fortune in a long series of tragedies, and he and his wife cling to the hope that it inspires. This sets the story's signature self-fulfilling prophecy into motion in spectacular fashion.
This is one of the best portrayals of Lady Macbeth I've seen. Not only is Marion Cotillard in top form, but the character and her strife are depicted with such grace and care.
Again I'm about to discuss something spoiler-y here, but if you know how the story of Macbeth goes, this isn't actually a spoiler.
Lady Macbeth's death I'm sure is another departure from the play that people may have taken issue with. Where in the play it is very clearly stated that Lady Macbeth has committed suicide, and Macbeth is informed of this just before his iconic soliloquy, in the film the cause of Lady Macbeth's death is left very ambiguous. She walks about outside for a while, hallucinating an entire exchange with her dead child during which she admits her guilt and pleads with her child to go to sleep. After that, Macbeth is informed that she has died, and he holds her dead body, walking around his chambers with it, lamenting her passing.
I like this change.
The handling of that particular beat ties into the larger sense of mysticism surrounding the movie. For lack of a better term, the whole story just feels haunted. It feels spiritual, but not in a satisfying, meditative way. Lady Macbeth's death, the fiery red atmosphere of the climactic battle with Macduff, the battle scene earlier in the movie during which Macbeth first meets the witches, the murder of King Duncan, it all feels so fucking eerie, at times you can't even tell what's real and what isn't. It feels cursed, much like the play does.
The madness of it all is as beautiful to behold as it is scary to consider. You're not sure what exactly killed Lady Macbeth, and for that reason, you're kind of afraid of the whole situation.
One thing about this movie that struck me as being significant thematically was the depiction of children. There are three very interesting child characters seen throughout the film. Fleance, who is Banquo's son, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's unnamed child, who haunts them from beyond the grave (not literally), and the child witch. Well I haven't actually worked out if she's a witch, but I'd like to believe she is.
Yes the three witches appear in the movie, but with them is a fourth character. A child. It is suggested visually that she is the daughter of one of the witches but I think it's a little more complicated than that.
The way I see it, Fleance represents the survival of Banquo. The continuation of his bloodline, and perhaps the beginning of a dynasty as it is suggested that Fleance will become king one day. At the same time, the child of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth represents their end. That child is all they have, and when the child dies, their bloodline is similarly ended. The fascinating thing about that is the funeral of their child is how the film starts, signifying that they were doomed from the literal beginning of the story (the end of their child's life is the end of their bloodline and yet also the start of the story). Is this what drives them to kill for the throne? Could be.
What is the significance of the child witch? I can't really say. I do know, however, that it is implied heavily that this child has some kind of power or authority over the three adult witches. When Banquo and Fleance are attacked, and Fleance flees, the child witch actually saves him, seemingly directly affecting the fulfillment of the prophecy by interfering and ensuring Fleance lives. Maybe she's what you would call "Hecate", the mythological goddess of the witches. I can't be sure.
MOVING ON
How does this movie handle guilt? The crushing regret that for centuries has remained a central motif of the tragedy of Macbeth. If we don't feel the guilt of these leads, if we don't believe that they are slowly descending into madness and grief, then the whole thing falls apart.
This is where that faithfulness thing comes back into play.
This is one of the few depictions of these characters that I feel captures their guilt the way Shakespeare intended. Now let me clarify, I don't know what was going on in Shakespeare's head when he was writing this play. I can't tell you exactly what he hoped this story would do for people, or what he intended for people to feel. I can only tell you what I think I have learned over the course of multiple readings of the play itself. I can only tell you how I felt while reading it.
Murder happens all the time in literature and movies. ALL THE TIME. People stab other people, shoot other people, drown other people, burn other people. This is just a fact of reading or watching any form of media. So to read a story where the act of stabbing another human being affected a character so much was jarring.
It got me thinking.
Specifically it got me thinking about the dagger and it's significance.
Macbeth is a general, he knows war well. He is no stranger to slitting throats or stabbing men. So why, when asked to kill Duncan with the dagger in his sleep, does Macbeth fret? The weapon here is significant. Poison would be one thing, or an arrow and bow, but no. Macbeth is asked to take a dagger to this sleeping person, and told he by his wife that his reluctance to do so makes him weak. It makes him less than a man. There is something intimate and disturbing about the dagger as a mode of killing, and the depiction of that instrument in the film is unsettling to say the least. It feels like a character. I appreciated that immensely. To me it demonstrated not just an understanding of the source material on the part of the writers and directors, but also a willingness to interpret it.
JUST TO BRIEFLY TOUCH ON SOME TECHNICAL AND VISUAL STUFF
The movie puts forward what I would classify as a parable. A legend. Not entirely realistic, not entirely historically accurate but artful and insightful in a beautiful way. The visual storytelling is key here.
The picture quality is insane. Every detail of every frame is clear and crisp. The setting provides for ample sweeping establishing shots and a haunting (albeit lovely) atmosphere. Hats off to Adam Arkapaw for his stunning cinematography (he also did some work on True Detective, which I love).
The costume design is nothing short of brilliant.
There are films out there that are so subtle with the movement of the camera, and so careful with the framing of scenes, that an audience member can actually forget they're watching a movie. The Hateful Eight, Gone Girl, Taxi Driver, Jaws, these are just a few of my personal favorite examples. Then there are movies that embrace the medium through which they are being broadcast. Movies like Drive and Only God Forgives, or Grand Budapest Hotel, these are films that look and FEEL like movies. The camera moves in ways only a camera could, and captures visuals that, while stunning, only a camera could capture.
Macbeth embraces its medium. It is clear with every frame that you are watching a film, and for this particular story, I'm very ok with that.
Remember, adaptation necessitates change.
To film a stage play is one thing. But to take that play and transform it into something else (hence the use of the word adapt) is where the real craft comes in. This was Kurzel's opportunity to show us all HIS Macbeth, and I'm thrilled that he took every opportunity he could have to be daring and different. And, somewhat ironically, in interpreting the play's themes and events as opposed to just transferring them to the screen, Kurzel managed to be more faithful to the original work than any filmmaker before him.
If you walked into Macbeth ready to watch the play again, you walked into it wrong. This is the MOVIE, and your heart and mind should be open to the changes that go along with that kind of translation.
Maybe you like your Macbeth exactly the way it is, and seeing it fucked with makes you uneasy. Just try and understand that this movie, like the play, is a lot less literal than it appears to be at first glance. It didn't sink in for me until the film's final frame, the fact that nobody would sit me down and tell me exactly how to feel about it all. I would have to make a decision about what was being said, and that decision would be informed by my own experiences with power and regret.
Thanks for reading, and see this movie if you haven't already.
I love doing this, I sincerely do, so much so that I'd probably still do it even if nobody read these things but y'all do and I sincerely appreciate that. You guys are the real MVPs, and I am grateful everyday for your interest in what I write.
Moving forward, I want to spice things up a bit. I adore writing, but I love making movies even more, and I feel like with the film equipment I have at my disposal here at school, I should be making more of an effort to combine my desire to discuss film with my passion for producing video content. So I want to start vlogging. Now this doesn't mean my written blog will fall by the wayside. The wonderful thing about this blog I find is that no matter what day it is, and no matter where I am (generally) I can churn out a written piece. No lighting or post-production required. So this blog will stay up and running, I just might be posting a little less frequently than usual.
So yeah, vlogs are coming, be on the lookout for those. In addition, I have a lot of ideas for things like podcasts, short films, stories, etc., that ,may or may not come of this as well, so when those things become reality, I'll let you all know.
And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.
MACBETH!
I'm a fan of William Shakespeare. I think we have him to thank for a lot of what we know about modern storytelling. I enjoy studying his work, I enjoy putting on his plays, I enjoy watching his stuff be performed. In fact I prefer watching Shakespeare to reading it, as I'm sure many do.
There's a wit to every line, a subtlety that I'm sad to say I don't think I'll ever really master. The guy knew what he was doing.
He knew how to tell a story, and how to do it well.
Adaptations of his work are all over the place. From films to novels to plays to songs, people are constantly reshaping his stuff, at times trying to make sense of it in a modern context, using his themes and characters against the backdrop of their own stories, or maybe even just copying and pasting his plays into cool and weird "what if" scenarios. There are really no limits on what one can try with Shakespeare. Unfortunately, not every adaptation works. In fact, a lot of them fail.
Here's what I feel the real difficulty is. When it comes to adapting Shakespeare, you have every prior attempt at an adaptation working against you. The play itself has been done before, a bunch of times, over hundreds of years. Not only that, but most cool and original ideas/approaches to adapting the work have also already been tried. The challenge isn't doing it, the challenge is doing it different. As I stated briefly in my Speed Racer review, when an adaptation doesn't feel different from the source material or other previous adaptations, it feels unnecessary. It feels as though you had nothing to add. That's a problem.
Late last year, a Macbeth film adaption hit select theaters, and as is customary of most amazing independent movies, was never talked about again. I had the opportunity to watch it last night so I did. Here's how I feel about it.
Justin Kurzel's 2015 Macbeth is the most faithful film adaptation of the Scottish play I've seen in my lifetime. Disclaimer: I haven't seen the Orson Welles version, but I've looked into it. It looks...fine, but I highly doubt it'll exemplify the points I am about to make. I have also seen the Roman Polanski version (not a fan) and the Patrick Stewart production (loved it, but Kurzel's is better in my opinion).
Please allow me to explain myself.
This movie changes some shit around, I'm not disputing that. The important distinction to keep in mind here is that a faithful adaptation of something need not be a carbon copy of it. The movie Sin City is faithful to it's source material, and it just so happens to be EXACTLY the same as the comics on which it is based. To me, however, Sin City's visual similarities to the comics aren't what make it faithful. I feel, personally, that faithful and identical are two different things.
I read part of a New York Times review of Macbeth that made a great point about why so many Macbeth productions fail and I really dug it so I'm gonna use it here to defend my points. Manhola Dargis argues in her review that the role of Macbeth is such a difficult one to portray realistically, because the character goes from noble hero to cowardly tyrant in such a short amount of time. She compliments Fassbender's portrayal, claiming that his transformation in the film works so well because at the beginning of the film Macbeth is already broken. He is already, in more ways than one, insane. All he needs is a little push for that madness to rear its ugly face.
This brings me to the first key difference between the play and the film, and the one I think might be what people either didn't like or misunderstood.
(By the way this isn't a spoiler in my eyes, but if you really want to know NOTHING about this movie going in, just skip the next paragraph. I'm about to discuss something that occurs in the literal first moments of the movie, and overall the movie still largely follows the Macbeth story you probably know very well by now, so I promise this isn't a big deal. Still though, just a warning).
In Kurzel's adaptation, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth have lost a child, and the film opens with the funeral. This is a major departure from the play, in which the witches meet and discuss Macbeth's fate on the battlefield as opposed to at the funeral of his kid. Now here's why I think that this choice is ok. For starters, making this change in no way affects the play as it is written. If you don't like that Macbeth and Lady Macbeth have a child in this one interpretation of the story, keep in mind that Shakespeare's original work is still intact, and still contains no mention of the child, so nothing has actually been changed, nor does the creative team behind Kurzel's version owe you a 100% accurate telling of the Macbeth tale. The second reason why I'm ok with this change is I feel it helps nudge the two lead characters in a direction more appropriate to the story. Mac and Lady Mac don't necessarily feel sinister, or overly-ambitious at any point in the movie, they just feel hollow. Not in a bad way, either. They feel like empty people, depressed and dissatisfied in every sense of the word, searching for some reason to go on. When Macbeth hears from the witches that he will be king, he takes it as the first sign of good fortune in a long series of tragedies, and he and his wife cling to the hope that it inspires. This sets the story's signature self-fulfilling prophecy into motion in spectacular fashion.
This is one of the best portrayals of Lady Macbeth I've seen. Not only is Marion Cotillard in top form, but the character and her strife are depicted with such grace and care.
Again I'm about to discuss something spoiler-y here, but if you know how the story of Macbeth goes, this isn't actually a spoiler.
Lady Macbeth's death I'm sure is another departure from the play that people may have taken issue with. Where in the play it is very clearly stated that Lady Macbeth has committed suicide, and Macbeth is informed of this just before his iconic soliloquy, in the film the cause of Lady Macbeth's death is left very ambiguous. She walks about outside for a while, hallucinating an entire exchange with her dead child during which she admits her guilt and pleads with her child to go to sleep. After that, Macbeth is informed that she has died, and he holds her dead body, walking around his chambers with it, lamenting her passing.
I like this change.
The handling of that particular beat ties into the larger sense of mysticism surrounding the movie. For lack of a better term, the whole story just feels haunted. It feels spiritual, but not in a satisfying, meditative way. Lady Macbeth's death, the fiery red atmosphere of the climactic battle with Macduff, the battle scene earlier in the movie during which Macbeth first meets the witches, the murder of King Duncan, it all feels so fucking eerie, at times you can't even tell what's real and what isn't. It feels cursed, much like the play does.
The madness of it all is as beautiful to behold as it is scary to consider. You're not sure what exactly killed Lady Macbeth, and for that reason, you're kind of afraid of the whole situation.
One thing about this movie that struck me as being significant thematically was the depiction of children. There are three very interesting child characters seen throughout the film. Fleance, who is Banquo's son, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's unnamed child, who haunts them from beyond the grave (not literally), and the child witch. Well I haven't actually worked out if she's a witch, but I'd like to believe she is.
Yes the three witches appear in the movie, but with them is a fourth character. A child. It is suggested visually that she is the daughter of one of the witches but I think it's a little more complicated than that.
The way I see it, Fleance represents the survival of Banquo. The continuation of his bloodline, and perhaps the beginning of a dynasty as it is suggested that Fleance will become king one day. At the same time, the child of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth represents their end. That child is all they have, and when the child dies, their bloodline is similarly ended. The fascinating thing about that is the funeral of their child is how the film starts, signifying that they were doomed from the literal beginning of the story (the end of their child's life is the end of their bloodline and yet also the start of the story). Is this what drives them to kill for the throne? Could be.
What is the significance of the child witch? I can't really say. I do know, however, that it is implied heavily that this child has some kind of power or authority over the three adult witches. When Banquo and Fleance are attacked, and Fleance flees, the child witch actually saves him, seemingly directly affecting the fulfillment of the prophecy by interfering and ensuring Fleance lives. Maybe she's what you would call "Hecate", the mythological goddess of the witches. I can't be sure.
MOVING ON
How does this movie handle guilt? The crushing regret that for centuries has remained a central motif of the tragedy of Macbeth. If we don't feel the guilt of these leads, if we don't believe that they are slowly descending into madness and grief, then the whole thing falls apart.
This is where that faithfulness thing comes back into play.
This is one of the few depictions of these characters that I feel captures their guilt the way Shakespeare intended. Now let me clarify, I don't know what was going on in Shakespeare's head when he was writing this play. I can't tell you exactly what he hoped this story would do for people, or what he intended for people to feel. I can only tell you what I think I have learned over the course of multiple readings of the play itself. I can only tell you how I felt while reading it.
Murder happens all the time in literature and movies. ALL THE TIME. People stab other people, shoot other people, drown other people, burn other people. This is just a fact of reading or watching any form of media. So to read a story where the act of stabbing another human being affected a character so much was jarring.
It got me thinking.
Specifically it got me thinking about the dagger and it's significance.
Macbeth is a general, he knows war well. He is no stranger to slitting throats or stabbing men. So why, when asked to kill Duncan with the dagger in his sleep, does Macbeth fret? The weapon here is significant. Poison would be one thing, or an arrow and bow, but no. Macbeth is asked to take a dagger to this sleeping person, and told he by his wife that his reluctance to do so makes him weak. It makes him less than a man. There is something intimate and disturbing about the dagger as a mode of killing, and the depiction of that instrument in the film is unsettling to say the least. It feels like a character. I appreciated that immensely. To me it demonstrated not just an understanding of the source material on the part of the writers and directors, but also a willingness to interpret it.
JUST TO BRIEFLY TOUCH ON SOME TECHNICAL AND VISUAL STUFF
The movie puts forward what I would classify as a parable. A legend. Not entirely realistic, not entirely historically accurate but artful and insightful in a beautiful way. The visual storytelling is key here.
The picture quality is insane. Every detail of every frame is clear and crisp. The setting provides for ample sweeping establishing shots and a haunting (albeit lovely) atmosphere. Hats off to Adam Arkapaw for his stunning cinematography (he also did some work on True Detective, which I love).
The costume design is nothing short of brilliant.
There are films out there that are so subtle with the movement of the camera, and so careful with the framing of scenes, that an audience member can actually forget they're watching a movie. The Hateful Eight, Gone Girl, Taxi Driver, Jaws, these are just a few of my personal favorite examples. Then there are movies that embrace the medium through which they are being broadcast. Movies like Drive and Only God Forgives, or Grand Budapest Hotel, these are films that look and FEEL like movies. The camera moves in ways only a camera could, and captures visuals that, while stunning, only a camera could capture.
Macbeth embraces its medium. It is clear with every frame that you are watching a film, and for this particular story, I'm very ok with that.
Remember, adaptation necessitates change.
To film a stage play is one thing. But to take that play and transform it into something else (hence the use of the word adapt) is where the real craft comes in. This was Kurzel's opportunity to show us all HIS Macbeth, and I'm thrilled that he took every opportunity he could have to be daring and different. And, somewhat ironically, in interpreting the play's themes and events as opposed to just transferring them to the screen, Kurzel managed to be more faithful to the original work than any filmmaker before him.
If you walked into Macbeth ready to watch the play again, you walked into it wrong. This is the MOVIE, and your heart and mind should be open to the changes that go along with that kind of translation.
Maybe you like your Macbeth exactly the way it is, and seeing it fucked with makes you uneasy. Just try and understand that this movie, like the play, is a lot less literal than it appears to be at first glance. It didn't sink in for me until the film's final frame, the fact that nobody would sit me down and tell me exactly how to feel about it all. I would have to make a decision about what was being said, and that decision would be informed by my own experiences with power and regret.
Thanks for reading, and see this movie if you haven't already.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Apollo Speed
The Wachowski-directed live action Speed Racer film from 2008.
Ok I just lost some of you. That's ok.
Guys this movie is so so good.
Don't worry I'm not the kinda person to make a claim that bold without presenting sufficient evidence. I will present my case in the following post, and with any luck, you will at the very least consider giving this movie another chance. Please...just...consider it?
Here I go making sections again...
PROBLEM INHERENT IN ANIME TO LIVE ACTION ADAPTATIONS
Y'all saw Dragonball: Evolution, right? Ok here's what's so fucking sad about that mess of a motion picture. It's lazy. It abandons the source material in any instance where translating the characters and story to film would be too difficult to do faithfully. The ironic thing is in the attempt by the producers to stay safe with that film, they ended up dooming the project to be as unfaithful as they feared it would be.
Creating anime is an art form, and like most, it requires an insane amount of ingenuity. Adapting an animation, the core feature of which is that the things that occur could never happen in the real 3D world, is a similar feat. Sure the two things are different, I'm not saying they're the same. However they are similar in the sense that there is a level of pure creativity necessary in achieving a faithful adaptation of an anime that actually feels necessary. That's a difficult balance to strike. If the movie is too similar to the anime, it won't feel as though the movie needed to happen. However if the movie adaptation feels so different from the original that it's unrecognizable (cough cough Dragonball: Devolution), then people will fucking hate it. Using real life actors and sets has to add a dimension to the project that 2D animation never could, and at that point, it will feel needed.
Speed Racer checks off every box that Dragonball: Evolution left unchecked. Is it entirely faithful? In a lot of ways, it almost feels more animated and colorful than the anime on which it's based. Somehow the physics of the racing sequences are exaggerated to the point where they are actually less realistic than the source material. That being said, they're fun, and in taking a different approach to those sequences, and embracing the look and feel of the anime in a 3D world, the Wachowskis managed to create something unique enough to make the film feel almost vital in a way.
That brings me to my next point of discussion.
THE CHARACTERS
Ok the look of the Speed Racer world is different in the film compared to the anime, we've established that. So there must be something tethering this adaptation to the source material, right? I keep asking these rhetorical questions and I hate myself for it, sorry.
The characters are straight out of the show, within a reasonable margin of difference. Here's something you have to understand about the performances in this movie.
They overact. They really REALLY do.
But, have you seen an anime lately?
The grunting, the yelling, the crazy expressions, the cartoonish bodily movements. It all flies right off the page, it's fucking amazing to behold. These actors take the ridiculousness of Speed Racer's voice-acting and let that energy bleed into the physicality and facial expression of their performances.
There are a couple of standouts here that I need to address, and I'll do just that in the order I loved them from least to most.
Christina Ricci as Trixie. A goddamn revelation. She knows just how animated to be without stepping over the line and I appreciate that.
Roger Allam as the villain you hate to love, E.P. Arnold Royalton. There is a monologue, and if you watch this movie you will know just which one it is. He...fucking...kills it. He knows just the kind of archetypal, corrupt, heartless, CEO character he's playing, and he owns it.
John Goodman as Pops Racer. First off, perfect casting, whoever made that decision. Secondly, HE WAS SO GODDAMN GOOD. He was angry, stern, and harsh without being unlikable. Where his anime counterpart tended to be explosive for the sake of comical caricature, Goodman's Pops has layers, and you understand where he's coming from. It's all about his love for his sons.
And now for my personal favorite performance and character.
Matthew Fox as Racer X. He nails it, plain and simple. Just fuCKING LISTEN TO HIM TALK, HE JUST GETS IT, HE JUST UNDERSTANDS WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T AND HE'S SO MYSTERIOUS AND COOL.
Every core character arcs in some way. Pops, Racer X, and Speed all go through a noted and satisfying progression. The choices they make make sense for their characters, and there is one scene between Pops and Speed near the film's end (mirroring a scene earlier in the movie involving Speed's older brother Rex) that pulls some heart strings. And it is during this scene that you see very plainly how much Pops and Speed have both learned, and how the film's events have had profound effects on the both of them.
Some people find Spritle annoying. He's the younger brother character, he has a monkey sidekick, he likes to hide out in the trunk of Speed's car, the Mach 5, and cause trouble. I can understand why he's irritating to certain people, and I won't try to convince anyone that he isn't. I will say, however, that having watched anime for most of my time on this earth, I've seen a thousand Spritles, and I think the translation of that type of character to film was as successful here in Speed Racer as it could've been. There are moments of genuine emotion involving Spritle in this film, and I think they all serve to make his character a little less annoying, and a lot more interesting.
THEMES
Legacy is the big one here. There is a pressure on Speed to be what his brother was, explored very well in the film's open during which Speed races to beat a track record that his late brother still holds.
So many movies attempt to create the feeling of familial love in movies. I can't tell you how many times I've seen shit films try and shove the "we're a family, and we stick together no matter how hard things get because we're a family motherfucker give me your money continue pumping your hard-earned cash into the system you sheep your kids will be entertained by all the colors bring them keep paying us please we're the devil," down my throat.
If at any point a character in your movie HAS to say out loud how important family is, your movie is a fucking failure. It should be apparent in the interactions between the characters, in the ways in which they SHOW their love.
I can't believe that of all movies to do this right, Speed Racer is one of them.
THE ACTION
Yeah the action is fantastic. The racing is cool and colorful, and directed surprisingly well. Some of the "stunts" involving the cars will leave you with your mouth open, it's shockingly good to be honest. Knowing the Wachowskis, a few fight scenes are to be expected, and they are fantastic. It just screams anime, and I have to tip my hat to the directors for taking that much care in that regard.
NEGATIVES
There is a lot of CGI implemented here, to a Sharkboy and Lavagirl degree, and it is very apparent. Honestly, as distracting as it can be at first, once you settle into the world the movie builds, it all will feel almost natural, something Sharkboy and Lavagirl did not achieve. In my opinion, this movie would've been a tad tonally inconsistent had all of the locations been real sets, considering how animated every other aspect of the film is. So this isn't even really a negative. Damn. Good on you, Speed Racer.
It isn't for everyone. It'll alienate some folks, that's for sure. But I can't be sure if that's even a problem with the movie itself. The people who won't like this movie aren't opening up their hearts to the idea of liking it, and that isn't necessarily their fault. We are accustomed to certain things in the American system of cinema, so to see something so subversive can be a shell shock, and not in a good way.
HERE'S WHAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND GOING INTO THIS MOVIE
This film is so different from anything you've ever seen. I promise you that. Say what you want, but as long as this movie exists, I can't quite consider the Wachowskis one-hit wonders. Sure, Speed Racer was not a box office success, and yes it was reviewed negatively INITIALLY. But it was a success in my eyes because it achieved all that it set out to do creatively. And knowing about the production problems that plagued this film (it was first optioned in 1992, it has been in development hell for so long) I have to applaud all involved for seeing it through.
FINAL WORDS
I mean...watch it...I feel like that's been the general vibe of the post.
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
The Lazenby Effect
This piece isn't about George Lazenby, I just...I needed a pun.
This piece IS about James Bond however. Worry not, my Bourne reviews are coming, but there's something like 3,000 years until that fifth Bourne movie comes out so we need not rush. In the meantime I figured I'd take some time to reflect on what it is I love so much about the genre we call spy, and in particular, my personal favorite of that genre's franchises.
James Bond. Yes, the OG for many people.
Not a lot of people realize this, but Dr. No for all intents and purposes is the Richard Donner's Superman of spy films. That is to say, just like the 1978 Superman is to thank for modern superhero movies, Dr. No (the first Bond film in the Eon produced franchise) is largely to thank for the modern spy film formula.
It's a funny, reciprocal process.
Without Bond movies, there are no Bourne movies. Yet when it came time to reboot Bond with Daniel Craig in the lead role, the Bourne films served as a huge source of inspiration to the producers, who wanted to put a less campy, grittier 007 on screen. It's just really cool to think about how that comes full circle.
When I was a kid, Bond movies kept me going. They excited me, they inspired me, they made me want to wear a suit and go beat up weird, eccentric villains. It was something I felt cool for knowing about. I still remember reenacting the Goldfinger interrogation scene with my mom at least thirty times a week.
"Do you expect me to talk?"
"No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die."
FUCK I LOVE THAT SHIT
Like any healthy "stan" of anything, I see the flaws with both Bond as a character, and James Bond as a franchise. I've had the opportunity to read a number of the books (still working on finishing all of Fleming's novels) and of course a number of things have become painfully clear to me about the man, the myth, the misogynist. Bond is a prick, in a lot of ways. A prick born of a different time in history, but a prick nonetheless. He's a chauvinist, he's homophobic, he's just not the greatest of people, as cool as he may seem. I applaud Eon for expelling a lot of these less desirable qualities from the character over the years, and I truly respect the decisions made in characterizing my favorite of the movie Bonds, Daniel Craig's.
Craig's James is a callous, cold man. He drinks like a fish, he kills without remorse, and he treats women like objects. However, where these qualities were glamorized in Bond's previous appearances, in the Craig Bond outings, these aspects of his personality are actually his downfall. His sexism is established as being a broken, fucked up defense mechanism after his love affair with Vesper Lynd falls to pieces (watch Casino Royale please). His blood-lust gets him into serious trouble in Quantum of Solace, at one point forcing M to try bringing him in. His drinking contributes to his substantial physical deterioration in Skyfall, and seems to signify Bond's fast-approaching end. Fun fact, in Skyfall, Craig's Bond is OFFICIALLY diagnosed as having a substance abuse problem. So that's cool.
Everything about Craig's trajectory with the character has been beautifully executed. No longer would Bond films serve as vehicles for showcasing cartoon-y set pieces and hot, young actresses that the public wants to see half-naked. After roughly 40 years of camp and circumstance, we finally got the Bond we never knew we wanted, but the one we deserved.
Then last year, Spectre happened.
Let me just say that Spectre isn't even close to being the worst Bond movie out there. It's not even in the bottom five, in my humble opinion. The thing is, it has problems. Big problems.
My point with this piece is to explain to you that to love something does not mean to blind yourself to anything that might make you love it less. Loving something means understanding why it isn't perfect, and reflecting on why you're ok with that.
Spectre is like a full stop in the middle of a telegram. It feels abrupt, it feels rushed, it feels like whoever put it there wasn't thinking. I'm talking about it because as deeply as I wish I could pretend it's great, it isn't. It's a sad blow to the character after Skyfall seemingly assured us that Sam Mendes and the folks at Eon would never let something like Quantum of Solace happen to James Bond again.
Spectre isn't a bad film. It's a lazy film.
The movie kicks off with one of the franchise's best opening sequences. A sweeping long take, wonderful use of the real world location, and a helicopter sequence that looked every bit as practical as it could have. It was splendor, and I sincerely believed I was in for a treat.
This carries us into the underwhelming title sequence, featuring Sam Smith's attempt at a Bond song.
(THIS [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFSAWiTJsjc] IS A REAL BOND SONG. SHIT IS CLASSIC).
AND THEN we get some scenes of exposition and banter. Now, here's my issue with where Spectre goes from here. The story divides into two primary conflicts, and attempts to connect both conflicts in the climax.
First we have Bond investigating this bizarro secret society, which feels just about as powerful as Quantum, but is somehow more scary (it isn't).
And secondly we have MI6 and Ralph Fiennes' M character fighting new policies under which MI6's field agents will be supplanted by drones and satellite intelligence.
One of these plots is the one you'll actually give a shit about...I'll give you a hint, it's the one with the main character in it.
I have no issue with the plot diverging the way it does, in fact this isn't something Bond movies often (or ever) do, and I believe it could be refreshing to spend more time developing characters like M, Q, and Moneypenny, who are traditionally only seen when Bond needs some piece of information and/or gadget to advance the story. I would LOVE to see how the dynamic between M and Bond could change now that Judi Dench's time in the role is over. That departure opens up the door for some fascinating tension; Bond is now serving a man he actively resented in Skyfall. Not only that, but Bond (In Spectre) is actually operating without the new M's knowledge, working to complete a mission Judi Dench's M has handed down to him posthumously. THAT IS BLATANT INSUBORDINATION IN THE FACE OF THE NEW M, THAT SHOULD CREATE CONFLICT, RIGHT???
Yeah well it doesn't.
The two storylines only converge when it is most convenient for the writers, ergo, when the writers need the end fight to happen and want everyone to be involved in it. By the way, the finale of this film sucks nut-nuggets, but naturally I'll get to that last.
The secondary plot concerning drones replacing field agents is actually a direct continuation of a theme introduced in Skyfall. Bond spends Skyfall fighting to get back into the field as he has been deemed too old and too damaged. In addition, at a point in the film, he actually discourages Eve Moneypenny from returning to field work, stating outright it "isn't for everyone.". During one of Skyfall's best scenes, M (Judi Dench) reads off a poem her late husband loved deeply. The poem, read by M parallel to a remarkable and bad ass chase scene involving Bond, describes the unshakable will within every person to outrun their mortality. The drive we all have to keep fighting even past our prime. Our defiance in the face of obsolescence.
SO TO HAVE ONE OF THE CONFLICTS IN SPECTRE BE THE REPLACEMENT OF FIELD AGENTS IN FAVOR OF MORE ADVANCED AND EFFECTIVE MEANS OF ESPIONAGE IS SUCH A GOOD FUCKING IDEA.
It's too bad it was executed terribly.
The biggest problem?
Bond isn't old anymore. Skyfall spends so much time establishing that years of fighting and running and jumping and drinking have ruined Bond physically and mentally, not to mention he's nearing 50 years of age. Yet in Spectre, all of that is scrapped. He's just as capable as he's ever been, as though he's just "learned" to not to be a physical wreck anymore after the completion of his character arc in Skyfall. So the drone thing doesn't make any sense, and at no point did I genuinely feel like Bond would be replaced by a computer. He was fast, he was strong, his aim was as good as ever, if not better than ever, and his mind was sharp as a tack in any given moment of peril. The need for him to even be replaced wasn't there, and by extension, the need for him to prove himself as an able-bodied agent was completely absent.
Nobody fucking arcs in this movie. That was really sad to see. Every returning character had something interesting going on in Skyfall, and all of it fell by the wayside when it came time for Spectre.
Before I address the finale, I'll talk about the love story, because fuck the love story.
The idea in Spectre is that Bond has finally met his match in a woman by the name of Madeleine Swan, a cunning psychologist and the daughter of one of Bond's past enemies, Mr. White.
After spending half the movie together, the two realize that they are perfect for each other, copulate, profess their love, and then (Spoiler alert...but it really doesn't matter) drive off together at the end.
Here's the issue:
The relationship between Vesper and Bond in Casino Royale was some excellent shit. Vesper, a very one-dimensional character in the novel, was reworked for the film into a complex and driven woman, and you believed that not only was the tension between her and Bond REAL, it was indicative of certain similarities the two shared, in spite of the many differences between them. They had a yin and yang chemistry that was fascinating to watch, and when that fell to pieces, you understood why it would mold Bond into the hard drinking asshole that he was destined to become. If ever there was a way to work a love story into an origin story, that was it.
Then Madeleine Swan shows up and we're expected to believe that she's the only person to challenge and intrigue Bond the way Vesper did since Casino Royale. Maybe I could buy that, if and only if the character was written in such a way that I could. She wasn't.
Swan wasn't a bad character. She was capable, she was snarky, and above all, she was haunted by her past, something Bond could relate to. Introducing her in Spectre I'm sure opens up the possibility of her being "the one" for Bond. However for her to say the words "I love you" to Bond after spending less than a movie with him (yeah she says that) just isn't fucking believable. And for Bond to drive off with her by the end just seems a little too perfect for either of them in that fake, storybook kind of way.
Here's what's interesting though.
The way the romance was handled, and the way the film ended, was all very reminiscent of old Bond. Up until Craig, here's how Bond movie romances worked: Bond ends up with the girl at the conclusion, and by some circumstance is no longer with her at the start of the next installment to ensure that a different young actress can be exploited.
Watch the Austin Powers series, this is something they spoof expertly.
In fact, a lot of things about Spectre scream old Bond.
The villain, and subsequent torture scene
The burly, silent henchman
The gadget-filled car
The spy watch
The action scene on the snowy mountain
The inclusion of SPECTRE, the organization
The inclusion of a male M, and the roles that Q and Moneypenny play in assisting Bond
The list goes on, and some of those things I was happy to see. They were cool blasts from the past for me.
In my opinion however, Skyfall was a much more successful mix of old and new than Spectre. Certain things are better left in the past, and the minds behind Skyfall seemed to be more aware of that.
The romance fell flat for me, and from where I'm sitting, this movie missed a huge opportunity to introduce Swan as no more than a kindred spirit and good FRIEND to Bond. Bond doesn't have to fuck every woman he works/travels with, and considering both the banter between Bond and Swan, and the similarities they share, this was a great chance to establish Swan as a close friend to Bond, and nothing more. It would've been a progressive move on the part of the producers, and also, it would've shown a lot of growth on Bond's part.
OK LAST THING I PROMISE, I COULD TALK FOR SO LONG ABOUT THIS BUT I WON'T
The finale is lazy as fuck. It feels tacked on in every way.
The villain, played VERY well by Christoph Waltz, has organized this weird, convoluted maze within the old MI6 HQ, which was blown up in Skyfall. Bond runs around the building like an idiot for a few minutes before locating Swan, who was being held hostage of course, and the two escape before Waltz detonates the charges he has set, destroying the building. They proceed to catch Waltz and arrest him after Bond makes an impossible shot and hits Waltz's helicopter, bringing it down.
Waltz (Oberhauser is the villain's name...or is it?) is set up in the marketing for Spectre as being the puppet-master behind all of Bond's misfortunes, desiring revenge in light of Bond's annoying tendency to avert global disasters and thwart Oberhauser's underlings. It is implied, nay, outwardly stated that Oberhauser was behind Vesper's death, behind M's death, and behind Quantum. That makes him, in theory, responsible for every catastrophe both professionally and personally in Bond's life. Oberhauser should be the biggest and baddest of the villains the Craig Bond has faced, and in his face off with Oberhauser, Bond should be working towards some kind of closure/catharsis relating to Vepser and M, and the misdeeds of Quantum. The thing is, that never happens. Not in any meaningful or satisfying way. Sure, Oberhauser survives implying he'll return and cause more trouble, but that doesn't change the fact that at no point during Spectre do we feel any terror or intimidation in relation to his character. He doesn't feel like the kind of man that would devote years and billions of dollars to ruining Bond's life. This was our shot at getting a proper nemesis for Craig's Bond, and that just wasn't done.
It all just felt so inconsequential. When it all came to a head, and both plots were resolved, there was no sense of peril, or difficulty. In the wake of it all, no one was permanently affected by any of Oberhauser's actions. Bond had a gun to the man who KILLED VESPER LYND. And he walked away, as though none of it mattered anymore. I kind of hate that.
The plot of Spectre relies on the continuation of conflicts from previous films. It necessitates that wounds that we believed to have healed be reopened, and I fully expected some crazy shit to go down. It didn't. It was all very run-of-the-mill. That makes me sad.
In the end, I'm open to Spectre's sequel being more impressive. Honestly I don't want this to be the movie Craig leaves on. I think we need a proper conclusion to this era of Bond, and Spectre is far from worthy of being that conclusion.
I love Daniel Craig, and he really brought it in this movie, like he always does.
The problem here was not the acting, and it wasn't the action. That train fight scene between Hinx (Dave Bautista) and Bond was fucking incredible. This movie got a lot right, and that sounds weird considering I've just bitched about it for a whole blog post, but it really wasn't the worst entry in the series. It was just disappointing, and it didn't have to be.
This was long-winded, but I had a lot to say. It was nice to get most of it down on a page.
Thanks for reading, and just for shits and giggles, here's a real sex joke that actually appears in the Bond film The World is Not Enough. Not lying, this line is actually spoken.
This piece IS about James Bond however. Worry not, my Bourne reviews are coming, but there's something like 3,000 years until that fifth Bourne movie comes out so we need not rush. In the meantime I figured I'd take some time to reflect on what it is I love so much about the genre we call spy, and in particular, my personal favorite of that genre's franchises.
James Bond. Yes, the OG for many people.
Not a lot of people realize this, but Dr. No for all intents and purposes is the Richard Donner's Superman of spy films. That is to say, just like the 1978 Superman is to thank for modern superhero movies, Dr. No (the first Bond film in the Eon produced franchise) is largely to thank for the modern spy film formula.
It's a funny, reciprocal process.
Without Bond movies, there are no Bourne movies. Yet when it came time to reboot Bond with Daniel Craig in the lead role, the Bourne films served as a huge source of inspiration to the producers, who wanted to put a less campy, grittier 007 on screen. It's just really cool to think about how that comes full circle.
When I was a kid, Bond movies kept me going. They excited me, they inspired me, they made me want to wear a suit and go beat up weird, eccentric villains. It was something I felt cool for knowing about. I still remember reenacting the Goldfinger interrogation scene with my mom at least thirty times a week.
"Do you expect me to talk?"
"No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die."
FUCK I LOVE THAT SHIT
Like any healthy "stan" of anything, I see the flaws with both Bond as a character, and James Bond as a franchise. I've had the opportunity to read a number of the books (still working on finishing all of Fleming's novels) and of course a number of things have become painfully clear to me about the man, the myth, the misogynist. Bond is a prick, in a lot of ways. A prick born of a different time in history, but a prick nonetheless. He's a chauvinist, he's homophobic, he's just not the greatest of people, as cool as he may seem. I applaud Eon for expelling a lot of these less desirable qualities from the character over the years, and I truly respect the decisions made in characterizing my favorite of the movie Bonds, Daniel Craig's.
Craig's James is a callous, cold man. He drinks like a fish, he kills without remorse, and he treats women like objects. However, where these qualities were glamorized in Bond's previous appearances, in the Craig Bond outings, these aspects of his personality are actually his downfall. His sexism is established as being a broken, fucked up defense mechanism after his love affair with Vesper Lynd falls to pieces (watch Casino Royale please). His blood-lust gets him into serious trouble in Quantum of Solace, at one point forcing M to try bringing him in. His drinking contributes to his substantial physical deterioration in Skyfall, and seems to signify Bond's fast-approaching end. Fun fact, in Skyfall, Craig's Bond is OFFICIALLY diagnosed as having a substance abuse problem. So that's cool.
Everything about Craig's trajectory with the character has been beautifully executed. No longer would Bond films serve as vehicles for showcasing cartoon-y set pieces and hot, young actresses that the public wants to see half-naked. After roughly 40 years of camp and circumstance, we finally got the Bond we never knew we wanted, but the one we deserved.
Then last year, Spectre happened.
Let me just say that Spectre isn't even close to being the worst Bond movie out there. It's not even in the bottom five, in my humble opinion. The thing is, it has problems. Big problems.
My point with this piece is to explain to you that to love something does not mean to blind yourself to anything that might make you love it less. Loving something means understanding why it isn't perfect, and reflecting on why you're ok with that.
Spectre is like a full stop in the middle of a telegram. It feels abrupt, it feels rushed, it feels like whoever put it there wasn't thinking. I'm talking about it because as deeply as I wish I could pretend it's great, it isn't. It's a sad blow to the character after Skyfall seemingly assured us that Sam Mendes and the folks at Eon would never let something like Quantum of Solace happen to James Bond again.
Spectre isn't a bad film. It's a lazy film.
The movie kicks off with one of the franchise's best opening sequences. A sweeping long take, wonderful use of the real world location, and a helicopter sequence that looked every bit as practical as it could have. It was splendor, and I sincerely believed I was in for a treat.
This carries us into the underwhelming title sequence, featuring Sam Smith's attempt at a Bond song.
(THIS [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFSAWiTJsjc] IS A REAL BOND SONG. SHIT IS CLASSIC).
AND THEN we get some scenes of exposition and banter. Now, here's my issue with where Spectre goes from here. The story divides into two primary conflicts, and attempts to connect both conflicts in the climax.
First we have Bond investigating this bizarro secret society, which feels just about as powerful as Quantum, but is somehow more scary (it isn't).
And secondly we have MI6 and Ralph Fiennes' M character fighting new policies under which MI6's field agents will be supplanted by drones and satellite intelligence.
One of these plots is the one you'll actually give a shit about...I'll give you a hint, it's the one with the main character in it.
I have no issue with the plot diverging the way it does, in fact this isn't something Bond movies often (or ever) do, and I believe it could be refreshing to spend more time developing characters like M, Q, and Moneypenny, who are traditionally only seen when Bond needs some piece of information and/or gadget to advance the story. I would LOVE to see how the dynamic between M and Bond could change now that Judi Dench's time in the role is over. That departure opens up the door for some fascinating tension; Bond is now serving a man he actively resented in Skyfall. Not only that, but Bond (In Spectre) is actually operating without the new M's knowledge, working to complete a mission Judi Dench's M has handed down to him posthumously. THAT IS BLATANT INSUBORDINATION IN THE FACE OF THE NEW M, THAT SHOULD CREATE CONFLICT, RIGHT???
Yeah well it doesn't.
The two storylines only converge when it is most convenient for the writers, ergo, when the writers need the end fight to happen and want everyone to be involved in it. By the way, the finale of this film sucks nut-nuggets, but naturally I'll get to that last.
The secondary plot concerning drones replacing field agents is actually a direct continuation of a theme introduced in Skyfall. Bond spends Skyfall fighting to get back into the field as he has been deemed too old and too damaged. In addition, at a point in the film, he actually discourages Eve Moneypenny from returning to field work, stating outright it "isn't for everyone.". During one of Skyfall's best scenes, M (Judi Dench) reads off a poem her late husband loved deeply. The poem, read by M parallel to a remarkable and bad ass chase scene involving Bond, describes the unshakable will within every person to outrun their mortality. The drive we all have to keep fighting even past our prime. Our defiance in the face of obsolescence.
SO TO HAVE ONE OF THE CONFLICTS IN SPECTRE BE THE REPLACEMENT OF FIELD AGENTS IN FAVOR OF MORE ADVANCED AND EFFECTIVE MEANS OF ESPIONAGE IS SUCH A GOOD FUCKING IDEA.
It's too bad it was executed terribly.
The biggest problem?
Bond isn't old anymore. Skyfall spends so much time establishing that years of fighting and running and jumping and drinking have ruined Bond physically and mentally, not to mention he's nearing 50 years of age. Yet in Spectre, all of that is scrapped. He's just as capable as he's ever been, as though he's just "learned" to not to be a physical wreck anymore after the completion of his character arc in Skyfall. So the drone thing doesn't make any sense, and at no point did I genuinely feel like Bond would be replaced by a computer. He was fast, he was strong, his aim was as good as ever, if not better than ever, and his mind was sharp as a tack in any given moment of peril. The need for him to even be replaced wasn't there, and by extension, the need for him to prove himself as an able-bodied agent was completely absent.
Nobody fucking arcs in this movie. That was really sad to see. Every returning character had something interesting going on in Skyfall, and all of it fell by the wayside when it came time for Spectre.
Before I address the finale, I'll talk about the love story, because fuck the love story.
The idea in Spectre is that Bond has finally met his match in a woman by the name of Madeleine Swan, a cunning psychologist and the daughter of one of Bond's past enemies, Mr. White.
After spending half the movie together, the two realize that they are perfect for each other, copulate, profess their love, and then (Spoiler alert...but it really doesn't matter) drive off together at the end.
Here's the issue:
The relationship between Vesper and Bond in Casino Royale was some excellent shit. Vesper, a very one-dimensional character in the novel, was reworked for the film into a complex and driven woman, and you believed that not only was the tension between her and Bond REAL, it was indicative of certain similarities the two shared, in spite of the many differences between them. They had a yin and yang chemistry that was fascinating to watch, and when that fell to pieces, you understood why it would mold Bond into the hard drinking asshole that he was destined to become. If ever there was a way to work a love story into an origin story, that was it.
Then Madeleine Swan shows up and we're expected to believe that she's the only person to challenge and intrigue Bond the way Vesper did since Casino Royale. Maybe I could buy that, if and only if the character was written in such a way that I could. She wasn't.
Swan wasn't a bad character. She was capable, she was snarky, and above all, she was haunted by her past, something Bond could relate to. Introducing her in Spectre I'm sure opens up the possibility of her being "the one" for Bond. However for her to say the words "I love you" to Bond after spending less than a movie with him (yeah she says that) just isn't fucking believable. And for Bond to drive off with her by the end just seems a little too perfect for either of them in that fake, storybook kind of way.
Here's what's interesting though.
The way the romance was handled, and the way the film ended, was all very reminiscent of old Bond. Up until Craig, here's how Bond movie romances worked: Bond ends up with the girl at the conclusion, and by some circumstance is no longer with her at the start of the next installment to ensure that a different young actress can be exploited.
Watch the Austin Powers series, this is something they spoof expertly.
In fact, a lot of things about Spectre scream old Bond.
The villain, and subsequent torture scene
The burly, silent henchman
The gadget-filled car
The spy watch
The action scene on the snowy mountain
The inclusion of SPECTRE, the organization
The inclusion of a male M, and the roles that Q and Moneypenny play in assisting Bond
The list goes on, and some of those things I was happy to see. They were cool blasts from the past for me.
In my opinion however, Skyfall was a much more successful mix of old and new than Spectre. Certain things are better left in the past, and the minds behind Skyfall seemed to be more aware of that.
The romance fell flat for me, and from where I'm sitting, this movie missed a huge opportunity to introduce Swan as no more than a kindred spirit and good FRIEND to Bond. Bond doesn't have to fuck every woman he works/travels with, and considering both the banter between Bond and Swan, and the similarities they share, this was a great chance to establish Swan as a close friend to Bond, and nothing more. It would've been a progressive move on the part of the producers, and also, it would've shown a lot of growth on Bond's part.
OK LAST THING I PROMISE, I COULD TALK FOR SO LONG ABOUT THIS BUT I WON'T
The finale is lazy as fuck. It feels tacked on in every way.
The villain, played VERY well by Christoph Waltz, has organized this weird, convoluted maze within the old MI6 HQ, which was blown up in Skyfall. Bond runs around the building like an idiot for a few minutes before locating Swan, who was being held hostage of course, and the two escape before Waltz detonates the charges he has set, destroying the building. They proceed to catch Waltz and arrest him after Bond makes an impossible shot and hits Waltz's helicopter, bringing it down.
Waltz (Oberhauser is the villain's name...or is it?) is set up in the marketing for Spectre as being the puppet-master behind all of Bond's misfortunes, desiring revenge in light of Bond's annoying tendency to avert global disasters and thwart Oberhauser's underlings. It is implied, nay, outwardly stated that Oberhauser was behind Vesper's death, behind M's death, and behind Quantum. That makes him, in theory, responsible for every catastrophe both professionally and personally in Bond's life. Oberhauser should be the biggest and baddest of the villains the Craig Bond has faced, and in his face off with Oberhauser, Bond should be working towards some kind of closure/catharsis relating to Vepser and M, and the misdeeds of Quantum. The thing is, that never happens. Not in any meaningful or satisfying way. Sure, Oberhauser survives implying he'll return and cause more trouble, but that doesn't change the fact that at no point during Spectre do we feel any terror or intimidation in relation to his character. He doesn't feel like the kind of man that would devote years and billions of dollars to ruining Bond's life. This was our shot at getting a proper nemesis for Craig's Bond, and that just wasn't done.
It all just felt so inconsequential. When it all came to a head, and both plots were resolved, there was no sense of peril, or difficulty. In the wake of it all, no one was permanently affected by any of Oberhauser's actions. Bond had a gun to the man who KILLED VESPER LYND. And he walked away, as though none of it mattered anymore. I kind of hate that.
The plot of Spectre relies on the continuation of conflicts from previous films. It necessitates that wounds that we believed to have healed be reopened, and I fully expected some crazy shit to go down. It didn't. It was all very run-of-the-mill. That makes me sad.
In the end, I'm open to Spectre's sequel being more impressive. Honestly I don't want this to be the movie Craig leaves on. I think we need a proper conclusion to this era of Bond, and Spectre is far from worthy of being that conclusion.
I love Daniel Craig, and he really brought it in this movie, like he always does.
The problem here was not the acting, and it wasn't the action. That train fight scene between Hinx (Dave Bautista) and Bond was fucking incredible. This movie got a lot right, and that sounds weird considering I've just bitched about it for a whole blog post, but it really wasn't the worst entry in the series. It was just disappointing, and it didn't have to be.
This was long-winded, but I had a lot to say. It was nice to get most of it down on a page.
Thanks for reading, and just for shits and giggles, here's a real sex joke that actually appears in the Bond film The World is Not Enough. Not lying, this line is actually spoken.
JAMES BOND
(To Dr. Christmas Jones as they have sex)
"I thought Christmas only came once a year."
What fun.
Later y'all.
Monday, February 15, 2016
Winnie-the-Pool
This will be a quick one.
You should see Deadpool as soon as is convenient for you. It isn't just funny, it isn't just exciting, it isn't just different. It's all of the above and so much more. Before you do see Deadpool, which you should do, here are a few things you should be aware of.
VISUALS
The budget on this thing was small, comparatively speaking. Considering how much went into marketing alone, a few more-than-noticeable uses of CGI are easily forgiven. Yes, when computer generated effects are utilized, and they are utilized, it can be a little more obvious than you would like it to be. There are moments when the red-suited smart ass himself looks a tad rubbery, and some frames out of the highway fight scene bear an unfortunate resemblance to the animated footage on which that sequence is based. I don't mean that I'm sad they recreated the footage, I'm glad they recreated the footage, I just couldn't help but notice it looked a little too weightless at times.
When it comes to lighting and color, it's a bit of a mixed bag for some reasons that tie into the next section of this review (pacing). The movie is divided into two timelines: The main timeline where Deadpool IS Deadpool, and the secondary timeline within which we see Deadpool's origin and blooming romance. In terms of lighting and color, there are plenty of striking visual clues littered across the flashback sequences, not only helping to engage the audience and enhance the story, but also aiding in differentiating Wade Wilson's life from "Deadpool's". They are two different tales that converge at a point, and the abundance of color plus the skilled use of depth in the flashbacks really drove home how different the two stories are. This was probably so successful thanks to the practical non-existence of variation in color in the main timeline. Deadpool's revenge story plays out in what feels like a single long afternoon, and for that reason I can understand why it's so static visually. It's a grayish, cloudy kind of day, and it remains as such thanks to excellent attention to continuity on the part of the creative team behind the movie. So the general bleh-ness of the color in Deadpool's main story isn't really something I'd call out as necessarily being a negative, just something I wasn't expecting going in.
PACING
Ok this relates to the thing I said earlier about the whole main plot unfolding in one day (and not even a full day at that). There are only two actual action set pieces in this entire movie. These scenes are stretched thanks to the clever use of flashbacks to show us Deadpool's origin, but there are really only two of them. Sure, action takes place within the flashbacks, but it is brief and glossed over more often than not, usually for comedic purposes (Not gonna spoil anything, but if you like montages, you're in for a treat). Having read some Deadpool material in the past, I can tell you that the movie does largely play out like a typical Deadpool comic book outing. Very singular adventures highlighted by welcome cameos and biting commentary by the merc himself. So props to the writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick for taking care to preserve that. The only issue is, at the end of the day, a Deadpool MOVIE is best off feeling more like a film than an episode of something. As original as the execution is in delivering the vital story elements, and as refreshingly streamlined as the revenge plot was, I felt the pacing could've used some work. At the very least, extend the revenge plot and shorten a flashback or two, throw in an extra action set piece in the middle of the movie, and have the climax take place at night as opposed to at the tail end of the afternoon. One of the flashbacks lasted entirely too long as well. The sequence during which you see Wade experimented on in the hopes of curing his cancer takes you away from the primary timeline for what had to be at least 20 minutes. So that could've been spaced out with a little more care.
AND THAT'S IT FOR NEGATIVES
This movie is a fucking blast. For all of its imperfections, it deserves credit just for existing in the first place. When studios start listening to the masses, and using that feedback to pigeonhole directors and twist their visions until those visions match up with what audiences supposedly want, that can be dangerous. Deadpool might be the first perfect example of a studio not only listening to the fans, but listening intelligently. Taking the suggestions that work within the context of the director's intentions and ignoring the suggestions that suck, that is the kind of shit we might be seeing more of now that Deadpool just knocked it's opening weekend out of the fucking park. Not only was 20th Century Fox intelligent about their response to fans, but the fans were intelligent about their requests. People were reasonable about what they asked for, and the voices that ended up being heard were the voices of loyal and devoted fans not only of comic books, but of movies. I have to believe that THAT is how we ended up with pretty much exactly the product we asked for.
Ryan Reynolds proves here that not only is he the only pick for Wade Wilson, he also has a deep connection to the source material. Every mannerism, every outburst, and every quip is so tailored to the character, and that is because Reynolds has a fundamental understanding of Deadpool as a person and as a pop cultural icon. He took what made the Deadpool comic books special, and he used it to make this movie special.
T.J Miller and Morena Baccarin shine. I only wish I got to see more of them both. Leslie Uggams KILLS as Blind Al, and if you don't think so YOU JUST DON'T GET BLIND AL, SHE WAS LITERALLY FUCKING PERFECT (There isn't much to get, which ironically is something you do have to get about Blind Al...fuck it never mind). The villain is functional, but not in that "Ugh, he was fine" kind of way. He did everything he needed to, and anything extra (specifically relating to his banter with Deadpool) furthered his character development expertly. He was menacing, he was maniacal, and by the film's end you really really really wanted to see Deadpool get his revenge, which is all you can ask for with a story such as this.
Colossus was amazing, and the perfect Cable-esque straight man to Deadpool's antics. I would single out an actor for praise on that one, but a whole shit ton of work from a bunch of performers and artists went into Colossus's performance, so I'll just say that all those involved in that did a great job. Angel Dust was great, Gina Carano kicked ass and got laughs, and that was great to see. Brianna Hildebrand was amazing and also she's beautiful and a great actress and I don't have a crush on her, shut up, you have a crush on her, bitch. She's fantastic though, and Negasonic Teenage Warhead is really a character I'd like to see more of in future X-Men outings.
When it comes to Deadpool, the important thing to remember is that this movie fucking happened. Not only that, but it could potentially even set a new precedent for what we expect out of studios and their action comedies, LOOKING AT YOU MCU, STEP THAT SHIT UP.
I think it's hilarious how up until this point, we've all been totally cool with the humor in Marvel movies. Then Deadpool steps on the scene and I feel like any attempts at humor in Marvel movies that aren't related to the Guardians of the Galaxy series are going to have to be funnier on average from now on.
This movie has heart. Before you criticize it, perhaps consider how much it actually got right. It made a love story work, which is something a lot of movies fail to do these days. It achieved a remarkable blend of dark and funny: Somehow this movie was tonally consistent and that is just incredible to consider. It introduced graphic violence and nudity into an existing shared superhero universe. Hats off to them on that one. This movie is a resounding success, please don't forget that. And don't forget where it might falter or fail, because those are the sort of flaws we should expect to be resolved in the future, should this franchise develop and grow with each film as any franchise should. And if the faults aren't addressed in future movies, that's the sort of thing audiences should be prepared to notice.
If Deadpool has shown us anything, it's that we don't have to settle. At the end of the day, as much money and influence as the studios may have, we have the power over what happens and what doesn't. If we stop rewarding complacency, creativity and passion will become more than just bonuses in Hollywood. They'll become necessities. Movies like Deadpool don't have to be rare. Just keep that in mind.
I said this would be short.
I lied to you.
I don't owe this world a thing, I never did.
#BvS
You should see Deadpool as soon as is convenient for you. It isn't just funny, it isn't just exciting, it isn't just different. It's all of the above and so much more. Before you do see Deadpool, which you should do, here are a few things you should be aware of.
VISUALS
The budget on this thing was small, comparatively speaking. Considering how much went into marketing alone, a few more-than-noticeable uses of CGI are easily forgiven. Yes, when computer generated effects are utilized, and they are utilized, it can be a little more obvious than you would like it to be. There are moments when the red-suited smart ass himself looks a tad rubbery, and some frames out of the highway fight scene bear an unfortunate resemblance to the animated footage on which that sequence is based. I don't mean that I'm sad they recreated the footage, I'm glad they recreated the footage, I just couldn't help but notice it looked a little too weightless at times.
When it comes to lighting and color, it's a bit of a mixed bag for some reasons that tie into the next section of this review (pacing). The movie is divided into two timelines: The main timeline where Deadpool IS Deadpool, and the secondary timeline within which we see Deadpool's origin and blooming romance. In terms of lighting and color, there are plenty of striking visual clues littered across the flashback sequences, not only helping to engage the audience and enhance the story, but also aiding in differentiating Wade Wilson's life from "Deadpool's". They are two different tales that converge at a point, and the abundance of color plus the skilled use of depth in the flashbacks really drove home how different the two stories are. This was probably so successful thanks to the practical non-existence of variation in color in the main timeline. Deadpool's revenge story plays out in what feels like a single long afternoon, and for that reason I can understand why it's so static visually. It's a grayish, cloudy kind of day, and it remains as such thanks to excellent attention to continuity on the part of the creative team behind the movie. So the general bleh-ness of the color in Deadpool's main story isn't really something I'd call out as necessarily being a negative, just something I wasn't expecting going in.
PACING
Ok this relates to the thing I said earlier about the whole main plot unfolding in one day (and not even a full day at that). There are only two actual action set pieces in this entire movie. These scenes are stretched thanks to the clever use of flashbacks to show us Deadpool's origin, but there are really only two of them. Sure, action takes place within the flashbacks, but it is brief and glossed over more often than not, usually for comedic purposes (Not gonna spoil anything, but if you like montages, you're in for a treat). Having read some Deadpool material in the past, I can tell you that the movie does largely play out like a typical Deadpool comic book outing. Very singular adventures highlighted by welcome cameos and biting commentary by the merc himself. So props to the writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick for taking care to preserve that. The only issue is, at the end of the day, a Deadpool MOVIE is best off feeling more like a film than an episode of something. As original as the execution is in delivering the vital story elements, and as refreshingly streamlined as the revenge plot was, I felt the pacing could've used some work. At the very least, extend the revenge plot and shorten a flashback or two, throw in an extra action set piece in the middle of the movie, and have the climax take place at night as opposed to at the tail end of the afternoon. One of the flashbacks lasted entirely too long as well. The sequence during which you see Wade experimented on in the hopes of curing his cancer takes you away from the primary timeline for what had to be at least 20 minutes. So that could've been spaced out with a little more care.
AND THAT'S IT FOR NEGATIVES
This movie is a fucking blast. For all of its imperfections, it deserves credit just for existing in the first place. When studios start listening to the masses, and using that feedback to pigeonhole directors and twist their visions until those visions match up with what audiences supposedly want, that can be dangerous. Deadpool might be the first perfect example of a studio not only listening to the fans, but listening intelligently. Taking the suggestions that work within the context of the director's intentions and ignoring the suggestions that suck, that is the kind of shit we might be seeing more of now that Deadpool just knocked it's opening weekend out of the fucking park. Not only was 20th Century Fox intelligent about their response to fans, but the fans were intelligent about their requests. People were reasonable about what they asked for, and the voices that ended up being heard were the voices of loyal and devoted fans not only of comic books, but of movies. I have to believe that THAT is how we ended up with pretty much exactly the product we asked for.
Ryan Reynolds proves here that not only is he the only pick for Wade Wilson, he also has a deep connection to the source material. Every mannerism, every outburst, and every quip is so tailored to the character, and that is because Reynolds has a fundamental understanding of Deadpool as a person and as a pop cultural icon. He took what made the Deadpool comic books special, and he used it to make this movie special.
T.J Miller and Morena Baccarin shine. I only wish I got to see more of them both. Leslie Uggams KILLS as Blind Al, and if you don't think so YOU JUST DON'T GET BLIND AL, SHE WAS LITERALLY FUCKING PERFECT (There isn't much to get, which ironically is something you do have to get about Blind Al...fuck it never mind). The villain is functional, but not in that "Ugh, he was fine" kind of way. He did everything he needed to, and anything extra (specifically relating to his banter with Deadpool) furthered his character development expertly. He was menacing, he was maniacal, and by the film's end you really really really wanted to see Deadpool get his revenge, which is all you can ask for with a story such as this.
Colossus was amazing, and the perfect Cable-esque straight man to Deadpool's antics. I would single out an actor for praise on that one, but a whole shit ton of work from a bunch of performers and artists went into Colossus's performance, so I'll just say that all those involved in that did a great job. Angel Dust was great, Gina Carano kicked ass and got laughs, and that was great to see. Brianna Hildebrand was amazing and also she's beautiful and a great actress and I don't have a crush on her, shut up, you have a crush on her, bitch. She's fantastic though, and Negasonic Teenage Warhead is really a character I'd like to see more of in future X-Men outings.
When it comes to Deadpool, the important thing to remember is that this movie fucking happened. Not only that, but it could potentially even set a new precedent for what we expect out of studios and their action comedies, LOOKING AT YOU MCU, STEP THAT SHIT UP.
I think it's hilarious how up until this point, we've all been totally cool with the humor in Marvel movies. Then Deadpool steps on the scene and I feel like any attempts at humor in Marvel movies that aren't related to the Guardians of the Galaxy series are going to have to be funnier on average from now on.
This movie has heart. Before you criticize it, perhaps consider how much it actually got right. It made a love story work, which is something a lot of movies fail to do these days. It achieved a remarkable blend of dark and funny: Somehow this movie was tonally consistent and that is just incredible to consider. It introduced graphic violence and nudity into an existing shared superhero universe. Hats off to them on that one. This movie is a resounding success, please don't forget that. And don't forget where it might falter or fail, because those are the sort of flaws we should expect to be resolved in the future, should this franchise develop and grow with each film as any franchise should. And if the faults aren't addressed in future movies, that's the sort of thing audiences should be prepared to notice.
If Deadpool has shown us anything, it's that we don't have to settle. At the end of the day, as much money and influence as the studios may have, we have the power over what happens and what doesn't. If we stop rewarding complacency, creativity and passion will become more than just bonuses in Hollywood. They'll become necessities. Movies like Deadpool don't have to be rare. Just keep that in mind.
I said this would be short.
I lied to you.
I don't owe this world a thing, I never did.
#BvS
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Romancing The Treadstone
If you watch the Superbowl and/or go outside on a semi-regular basis, you're probably aware that the fifth Bourne film has a trailer and a title. "Jason Bourne". I dig it. I dig the whole franchise. And that TV spot was some quality shiznit, so thus begins the four-part series of reviews I will be doing of the entries in the series so far. I love these films, I love the idea of watching them again, and I can't wait to think of clever little puns that only y'all fans will appreciate.
I know.
I know.
I said four.
Listen, Bourne Legacy is by no stretch a good Bourne film, but it's in no way so horrible I would refuse to ever mention it or acknowledge that it exists. Look at it this way. I'm a bad a cook, that's just a fact. That doesn't mean I'm a bad person. I'm not gonna go around forging checks and watching The Big Bang Theory. Just don't trust me to make dinner edible, that's all.
Let's get this bitch started.
THE BOURNE IDENTITY (A.K.A THE SPERM THAT MADE IT TO THE EGG AND STARTED IT ALL)
We begin our movie on a stormy night on he Mediterranean sea. Fishermen scoop up a body that floats in the water, and nurse the man back to health. Who is he? He doesn't know...
MEANWHILE BACK IN THE STATES
The CIA searches for their operative, Jason Bourne, who has gone missing after a botched assassination attempt.
The agency scrambles agents to find and kill Bourne, hoping to avoid word getting out of the assassination plot, and that floaty guy from the sea (Bourne or course) sets out to somehow uncover who he is and why he was found the way he was. Along the way he picks up a companion, an unlucky German woman by the name of Marie, and the two attempt to learn what they can about Bourne's past, whilst staying one step ahead of the deadliest agents in the world.
Right there you've got something a little different. An amnesiac super spy, that is pretty damn cool, and at the time it wasn't really something we had seen done before. I say we, even though I was five when the movie came out. Admittedly I was eight when I first gave it a watch, but that's still younger than anyone should be when they see Matt Damon stab a man repeatedly with a common office pen.
The premise was unusual, and that was a huge help in distinguishing Bourne as a character from men like James Bond, Ethan Hunt, or Jack Ryan. Jason Bourne has skills, and he has expertise, but he is also very unsure of himself, and for good reason: The man doesn't remember who the hell he is. This is someone with very legitimate doubts about his loyalties. James Bond would take a bullet for his queen without a question, Ethan Hunt would scale the tallest building in the world just to complete a mission, but Jason Bourne isn't ever actually sure he's on the right side. He is determined to survive, and as subservient as he may have been in a past life, he now cares little about the mission or pleasing his superiors. As far as Jason Bourne is concerned, he is no longer a CIA pawn. The mission has changed, and he lets them know it.
The character of Marie is also a very welcome addition, and that's saying something, because it isn't difficult to get a character like that VERY wrong. She's the companion, she can't do all the cool shit Jason Bourne can do, and for that reason it is important she not be portrayed as being annoying, or weak, or just plain helpless. The harder thing still is to balance her strength and intelligence with the hindering reality of her lack of experience in Bourne's world. She shouldn't be an obstacle, however, we need to believe that she is a normal person, who is uncomfortable shooting shit and jumping out windows. That balance is achieved, quite expertly so.
The suspense is taught and very well-sustained. This movie has downtime, but only enough of it for us to breathe, and begin to grasp what's going on. Every action set piece feels natural. The Bourne films are not built around locations. The characters don't fly to fucking Egypt half way through the movie just to set up some crazy chase across the pyramids. When action takes place, it makes sense, and it moves the characters from one place to another, that place always being a location that makes sense for the characters to end up. When Bourne fights someone, it feels necessary. It feels as though Bourne has considered every avenue, and sees no option other than to beat his opponent senseless with everyday household objects.
The performances are fantastic, and enough loose ends are left untied by the story's end to prime us for a sequel. The best part there is, even if a sequel never happened, Bourne Identity would still stand as a movie. Matt Damon makes this role his own, from the very start. He brings it in every scene, and he knows just how to walk the line between bad ass and vulnerable. The character of Bourne feels like a kid, almost, and I mean that in a very positive way. He's unassuming, he lacks confidence, more often than not, he's scared. Damon knew what was required of him in that first entry into the character's story, and he brought every bit of it to the table.
OK TECHNICALLY
Pretty stellar. Doug Liman, the movie's director, utilizes less handheld than his successor, Paul Greengrass, but it's still present, and used with enough sensitivity to only add intensity to every fight. The sound is mixed and edited very well, and the decision to end the film with Moby's Extreme Ways was truly inspired. There are some beautifully composed frames on display here, one shot in particular in the film's first act striking me immediately as being gorgeous in every sense (Bourne standing alone in the snow at night).
My only two gripes are with certain editing choices, and special effects. The fight scenes are cut in such a sense that at times, they can be a bit jarring to watch. I did find myself a little annoyed on occasion at how frequent the cuts were, and knowing that Damon was (and is) very capable and willing when it came to doing stunts and fight chore, I'm a little disappointed that Liman didn't work harder to showcase that. It's apparent that the crew worked hard to keep as much of the film in-camera as possible, but there are moments when green screen is used, and it can be little distracting when it is. That's really it.
This movie is fun as fuck, that's really all there is to this one. If you haven't seen it or its sequels, do that before the fifth one comes out, you've got some time.
Thanks for reading, stay tuned for the next three O' these.
I know.
I know.
I said four.
Listen, Bourne Legacy is by no stretch a good Bourne film, but it's in no way so horrible I would refuse to ever mention it or acknowledge that it exists. Look at it this way. I'm a bad a cook, that's just a fact. That doesn't mean I'm a bad person. I'm not gonna go around forging checks and watching The Big Bang Theory. Just don't trust me to make dinner edible, that's all.
Let's get this bitch started.
THE BOURNE IDENTITY (A.K.A THE SPERM THAT MADE IT TO THE EGG AND STARTED IT ALL)
We begin our movie on a stormy night on he Mediterranean sea. Fishermen scoop up a body that floats in the water, and nurse the man back to health. Who is he? He doesn't know...
MEANWHILE BACK IN THE STATES
The CIA searches for their operative, Jason Bourne, who has gone missing after a botched assassination attempt.
The agency scrambles agents to find and kill Bourne, hoping to avoid word getting out of the assassination plot, and that floaty guy from the sea (Bourne or course) sets out to somehow uncover who he is and why he was found the way he was. Along the way he picks up a companion, an unlucky German woman by the name of Marie, and the two attempt to learn what they can about Bourne's past, whilst staying one step ahead of the deadliest agents in the world.
Right there you've got something a little different. An amnesiac super spy, that is pretty damn cool, and at the time it wasn't really something we had seen done before. I say we, even though I was five when the movie came out. Admittedly I was eight when I first gave it a watch, but that's still younger than anyone should be when they see Matt Damon stab a man repeatedly with a common office pen.
The premise was unusual, and that was a huge help in distinguishing Bourne as a character from men like James Bond, Ethan Hunt, or Jack Ryan. Jason Bourne has skills, and he has expertise, but he is also very unsure of himself, and for good reason: The man doesn't remember who the hell he is. This is someone with very legitimate doubts about his loyalties. James Bond would take a bullet for his queen without a question, Ethan Hunt would scale the tallest building in the world just to complete a mission, but Jason Bourne isn't ever actually sure he's on the right side. He is determined to survive, and as subservient as he may have been in a past life, he now cares little about the mission or pleasing his superiors. As far as Jason Bourne is concerned, he is no longer a CIA pawn. The mission has changed, and he lets them know it.
The character of Marie is also a very welcome addition, and that's saying something, because it isn't difficult to get a character like that VERY wrong. She's the companion, she can't do all the cool shit Jason Bourne can do, and for that reason it is important she not be portrayed as being annoying, or weak, or just plain helpless. The harder thing still is to balance her strength and intelligence with the hindering reality of her lack of experience in Bourne's world. She shouldn't be an obstacle, however, we need to believe that she is a normal person, who is uncomfortable shooting shit and jumping out windows. That balance is achieved, quite expertly so.
The suspense is taught and very well-sustained. This movie has downtime, but only enough of it for us to breathe, and begin to grasp what's going on. Every action set piece feels natural. The Bourne films are not built around locations. The characters don't fly to fucking Egypt half way through the movie just to set up some crazy chase across the pyramids. When action takes place, it makes sense, and it moves the characters from one place to another, that place always being a location that makes sense for the characters to end up. When Bourne fights someone, it feels necessary. It feels as though Bourne has considered every avenue, and sees no option other than to beat his opponent senseless with everyday household objects.
The performances are fantastic, and enough loose ends are left untied by the story's end to prime us for a sequel. The best part there is, even if a sequel never happened, Bourne Identity would still stand as a movie. Matt Damon makes this role his own, from the very start. He brings it in every scene, and he knows just how to walk the line between bad ass and vulnerable. The character of Bourne feels like a kid, almost, and I mean that in a very positive way. He's unassuming, he lacks confidence, more often than not, he's scared. Damon knew what was required of him in that first entry into the character's story, and he brought every bit of it to the table.
OK TECHNICALLY
Pretty stellar. Doug Liman, the movie's director, utilizes less handheld than his successor, Paul Greengrass, but it's still present, and used with enough sensitivity to only add intensity to every fight. The sound is mixed and edited very well, and the decision to end the film with Moby's Extreme Ways was truly inspired. There are some beautifully composed frames on display here, one shot in particular in the film's first act striking me immediately as being gorgeous in every sense (Bourne standing alone in the snow at night).
My only two gripes are with certain editing choices, and special effects. The fight scenes are cut in such a sense that at times, they can be a bit jarring to watch. I did find myself a little annoyed on occasion at how frequent the cuts were, and knowing that Damon was (and is) very capable and willing when it came to doing stunts and fight chore, I'm a little disappointed that Liman didn't work harder to showcase that. It's apparent that the crew worked hard to keep as much of the film in-camera as possible, but there are moments when green screen is used, and it can be little distracting when it is. That's really it.
This movie is fun as fuck, that's really all there is to this one. If you haven't seen it or its sequels, do that before the fifth one comes out, you've got some time.
Thanks for reading, stay tuned for the next three O' these.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)