MYST Post #4: Les Aventures de Rabbi Jacob

To be honest, I don't really know what possessed me to watch this film, and maybe that's what made my experience so much better.  I have never particularly been interested in foreign films, and in broader terms I haven't really branched out into the indie scene either, but as I've gotten older my tastes have widened and I can appreciate the different cultures and their artistic values.

Okay, I'm kidding I know exactly why I watched this movie - I was forced to... As part of this diversifying of curriculum we have in our wonderful district 86 classes, my french teacher decided to show us famous and in many cases, very controversial films just east of the Atlantic.  And as it turns out, this film doesn't shy away from it's fair share of satirical commentary.

Being of french diccent, as well as a having taken french for more years than I can count on 2 hands, I consider myself very much a local frenchman and figured this movie was worth a watch in french with no subtitles, and in an environment I could actually focus in and not do other homework during class, my basement.

So as I watched on, I noticed 2 main things.  The first being that this movie is actually funny as hell, and the second being that the acting in foreign films, no matter how big the budget, looks much more natural than in their American counterparts... Let me explain.  As I watched on, I saw how you could really get the Autour feel, and even the actors didn't seem to be acting, just doing.  I don't know if I'm preaching to deaf ears, and I guess the fact that I don't know how to back this up makes me look absurd, but even in the movie "Breathless" I could get the feel of the "cool" french culture.  I imagine an American rendition of the film looking forced and awkward but I guess that's why there isn't one.

Back to the movie, which basically follows the transformation of a racist factory owner, Victor Pivert, and the crazy events that change him into a man who is loving of all cultures.  One of my favorite scenes includes Pivert walking into an abandon factory and falling into a giant tub of gum extract.  The scene basically follows slapstick elements and eventually culminates with him crudely insulting the Muslim assassins.

In the end, I wish I knew more about the actors and the director to be able to see just how this movie ranks in comparison to other french films, but I think Gerard Oury did a fantastic job.  The thing that makes this film so successful in my mind is that it doesn't do anything spectacular in cinematography it's just a comedy with a funny commentary on the problems with racism in our society.  IMDb gave it a 7.2 and in my opinion it deserves an 8.0 - definitely worth watching, and an entertaining enough movie to really get you hooked on foreign films.

MYST POST #3: Oz the Great and Powerful

I really don't know what possessed me to see this movie, but I'm glad I did.  It'd been forever since the last time I actually went to the theatre and saw a movie and there's still a special feeling when you actually go.  I managed to score a cheap deal for IMAX tickets and with the whole magical world of Oz theme going it really made for a cool visual experience.  I've always been kind of familiar with Oz but I'm not really sure if this was supposed to be a rendition of the Wizard of Oz, or a separate thing?  Who really knows these days when it comes to Disney productions...

Oz holds it's own in the box office, and I believe it's currently the #1 movie out there, but as we discussed in class, these first few months of the year don't really offer much to work with.  It's hard to picture James Franco and Mila Kunis playing such out of character roles, but after a while it seems to come together and I really don't think anyone could've played Oz the way Franco did.  I hadn't heard much of Sam Raimi since the Spiderman movies and frankly, he'd seemed to have fallen off the map for me, I didn't even bother to see Spiderman 3.  I think it's interesting though that he tried to work Franco away from his character in Spiderman and into Oz.  That being said, there's aspects of it that you can tell transferred over, and there's this running motif of greed and hunger for power that works away in the background of Franco's character.

I think where Disney really invested a lot of time, and where it really paid the dividends was in cinematography and editing.  I honestly haven't seen a movie start off in black and white and turn to color and it really reminded me of the technicolor and wide-screen developments of the late 50s we've been studying.  It adds a nice touch to parallel reality and the old world as how it changes to color when we reach Oz.  This movie is full of dutch angles and really experiments with how far we can push the camera because it is part animated but part reality, unlike other films, it's just really out there and it challenges the viewers to follow along.  Granted, it is a 3D production, and it's obvious they're do as much crazy stuff as they can to get people to come watch, but hey, I'm not complaining.

In regards to the thing that stood out to me most was just the stylistic choices of Raimi.  I chose to link the waterfall scene because I think it epitomizes the movie into a short 50 seconds.  The feel of Oz is this super trippy mystical wonderland, like what we have always associated with it in our minds, and as much as we try and focus on the plot, it's so easy to get caught up in this long continuous editing of vast sweeping long shots that showcase how wild Oz really can be.

IMDb gave Oz the Great and Powerful a 6.9, but I'd have to disagree with this.  In my opinion, Oz deserves an 8.5 or maybe even higher.  I generally don't dip my toes into these types of films but I have to say I'm really impressed.  Mila and Franco really pulled the acting along and made up for where the animated characters could not... not to mention the amazing graphics and unique editing/play on color, I'd say this movie definitely deserves a view and a trip to the theatre, the IMAX really does make a difference.

MYST POST #2: Skyfall

In honor of spring break and the end of 3rd quarter, I figured I'd catch up on a ton of movies I was too lazy to see when they came out.  That being said, I was pretty excited to see Skyfall, and maybe that was due to my love of the Bond series or maybe just the fact that there was a ton of hype surrounding this film.  I read somewhere that this was one of the best Bond movies of all time, and while it was damn good, I'd have to politely disagree.

I guess going into this movie I didn't really know what to expect, and as I clicked the purchase button on my On Demand, I wondered if maybe I should see Argo or Zero Dark Thirty instead.  Daniel Craig is what?  45 years old now, and it seems like the series is aging once again, and who knows what direction the series is going in, but fear not, Skyfall got a 7.8 on IMDb and I'd say that's a pretty fair assessment.

The thing about Skyfall is that it represents exactly what I was mentioning above with this sort of aging performance of Bond.  Judi Dench was fantastic in her final "hoorah" as M, and that's what saves the film from being an extremely dull repeat Bond.  Director Sam Mendes does a decent job keeping the audience on it's heels but at times we know exactly what's going to happen next.  Oh of course, he's going to escape, oh he wanted us to capture him - I don't know, it just seemed like your cliche bad guy tricks good guy.  I know I'm gonna contradict myself here, but at times Skyfall showed moments of greatness.  The whole concept of this cyber warfare was insane, it was almost mixing in this sci-fi aspect, and the beautiful old DB5 Aston Martin was a delicate touch that kept me on the edge of my seat at least.

The thing that intrigued me most about Skyfall was this opening credit montage.  I've always been captivated by these montages, it's like the Bond trademark but this one was especially unique.  It flows seemingly from the moment he falls down the waterfall into this ultra-saturated, almost cartoon-like figures walking around as if they're characters in the movie.  It's just the weirdest thing I've ever seen but I loved every second of it.

Skyfall excelled in the field of cinematography and editing, you could really tell it was a high budget film.  There's long, sweeping overhead - birds eye view shots that really show you the vast geography or amazing sets they were able to develop.  Like any other Bond movie, the special effects are ridiculous, the final 20 minutes of the film had to have been perfect on the first shot as they literally ripped the mansion in half and we see the helicopter and vast destruction of it all.  It just fit the whole over the top style of these type of films perfectly.

Skyfall was interesting enough for me to say it was worth the $5 rental but there's still parts missing in the bigger picture.  I can't quiet put my finger on it but it just seems like the series is coming to a close and that's just an inevitable part of the puzzle.  That being said, the special effects and overall plot line was fairly intriguing and I'd definitely recommend Skyfall to anyone looking for a good 2+ hours spent.   I'd give the film an overall 8.0.

1935 Film - Romeo & Juliet

1. Synopsis of your story: In creating this movie we wanted to take the classic Romeo & Juliet tale and give it a twist according to the times of the 30s.  Aware of the situation with the Great Depression, as well as strong dislike from the banks/social class struggle, we wanted to make our film a commentary on that.  Romeo is the son of a failing movie theatre owner, and unlike his father, represents the post-depression era and wants to move on with his life.  His father on the other hand, resents all wealth, especially bank owners, as they refused to give him money to repair his theatre and give him a chance to draw in customers.  Juliet is a young, wealthy girl who is very much indifferent about the whole situation and that leads to why she is able to fall in love with Romeo.  As a character foil, her father resents the poor, and thinks that movies are just a waste of time, only scum waste their time at the theatre, and refuses to give a loan to Romeo's dad.  The story proceeds to pit love against society and in the end is ultimately neither pro- or anti- bank rather just a tale of forbidden love.

2. Genre: We wanted to produce a Romantic-Drama, to pit society against love and see what it could bring in the box office.  We wanted to see how a big budget Romantic-Drama would fair.

3. Studio: We chose MGM as our studio, and we chose it for the simple reason that we wanted this to be a big-budget, highly anticipated film.  We needed a star powered crew for Romeo & Juliet as the 2 protagonists are the main focus, and no other studio gives us that opportunity like MGM does.

4. Cast and Crew: For this production, we chose all MGM affiliated personas, we didn't wan to overextend our reach and potentially have to trade up or buy the rights to any other person.  Our director is Victor Flemming, he's one of the best around at the time, and he knows how to handle big budget films.  Only a year before Romeo & Juliet, he directed Treasure Island, and as Eric said earlier, knows how to handle adapted screenplay and classic films.  In regards to actors, we casted Jeanette MacDonald as Juliet and Robert Montgomery as Romeo.  Both these performers have been in a number of big films and are just pleasing to look at on screen.
5. Hays Code & Technology: Obviously the original version of Romeo & Juliet has some scenes of extreme violence and sexuality, but in keeping politically correct with the time period, we have chosen to keep it clean and abide by the Hays Code, we will not show any scenes of the two lovers sleeping together and will avoid scenes of violence, by mentioning them through dialogue as if they're happening in parallel time. Instead of having both characters commit suicide, we will have them live happily ever after and while this does take a way from the shock factor of the film, it will help us give across a better moral message.  As a technological advancement, we've decided to use technicolor but only at the point where Romeo & Juliet make their first eye contact, to act as symbolism of the freedom love gives our characters.  We thought it'd make for a very interesting and unique touch.
6. Disagreements. For the most part, all 3 of us really liked the plot line and didn't disagree at all, but the big thing that bothered me was that I would've rather made it an indie film.  I wanted to use someone like United Artists and really make a glaring commentary on the situation between wealthy and poor as well as corruption and banks.  Also I thought it'd be interesting to attack the Hays Code and make a film more like the original, driven by sex, anger, violence.  Sure we wouldn't have gotten the vote from those big investors, but oh well.

Formal Film Study: Spike Lee

Whether he's sitting court side at the Knicks game, or just walking around town, Spike Lee is always grabbing the attention of the paparazzi.  That being said, Mr. Lee has quietly become an American icon, especially in African-American communities and having very little knowledge about Spike Lee films, I felt like this would be a good chance for me to explore a dip my toes into a new side of film.  

Here are some trailers:

Do The Right Thing (1989)

Jungle Fever (1991)

Crookyln (1994)

The thing I got out of these three movies, and probably the thing that will stick with me forever when looking at Spike Lee films is the presence of the civil rights theme.  I really don't think I could see Spike directing anything without the hidden race struggle.  That's not to say Spike is a bad director, in fact he's quite the opposite, as I really enjoyed all three films, but his films give us an interesting perspective into a society I frankly did not know all that much about.  The sad thing about it is that there's still a wide disparity when it comes to black v. white films, sure we have African American actors but the industry is still heavily dominated by white films.  I'm not exactly sure what I'm getting at here, but regardless, Spike Lee definitely goes after this struggle in his films.

From a cinematic/visual literacy perspective, Spike Lee doesn't do anything out too far from the norm, but he likes to use the birds eye angle a lot.  I've figured out that this ties in especially well with the settings he chooses.  His films are mostly set in downtown Brooklyn, and by utilizing the birds eye view shot type, he's able to capture the close knit neighborhoods that are Brooklyn.  Another thing I noticed (this isn't necessarily some artistic thing but...) was that Spike likes to use shots in which we are placed in the perspective of birds eye view but then we see a character walk over some picture. The thing that ties his films in the best is his sound mixing.  Especially in "Do The Right Thing" music plays a big part, even with a character Radio Raheem, who basically carries a radio around blasting songs.  But it's not just good sound mixing, it's Spike Lee actually picking when he wants it to be sort of like a comparsion between all the different perspectives.  The opening scene for all 3 movies have songs which if you listen to the lyrics are very powerful, talking about how Elvis was a bad man, or the failures of Wall Street, it's all very subtle things that make a big difference.

As I alluded to a earlier, Spike Lee's films are known for their commentary on society and what the African American means in the greater picture that is America.  If I had the chance I would've watched Malcolm X, but I couldn't get my hands on a copy.  If we look at the historical context, Blacks were making a lot of head way in the 80s/90s and I think Spike wanted to show that there's still a lot more that needs to be accomplished.  I thought the idea behind "Jungle Fever" was really interesting because I know that even by today's standards interracial marriages are still seen as weird.  And Who Knows?  As a white person I don't know the first thing about what it means to be black and I think that's part of what Spike is trying to say.  In all three of these films there's the struggle between White Italians, Latinos, and African Americans.  It just so happens that these are the three biggest populations in the boroughs of Brooklyn so in reality Spike is doing much more than a commentary on blacks.  Then at times he seems to say that it's not just the whites that are halting the ways of progress it's the blacks too.  I think Jungle Fever pales this especially well when it's both the blacks and whites that can't seem to accept this forbidden love.

In the end, I'm still really confused when it comes to Spike Lee and I really don't know what he stands for.  Spike ends "Do The Right Thing" with two quotes on violence one from MLK Jr. and one from Malcolm X almost asking the viewer to choose his own opinions, leaving me ever more puzzled.  I've only grazed the top of what seems to be a complex person, but one thing that I do know is that every film Mr. Lee makes is going to have some underlying critique on society and in that sense he's a very unique director.

Demographics of Brooklyn: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050619_BROOKLYN_GRAPHIC/index.html

SIDE NOTE: This is my favorite scene out of all three movies I've seen of Spike Lee - it's simple, yet unlike anything I've ever seen before, with an eye-level, medium shot through it's entirety.

MYST POST #1: Friends With Benefits

So for this review I stepped out of my comfort zone a little, into a genre I don't really meddle with all too often, and I saw Friends With Benefits.  This Will Gluck production features the stunning Mila Kunis and the not too shabby Justin Timberlake in a "ROM-COM" gone pretty dirty.  I have to confess I'd wanted to see this film since the trailer previewed early 2011 featuring this happy-go-lucky, sex dominated relationship and let's face it what teenage boy isn't slightly attracted to Mila Kunis?  Yes, the movie is extremely cliche and at times predictable, but Gluck deserves some recognition for a follow-up to Easy-A, a movie that I really enjoyed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFP7ibrgQcE (Starts @ 0:09)

I was pleasantly surprised at how dynamic Friends With Benefits could be at times, mixing in a lot of different stylistic aspects that you don't necessarily associate with these typical money-making productions.  The scene I linked above is actually my favorite scene, and also the opening scene which I found a little ironic.  Part of what made it such an interesting opening scene is that it brings in Andy Samberg and Emma Stone, but you don't end up seeing those characters ever again in the rest of the film.  If you look at the history behind this, Gluck featured Stone in Easy-A, what critics claim to be one of her best movies, so it's interesting to see the parallels.

If we take a step back and look at the scene from a visual literacy aspect there's a lot of things to be impressed with.  For starters, Gluck takes an interesting stab at some sort of parallelism while showing one quick scene of Kunis and then cutting straight to Timberlake, it's as if he wants the audience to see the foreshadowing of both protagonist losing their relationships and how lame the reasoning is for it...  From a camera point of view, there's a lot of over-the-shoulder shots as well as a quick revert to a close up on the characters face to show the disappointment and confusion at the situation, it's done really well.  I like the usage of negative space, it's not overdone, but it's helpful when the camera zooms out and shows the characters in the street, it helps build the tension more.

I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't attached to my couch while watching Friends With Benefits, and at times I found myself rooting for Justin to go save his relationship but like all other films, there's definitely room for improvement.  Gluck has impressed me with 2 movies in a row now, and Justin Timberlake has gained my blessings with his performance in this picture and overall I think IMDb does this movie injustice by rating it at a 6.6.  In my opinion, this movie is a 7.5 and I would recommend it to anyone looking to relax and watch a genuinely funny movie.

REVIEW OF THE REVIEWS

I recently watched The Adjustment Bureau, an Universal Studios production directed by George Nolfi and starring Matt Damon.  Interestingly enough, what sparked me to see this movie wasn't any trailer or critic review but rather a mention of it in my Philosophy class last semester, in which it brought up the question of faith and free will.  Up until this point I hadn't really seen any film that ventured into this area and I was interested to see what critics had to say.

That being said, Rotten Tomatoes gave the film a 78%, considered still "fresh", and Metacritic gave it a 60%.  While there are many critics that agree with both scores, there are some that vary along the line from extreme praise to utter disappointment.  Regardless, the film is 139 minutes long, rated PG-13, and was debuted on March 21, 2011.

REVIEW #1 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2011-03-04-adjustmentbureau04_ST_N.htm

The first critic I'll mention is Claudia Puig, writer at USA Today, and all-in-all she hints that Adjustment Bureau is pretty much just a C+ movie.  She starts off with a generic plot summary of the film, she leads the audience through a fairly detailed description actually, and only spends the last paragraph, maybe 2 on her actual perspective, which I found interesting.  And from that it seems as if she's taking almost a disappointed tone, as if she was longing for more and all she can say about the film is that it had great potential but never quite lived up to what it could've been.  In that sense, I think Puig is a very plot driven reviewer.  She references the cast, and to an extent she feels like that's what might have saved the movie.  She goes onto say, "with his natural charisma, Damon is convincing as a politician.  And has credible chemistry with equally believable Blunt. The two actors' likability and intelligence propel the film".  Yet at the end she comes back to complain about the cliches and glaring loopholes throughout the bureau concept, but then alludes to Inception, a very liked movie, in hopes to salvage that this is a movie you should still go see.

REVIEW #2 http://www.npr.org/2011/03/04/134056418/metaphysical-red-tape-foils-the-adjustment-bureau

The second critic I'll mention is Jeannette Catsoulis, writer at NPR, and unlike her counterpart Ms. Puig, she spends no time getting to the meat of her review.  In layman's terms, this movie sucks, and the only thing hold it up is the always refreshing Matt Damon, and his "semi-pro" counter part, Emily Blunt.  To be precise, she begins the review with "As most of us already know — and The Adjustment Bureau is eager to confirm — angels are watching over Matt Damon".  So it's obvious to the audience that Catsoulis is focusing heavily on the performance of Matt Damon to save the day.  Point is, she thinks the film is extremely anti-climatic and even goes on to say it would've been better as a straight up romance film, and from this I think it's easy to derive that her tone is condescending and almost sarcastic at times, putting in little tidbits in parentheses like, "at this point unimaginable without a rakishly tipped fedora".  Yet unlike the Puig's review, Catsoulis alludes to the idea of free will and determinism which is pretty much the only reason I watched the movie, but fails to elaborate.

Personally, having seen the film, both critics make compelling points, but I have to agree with Jeannette Catsoulis.  That being said, I do agree with Puig when she says, "The Adjustment Bureau is compelling enough, a sort of Inception-lite, but the plot holes take it off course".  The entire movie I was waiting for the kicker, the next level, but where Inception takes off and throws the audience into completely different realms, The Adjustment Bureau just kind of rolls over and lets Matt Damon win.  Catsoulis says, "what Elise would be doing there is anyone's guess; even the film's writer and newbie director, George Nolfi, just pulls a reason out of thin air", and I think this best summarizes the movie in that the movie just had too many holes in the plot, it was literally like, "oh well I guess Elise is about to show up in 3, 2... Oh hey Elise!" and then of course the Chairman miraculously changes the fate and the day is saved!  She hit it on the nail when she said the ending was "atrociously lame" and if I'd never seen the film before I'd have to defer back to what both these ladies said in that this film is nothing more than a C+ production.  This is not to say that there weren't glimpses of greatness or that the plot was dull because I'd actually disagree, but had I never seen this before, I'd look at it and say there's plenty of good movies on IMdB's top 250 that can tie me over before I have to see this.

If I were to write a 1 page review, my focus would be only 1 thing - telling the truth.  One of my pet peeves is when people sugar coat things, and I feel like maybe this is because I just want to hear it all, or maybe bad news doesn't scare me, I'm not sure.  Regardless, I wouldn't want to be tricked into watching Twilight 1,2,3,whatever - just because some critic gave it a 100% that just isn't realistic.  I think it's important to highlight acting, plot line, themes, and maybe even motive of the film.  When you start getting further than that it's hard to retain the readers attention, but I think those are my 4 key principles.