2008
Directors/Writers Mark and Jay Duplass
With: Ross Partridge, Steve Zissis, Greta Gerwig and Elise Muller
Seen in theater
So the premise of the movie is that 4 underemployed actors are inspired by a low tech DIY art-house film that they had saw at a film festival. Convinced that they could do much better, they decide that instead of waiting to be cast in a movie that they instead would write and star in their own low budget vehicle.
This cracks me up, because clearly, Baghead is a low budget film identifiably so with its use of digital video cameras and easily accessed settings. It makes me wonder if this film itself was created under the same circumstances with the same goals and objectives.
There are some issues with the characters because no one is quite sure who want to be with whom romantically. Meanwhile, they decide that they would write this film at a vacation cabin in the woods. They go to the cabin and personalities, liquor and perhaps the lack of ambition get in the way of them writing the movie. One of the women has several apparitions in which she sees a man with a bag over his head that seems to be stalking her. With the anger and mistrust that many characters have now, it is not certain if it was really an apparition, one of the characters messing with each other or really a psychotic killer. The film keeps the audience guessing through out the whole thing.
So the film works as a comedy and also as a low key horror movie. It's a lot of fun to watch.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Monday, August 4, 2008
Redacted **
2007
Written and Directed by Brian DePalma
With; Rob Devaney, Izzy Diaz, Patrick Carrol, Ty Jones and Kel O'Neil
Studio; Magnolia
This is a war filmed LOOSELY based on an actual incident in Iraq in which a 15 year old girl was raped and murdered. While watching it, I kind of liked it, but after reading some reviews about it, I saw that reviews were largely mixed and that the majority were negative. Now my main source is The Chicago Reader (See links on this page) and they liked it with reservations. They liked that the film tried to take on a serious and timely subject. I liked it for that reason. I felt it showed both sides of the issue. It showed the Iraqis being abused and hurt and the soldiers' stressful lives that quite often lead to cataclysmic consequences - sometimes accidental and sometimes (as in the case of the rape) not.
So there is a large controversy over this film. Some people say it showed the soldiers in a bad light. But I disagree with that because it did not show all the soldiers in a bad light. Several soldiers tried to stop it and one only relented because a gun was pointed at him by one of the crazy soldiers. Interestingly enough, one soldier was there to video tape it and was therefore an accomplice because he was standing there watching the whole thing. His excuse was that he was there to document it so that the "truth" could come out. This scene represents an interesting and thought provoking idea about the role of the media and their responsibilities. Should media be there as an observer or should media get involved when necessary? This is certainly not a new question, but one that takes on more significance with the war being a current phenomenon.
And then there are the two "monsters". The instigators of the crime. They are portrayed as hideous and unmerciful, but there are enough clues here to show that even they might be victims from the stresses of war. I mean one of them is so crazy that his speech is almost incomprehensible. he also shoots a pregnant woman and her family because their car would not slow down or stop at a checkpoint. The soldier did wait to shoot until the car crossed a certain line. Protocol had been followed, and no one could argue that the soldiers shouldn't protect themselves. Though his attitude about it after wards was racist and disturbing. So the question that comes to mind is was he feeling remorse or was he a monster? The fact that he defended his action, while at the same time slurring the Iraqi people tells me he might have been hiding some guilt under the bravado.
To me, it is also an interesting commentary on American culture. The fact that our culture could allow people like these two thugs to flourish. You know, the macho, kick-ass attitude that men seem to need to have these days or otherwise they will be seen as less than manly. The same culture that makes men take steroids so that they can be bigger and stronger and faster (incidentally, that is a title of a documentary about steroids which came out this year that I strongly recommend). So even these two monsters are shown in a light that is gray and murky. One can not draw draw conclusions about them that are black or white.
The structure of the film is interesting, but many critics did not like it. Maybe I'm too unsophisticated but I liked it. The whole movie was shot from the point of view of different media formats. It was not a straight narrative. A large portion of it was "shot" by a hand held video camera that the soldier had which I previously spoke about. But many different media were also used. Part of the story was told in a faux French documentary with subtitles, in French because the men spoke English of course. There were also news reels and of course the Internet. The criticism was that it was too much and too distracting. But I think that it is directly related to one of the films themes. That the media is implicit in all this and helps drive the events in the war. For instance, in the disturbing scene of the soldier being decapitated, well, that demonstrates the power of the media whether we like it or not.
Some critics also said the acting was awful. Well, again, maybe I'm not too sophisticated and I did not notice it. Now I was not overwhelmed by the acting, but neither did I notice really bad acting. Perhaps they were speaking of the crazy soldier who at times was incomprehensible, but if he was crazy, his incomprehensibility would have been appropriate. Or perhaps maybe some of the actors might have overacted to the horrific events in the film, but there was nothing obvious that I saw.
I did notice the violence before I read any reviews, and DePalma is know for violent films. There's a concept that when artists display violence to show how awful it is, it quite often ends up being just as bad as the real violence it is betraying because it titillates the audience. Sometimes I did think the violence was over the top.
Some critics, many of them your average citizens, thought that this movie should not be shown simply because the soldiers had enough problems and that it would lower moral. I disagree with that completely. The "truth" must be shown (even though remember that this is a fiction). Besides, not everyone in the film were monsters. Some were quite heroic because they were doing what they thought was right under very trying circumstances.
The last criticism against the movie was that it did not have the facts of the case straight. This might be a valid criticism if this was a documentary, but it was a fictional film. DePalma himself said that the lawyers told him that the film had to be different from the real events. It was based on a real event, it was NOT a reenactment of it.
I could not find a trailer, but here is a clip. It's the part where it is supposed to be a French Documentary.
Written and Directed by Brian DePalma
With; Rob Devaney, Izzy Diaz, Patrick Carrol, Ty Jones and Kel O'Neil
Studio; Magnolia
This is a war filmed LOOSELY based on an actual incident in Iraq in which a 15 year old girl was raped and murdered. While watching it, I kind of liked it, but after reading some reviews about it, I saw that reviews were largely mixed and that the majority were negative. Now my main source is The Chicago Reader (See links on this page) and they liked it with reservations. They liked that the film tried to take on a serious and timely subject. I liked it for that reason. I felt it showed both sides of the issue. It showed the Iraqis being abused and hurt and the soldiers' stressful lives that quite often lead to cataclysmic consequences - sometimes accidental and sometimes (as in the case of the rape) not.
So there is a large controversy over this film. Some people say it showed the soldiers in a bad light. But I disagree with that because it did not show all the soldiers in a bad light. Several soldiers tried to stop it and one only relented because a gun was pointed at him by one of the crazy soldiers. Interestingly enough, one soldier was there to video tape it and was therefore an accomplice because he was standing there watching the whole thing. His excuse was that he was there to document it so that the "truth" could come out. This scene represents an interesting and thought provoking idea about the role of the media and their responsibilities. Should media be there as an observer or should media get involved when necessary? This is certainly not a new question, but one that takes on more significance with the war being a current phenomenon.
And then there are the two "monsters". The instigators of the crime. They are portrayed as hideous and unmerciful, but there are enough clues here to show that even they might be victims from the stresses of war. I mean one of them is so crazy that his speech is almost incomprehensible. he also shoots a pregnant woman and her family because their car would not slow down or stop at a checkpoint. The soldier did wait to shoot until the car crossed a certain line. Protocol had been followed, and no one could argue that the soldiers shouldn't protect themselves. Though his attitude about it after wards was racist and disturbing. So the question that comes to mind is was he feeling remorse or was he a monster? The fact that he defended his action, while at the same time slurring the Iraqi people tells me he might have been hiding some guilt under the bravado.
To me, it is also an interesting commentary on American culture. The fact that our culture could allow people like these two thugs to flourish. You know, the macho, kick-ass attitude that men seem to need to have these days or otherwise they will be seen as less than manly. The same culture that makes men take steroids so that they can be bigger and stronger and faster (incidentally, that is a title of a documentary about steroids which came out this year that I strongly recommend). So even these two monsters are shown in a light that is gray and murky. One can not draw draw conclusions about them that are black or white.
The structure of the film is interesting, but many critics did not like it. Maybe I'm too unsophisticated but I liked it. The whole movie was shot from the point of view of different media formats. It was not a straight narrative. A large portion of it was "shot" by a hand held video camera that the soldier had which I previously spoke about. But many different media were also used. Part of the story was told in a faux French documentary with subtitles, in French because the men spoke English of course. There were also news reels and of course the Internet. The criticism was that it was too much and too distracting. But I think that it is directly related to one of the films themes. That the media is implicit in all this and helps drive the events in the war. For instance, in the disturbing scene of the soldier being decapitated, well, that demonstrates the power of the media whether we like it or not.
Some critics also said the acting was awful. Well, again, maybe I'm not too sophisticated and I did not notice it. Now I was not overwhelmed by the acting, but neither did I notice really bad acting. Perhaps they were speaking of the crazy soldier who at times was incomprehensible, but if he was crazy, his incomprehensibility would have been appropriate. Or perhaps maybe some of the actors might have overacted to the horrific events in the film, but there was nothing obvious that I saw.
I did notice the violence before I read any reviews, and DePalma is know for violent films. There's a concept that when artists display violence to show how awful it is, it quite often ends up being just as bad as the real violence it is betraying because it titillates the audience. Sometimes I did think the violence was over the top.
Some critics, many of them your average citizens, thought that this movie should not be shown simply because the soldiers had enough problems and that it would lower moral. I disagree with that completely. The "truth" must be shown (even though remember that this is a fiction). Besides, not everyone in the film were monsters. Some were quite heroic because they were doing what they thought was right under very trying circumstances.
The last criticism against the movie was that it did not have the facts of the case straight. This might be a valid criticism if this was a documentary, but it was a fictional film. DePalma himself said that the lawyers told him that the film had to be different from the real events. It was based on a real event, it was NOT a reenactment of it.
I could not find a trailer, but here is a clip. It's the part where it is supposed to be a French Documentary.
The Brooklyn Follies ***
By Paul Auster
2006
Published by Henry Holt & Company
306 pages
Paul Auster is one of my favorite authors. This book is advertised as his most uplifting book. His other books do have darker subject matter. Not that this book doesn't have dark moments, it most definitely does, but everything turns out OK in the end. Every one is content. Not fabulously rich and famous - but content.
The narrator, Nathan Glass is a 60 year old divorced man, who has been diagnosed with a disease that would kill him in the year. So he moves to his childhood home of Brooklyn and decides to write all the little stories he could think of that happened in his life that, usually, humorously don't turn out quite right - hence Brooklyn FOLLIES. But then life starts to happen to him.
He meets up with his brilliant nephew, Tom, who is not doing as well as hoped and who is down in the dumps working in a used book store. His niece, is a wild and out of control girl who they are constantly worried about and they befriend the owner of the bookstore, Harry, who has a mysterious and shady past. Well Harry has a plan and the narrative takes off from there.
I really enjoyed this book, as I do all Auster's books. His characters are quirky and likable. And like I said previously, the story is pretty positive. I felt myself well up a couple of times, of course I am a sucker for long distance telephone commercials, so my welling up isn't saying much. But ti wasn't sappy. This book came at a good time in my life in which there is a lot of darkness in my life. I have been much more upbeat in the last couple of weeks (though I do have a tendency to enjoy wallowing in my misery). It helped me get to the point where I am ready to continue with my life.
So that last question I need to answer for myself is why is it not a 4 star book - A masterpiece. I am always a little suspicious of literature that is too easy or too light. I am not suggesting that this is a light book, but it is compared to Auster's other work.
2006
Published by Henry Holt & Company
306 pages
Paul Auster is one of my favorite authors. This book is advertised as his most uplifting book. His other books do have darker subject matter. Not that this book doesn't have dark moments, it most definitely does, but everything turns out OK in the end. Every one is content. Not fabulously rich and famous - but content.
The narrator, Nathan Glass is a 60 year old divorced man, who has been diagnosed with a disease that would kill him in the year. So he moves to his childhood home of Brooklyn and decides to write all the little stories he could think of that happened in his life that, usually, humorously don't turn out quite right - hence Brooklyn FOLLIES. But then life starts to happen to him.
He meets up with his brilliant nephew, Tom, who is not doing as well as hoped and who is down in the dumps working in a used book store. His niece, is a wild and out of control girl who they are constantly worried about and they befriend the owner of the bookstore, Harry, who has a mysterious and shady past. Well Harry has a plan and the narrative takes off from there.
I really enjoyed this book, as I do all Auster's books. His characters are quirky and likable. And like I said previously, the story is pretty positive. I felt myself well up a couple of times, of course I am a sucker for long distance telephone commercials, so my welling up isn't saying much. But ti wasn't sappy. This book came at a good time in my life in which there is a lot of darkness in my life. I have been much more upbeat in the last couple of weeks (though I do have a tendency to enjoy wallowing in my misery). It helped me get to the point where I am ready to continue with my life.
So that last question I need to answer for myself is why is it not a 4 star book - A masterpiece. I am always a little suspicious of literature that is too easy or too light. I am not suggesting that this is a light book, but it is compared to Auster's other work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
