Directed by Katherine Bigelow.
Written by Katherine Bigelow and Eric Red.
With Adrian Pasdar, Jenny Wright, Lance Henriksen, Bill Paxton, Jenette Goldstein,
Tim Thomerson, Joshua John Miller and Marcie Leeds.
Released 1987.
Katherine Bigelow is the same director that did "The Hurt Locker" that was just released this year. She's well known for being one of the best directors of action films period! And she's a woman to boot. One critic, Mark Kermode of the BBC said (paraphrasing here) that she was the most macho film director of any macho film director.
This is, I believe, her first feature film and her cast is relatively unknown, though I believe the creepy Joshua Miller goes on to play other creepy kids in other films in the next few years.
The pros of this film are many. There are some great action sequences and beautiful photography. The characters are unique and interesting. Especially, the character of Jessie Hooker and Diamondback.
I thought the romantic leads of were a little wooden, but perhaps they were trying to show the awkwardness of meeting someone for the first time. Some of the attempts at being poetic fall a bit flat and the Tangerine Dream soundtrack goes on a little too long, though did provide a pulsing feeling through some of the scenes and was especially appropriate for the scene in which the girl, Mae played by Wright, allows Caleb to drink the blood from her own arm.
So the film goes like this. Caleb, played by Pasdar, sees a cute young blond thing and goes over and flirts with her. He doesn't know it, but she's a vampire. In the course of their flirtation, she says some pretty silly stuff about "listening to the night" and other enigmatic sayings which were supposed to be profound but were really kind of silly. She bites him, and turns him into a vampire. She let's him go so that she can retire before the day begins. Her gang/family drive by to pick him up as he tries to walk back to his ranch (did I mention that this is a western styled movie) stumbling and smouldering from the rise of the new day's sun. Mae's family it a motley, punk group of vampires who want to get kill Caleb right off until Mae tells them that Caleb has been "turned". They back off, agreeing to give him time to prove that he can be one of them. Meaning he has to make a kill on his own.
Well, Caleb doesn't seem to have the heart to be a cold blooded murderer and he lets some opportunities escape. Mean while, he feeds off his girlfriend for sustenance. There is one scene where he is sucking the blood from her arm and they are sitting right next to an oil rig that is pumping. If this group is his new family, then Mae plays a maternal role in her nurturing of Caleb.
In one of the best set pieces of the film, the group goes to a dive of a country bar and raise havoc. They pretty much massacre the people in the bar to the soundtrack of Cramp's version of Fever. They save one victim for Caleb, who ultimately lets him escape.
This proves to have consequences because the police find them the next day in their hide out. Here is another one of the best scenes. As the police shoot holes through the shack walls, rays of burning light pierce the darkness of the interior. (Sun light burns the vampires) After many holes are shot in the wall of the shack, there is this kind of kaleidoscope effect and its simply beautiful.
They escape and are on the run. Caleb has bought some time since he was instrumental in their escape. One of the vampires runs into the little sister of Caleb and of course wants her. Complications ensue.
I loved this movie when it first came out. It was the era of punk rock, and this was a very punky film. The passage of time has had some negative effects, but there is no doubting Bigelow's ability to shoot action sequences and to tell unique and interesting tales.
Here's the trailer.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Saturday, October 3, 2009
The Death of Bunny Munroe ***
By Nick Cave.
Published by Faber & Faber Inc.
An affiliate of Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Copyright 2009.
Originally published by Text Publishing Company, Australia.
278 pages.
This is Nick Cave's second novel. The last one he did, "And the Ass saw the Angel", was written over 20 years ago. For the unitiated, cave is foremost a musician, but he has also written film scores and has acted and written films also. One great film he wrote was the Australian western, "The Proposition".
The first thing that should be said and has to be said is this is no "And the Ass Saw The Angel". Comparisons have to be made. That book was epic, grand, biblical and a minor masterpiece. This book is much more personal and simpler and probably not as good.
It focuses on father and playboy Bunny Munroe. Bunny Munroe is a traveling salesman and a cocksman. He is so obsessed with sex that he really can't help himself, even though it's killing his marraige and he really does love his wife. In fact his wife is so unhappy, she commits suicide.
This leaves Bunny distraught and on a self-destructive bent, though one could argue that he was already self-destructive before the death of his wife. It also leaves him and his son haunted. They think that they can see her or can feel her presence. In Bunny, this haunting intensifies the guilt he feels. In his son, this haunting brings the boy comfort.
So he has his boy in tow, and he continues selling beauty products while leaving the boy in the car to wait out Bunny's encounters.
The title tells us that Bunny is to die in this book, so saying so is no spoiler. But it seems that Bunny is dying a little bit as the story continues. Like in Jim Jarmusch's film "Dead Man", he's dead even before he actually dies. It's the journey he takes towards his eviction from this mortal coil.
The death scene is particularly well written. In it, all the women he had ever known are gathered and SEEM to be on the verge of forgiving him... In this scene he takes a psychdelic trip to his end. I'm having trouble remembering the details as I had read this book about 2 weeks ago, but I do remember it being particularly moving.
In some ways I think the story is autobiographical. Cave has written many songs about love which have a slight yet clear eroticism in them. I can't help from feeling that many of thoughts that Bunny thinks are quite similar to Cave's way of thinking. That he's constantly thinking about sex. I mean we're talking about the guy who dated Kylie Minogue, who by the way is brought up in the book as a fantasy figure along with Avril Lavigne.
Also, he paints a portrait of a father and son relationship, and no matter how screwed up the father is, the son still loves and admires his father. Cave, leading the life of a rock musician, perhaps has some guilt towards his sons and their relationships. The son's admiration for his dad, is perhaps what Cave is wishing for in his own relationships.
This is the weirdest thing, a trailer for a book. Weird but here it is.
And here is an excerpt read by the man himself.
Published by Faber & Faber Inc.
An affiliate of Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Copyright 2009.
Originally published by Text Publishing Company, Australia.
278 pages.
This is Nick Cave's second novel. The last one he did, "And the Ass saw the Angel", was written over 20 years ago. For the unitiated, cave is foremost a musician, but he has also written film scores and has acted and written films also. One great film he wrote was the Australian western, "The Proposition".
The first thing that should be said and has to be said is this is no "And the Ass Saw The Angel". Comparisons have to be made. That book was epic, grand, biblical and a minor masterpiece. This book is much more personal and simpler and probably not as good.
It focuses on father and playboy Bunny Munroe. Bunny Munroe is a traveling salesman and a cocksman. He is so obsessed with sex that he really can't help himself, even though it's killing his marraige and he really does love his wife. In fact his wife is so unhappy, she commits suicide.
This leaves Bunny distraught and on a self-destructive bent, though one could argue that he was already self-destructive before the death of his wife. It also leaves him and his son haunted. They think that they can see her or can feel her presence. In Bunny, this haunting intensifies the guilt he feels. In his son, this haunting brings the boy comfort.
So he has his boy in tow, and he continues selling beauty products while leaving the boy in the car to wait out Bunny's encounters.
The title tells us that Bunny is to die in this book, so saying so is no spoiler. But it seems that Bunny is dying a little bit as the story continues. Like in Jim Jarmusch's film "Dead Man", he's dead even before he actually dies. It's the journey he takes towards his eviction from this mortal coil.
The death scene is particularly well written. In it, all the women he had ever known are gathered and SEEM to be on the verge of forgiving him... In this scene he takes a psychdelic trip to his end. I'm having trouble remembering the details as I had read this book about 2 weeks ago, but I do remember it being particularly moving.
In some ways I think the story is autobiographical. Cave has written many songs about love which have a slight yet clear eroticism in them. I can't help from feeling that many of thoughts that Bunny thinks are quite similar to Cave's way of thinking. That he's constantly thinking about sex. I mean we're talking about the guy who dated Kylie Minogue, who by the way is brought up in the book as a fantasy figure along with Avril Lavigne.
Also, he paints a portrait of a father and son relationship, and no matter how screwed up the father is, the son still loves and admires his father. Cave, leading the life of a rock musician, perhaps has some guilt towards his sons and their relationships. The son's admiration for his dad, is perhaps what Cave is wishing for in his own relationships.
This is the weirdest thing, a trailer for a book. Weird but here it is.
And here is an excerpt read by the man himself.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Up **1/2
Directed by Pete Docter & Bob Peterson.
Screen Play by Pete Docter & Bob Peterson.
Voices by Edward ASner, Christopopher Plumer, Jordan Nagai, Bob Peterson, Delroy Lindo, Jerome Ranft, John Ratzenberger and David Kaye.
Released 2009.
Seen in theater.
Yet another film from Pixar studios. There are some things that I really like about this film, but some things that bug me too.
It starts off with a wonderful "news reel" animated in black and white with film specks and all. It describes the travails of world adventurer Charles Muntz. Then there's a montage of the lead character, Carl Fredrickson, growing up, starting from when he was a toddler and meeting his future wife-to-be, Ellie. As very young children, they connect because they are big fans of the f0re mentioned adventurer Muntz. While this scene is of course animated, it is completely charming and has the feel of early 20th century America.
The couple grow up and eventually become married and it seems they have the perfect marriage. Again, a very heartwarming scene. Unreal, because there is no such thing as the harmonious marriage they have, but it makes one yearn to fall in love again and dream.
As their marriage matures, they both have the adventurers dream of going to and living in a paradise located in South America. But the dream never happens because life takes over, yet they continue happily along in their marriage. They try to have a baby but lose it and grow old together childless. Eventually, the wife dies and so does the dream.
When the old man, Carl, is about to be evicted he has a plan. He ties 1000's of balloons to his house and decides to follow his dream by flying his house to South America and escape eviction. What he doesn't realize is that there is a young, fairly stupid boy scout in his basement that got caught up in the lift off of his house. Eventually they land in their paradise and an adventure ensues.
The balloons really bothered me. I was not able to suspend belief, though I knew that was necessary. Not that the balloons were able to lift a whole house, but that the old man and the kid were able to drag the house along like it was a light as a balloon it's self. Here there is this octogenarian and a young boy with ropes tied around their waists dragging around hundreds of tons of house.
Another thing that bothered me was the last 20% of the film where it becomes an action packed rock 'em, sock 'em blockbuster adventure. First of all, this is too predictable, though it was well put together and choreographed as any other action scene I have seen. I doubt there is any other way a Pixar movie can end, so I guess I'm asking too much when I say I would like to see something a little different for a change.
Also, it bothered me that this ancient guy was involved in such an action packed adventure. Sure the film makers referenced one time during the fighting sequence that he was old (his adversary was also very old and it was kind of a joke) but in real life, the man would have had a heart attack. I know, suspension of belief etc, but sometimes films ask too much of their audience.
The dialogue was great and the characters were wonderful. Some of my favorite characters were the couple as youths, the gigantic bird and the young and dumb scout that came along for the ride.
If I had a rating scale for kid's movies, this would probably get a higher rating, like 3 or 3 1/2 stars. It is a really good film, but I don't use such a system. It must be rare, but I believe it is possible for a children's/family film to transcend it's genre.
Couldn't really find a trailer per se, but I found this, which concentrates on my favorite character the bird Kevin.
Screen Play by Pete Docter & Bob Peterson.
Voices by Edward ASner, Christopopher Plumer, Jordan Nagai, Bob Peterson, Delroy Lindo, Jerome Ranft, John Ratzenberger and David Kaye.
Released 2009.
Seen in theater.
Yet another film from Pixar studios. There are some things that I really like about this film, but some things that bug me too.
It starts off with a wonderful "news reel" animated in black and white with film specks and all. It describes the travails of world adventurer Charles Muntz. Then there's a montage of the lead character, Carl Fredrickson, growing up, starting from when he was a toddler and meeting his future wife-to-be, Ellie. As very young children, they connect because they are big fans of the f0re mentioned adventurer Muntz. While this scene is of course animated, it is completely charming and has the feel of early 20th century America.
The couple grow up and eventually become married and it seems they have the perfect marriage. Again, a very heartwarming scene. Unreal, because there is no such thing as the harmonious marriage they have, but it makes one yearn to fall in love again and dream.
As their marriage matures, they both have the adventurers dream of going to and living in a paradise located in South America. But the dream never happens because life takes over, yet they continue happily along in their marriage. They try to have a baby but lose it and grow old together childless. Eventually, the wife dies and so does the dream.
When the old man, Carl, is about to be evicted he has a plan. He ties 1000's of balloons to his house and decides to follow his dream by flying his house to South America and escape eviction. What he doesn't realize is that there is a young, fairly stupid boy scout in his basement that got caught up in the lift off of his house. Eventually they land in their paradise and an adventure ensues.
The balloons really bothered me. I was not able to suspend belief, though I knew that was necessary. Not that the balloons were able to lift a whole house, but that the old man and the kid were able to drag the house along like it was a light as a balloon it's self. Here there is this octogenarian and a young boy with ropes tied around their waists dragging around hundreds of tons of house.
Another thing that bothered me was the last 20% of the film where it becomes an action packed rock 'em, sock 'em blockbuster adventure. First of all, this is too predictable, though it was well put together and choreographed as any other action scene I have seen. I doubt there is any other way a Pixar movie can end, so I guess I'm asking too much when I say I would like to see something a little different for a change.
Also, it bothered me that this ancient guy was involved in such an action packed adventure. Sure the film makers referenced one time during the fighting sequence that he was old (his adversary was also very old and it was kind of a joke) but in real life, the man would have had a heart attack. I know, suspension of belief etc, but sometimes films ask too much of their audience.
The dialogue was great and the characters were wonderful. Some of my favorite characters were the couple as youths, the gigantic bird and the young and dumb scout that came along for the ride.
If I had a rating scale for kid's movies, this would probably get a higher rating, like 3 or 3 1/2 stars. It is a really good film, but I don't use such a system. It must be rare, but I believe it is possible for a children's/family film to transcend it's genre.
Couldn't really find a trailer per se, but I found this, which concentrates on my favorite character the bird Kevin.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Never a City So Real: A Walk in Chicago (Crown Journey) **1/2
By Alex Kotlowitz.
Published by Crown Journeys, Crown Publishers, a division of Random House, Inc.
Copyright 2004.
156 pages (est.)
This is a very enjoyable and quick read. Kotlowitz focuses on some of the lower class inhabitants and areas of Chicago. He writes about the stories of peoples lives and the neighborhoods they live in. The stories are very engaging. He tries to show how tough Chicago is and that is what makes Chicago what it is. What I mean to say is that he is trying to identify Chicago's personality and prove his thesis on how Chicago is a singular and unique city which no city can compare to. Of course he discusses the concepts of neighborhoods, which is integral to any conversation about Chicago. Each chapter takes place in a particular neighborhood. Those neighborhoods are (if memory serves me correctly - again I am behind on the blog so time has passed since I read it) the West Side, Bridgeport, Cicero and Lakeview for starters.
He seems to take pride in the toughness of the city and comes off as wanting to be as tough as those people he interviews. In one section of the book, he describes when he was with some good friends, two tough African American women social workers, and there was gun fire right out side of the store front. So he comes off as a tough guy (on the cover of his book he looks nerdy) because he is such close friends with the African American women, and because he was present at a shooting. he comes off as a little of a wannabe.
The only other complaint I have is that the book should have been expansive. It should have covered more neighborhoods. It seems a little non-representational. And of course, it was such an invigorating read, I would have loved to read some more if it had been available.
here's an interview with Kolowitz. Does not really reveal much abou thim or the book, so take it for waht it's worth.
Published by Crown Journeys, Crown Publishers, a division of Random House, Inc.
Copyright 2004.
156 pages (est.)
This is a very enjoyable and quick read. Kotlowitz focuses on some of the lower class inhabitants and areas of Chicago. He writes about the stories of peoples lives and the neighborhoods they live in. The stories are very engaging. He tries to show how tough Chicago is and that is what makes Chicago what it is. What I mean to say is that he is trying to identify Chicago's personality and prove his thesis on how Chicago is a singular and unique city which no city can compare to. Of course he discusses the concepts of neighborhoods, which is integral to any conversation about Chicago. Each chapter takes place in a particular neighborhood. Those neighborhoods are (if memory serves me correctly - again I am behind on the blog so time has passed since I read it) the West Side, Bridgeport, Cicero and Lakeview for starters.
He seems to take pride in the toughness of the city and comes off as wanting to be as tough as those people he interviews. In one section of the book, he describes when he was with some good friends, two tough African American women social workers, and there was gun fire right out side of the store front. So he comes off as a tough guy (on the cover of his book he looks nerdy) because he is such close friends with the African American women, and because he was present at a shooting. he comes off as a little of a wannabe.
The only other complaint I have is that the book should have been expansive. It should have covered more neighborhoods. It seems a little non-representational. And of course, it was such an invigorating read, I would have loved to read some more if it had been available.
here's an interview with Kolowitz. Does not really reveal much abou thim or the book, so take it for waht it's worth.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Old Joy ***
Directed by Kelly Reichardt.
Written by Jonathan Raymond & Kelly Reichardt.
With Daniel London, Will Oldham, Tanya Smith and Robin Rosenberg.
Released 2006. Seen on DVD.
There's several connecting reasons that made me want to watch this film. First off, Will Oldham is in it. He's an indie musician who is also an actor though I had never seen him act before this film. And then, I had seen another film, Lucy and Wendy, by the same director just written about here in this blog about a month ago. And I really enjoyed that film!
The film is a little slower then her previous film. Basically, it's a slice of life film and the story is about two old friends who reunite and decide to go to a hot springs site and camp out over night. There's a lot of talking. The two friends are quite different, though they clearly partied together in their hey day. One friend, Mark, played by London is a more straight and narrow guy liberal new ager who is married and expecting his first baby. The other friend, Kurt, played by Oldham, is a more relaxed roaming type guy who can't settle down and has seen his share of hard times. There's a tension between the two, but they love each other. Nothing bad happens, but by the end of the trip, one wonders if they will ever see each other again. Kurt at the end of the film, is seen lonely wandering about the city of Portland Oregon, where the film takes place.
Some of the scenery and camera work is beautiful. Obviously the scenes in the the mountains and nature are beautiful and lush, but the scenes in the city are also very nicely shot with the buildings in the broken down part of town saturated with color.
And while all they do is talk to each other, the tension is palpable. The actors are good at showing the strain in their relationship. It's very well acted and Oldham lives up to his reputation. They do tend to wax philosophical, while not focusing an any one theme which is entertaining. If there is a theme, it is about people who live in the lower strata of the social hierarchy. In the beginning of the film, there is overheard a radio talk show in which politics is talked about (this is during the end of Bush's first term, when he is seeking re-election) and there is some commentary on the treatment of the working class etc. This theme is explored to its fullest in Reichardt's later and most recent film Wendy and Lucy.
Reichardt has been stringing together some pretty good independent films. I look forward to her next one.
Oh Yeah, it has a great soundtrack by Yo La Tengo. Listen to it again in the trailer.
Written by Jonathan Raymond & Kelly Reichardt.
With Daniel London, Will Oldham, Tanya Smith and Robin Rosenberg.
Released 2006. Seen on DVD.
There's several connecting reasons that made me want to watch this film. First off, Will Oldham is in it. He's an indie musician who is also an actor though I had never seen him act before this film. And then, I had seen another film, Lucy and Wendy, by the same director just written about here in this blog about a month ago. And I really enjoyed that film!
The film is a little slower then her previous film. Basically, it's a slice of life film and the story is about two old friends who reunite and decide to go to a hot springs site and camp out over night. There's a lot of talking. The two friends are quite different, though they clearly partied together in their hey day. One friend, Mark, played by London is a more straight and narrow guy liberal new ager who is married and expecting his first baby. The other friend, Kurt, played by Oldham, is a more relaxed roaming type guy who can't settle down and has seen his share of hard times. There's a tension between the two, but they love each other. Nothing bad happens, but by the end of the trip, one wonders if they will ever see each other again. Kurt at the end of the film, is seen lonely wandering about the city of Portland Oregon, where the film takes place.
Some of the scenery and camera work is beautiful. Obviously the scenes in the the mountains and nature are beautiful and lush, but the scenes in the city are also very nicely shot with the buildings in the broken down part of town saturated with color.
And while all they do is talk to each other, the tension is palpable. The actors are good at showing the strain in their relationship. It's very well acted and Oldham lives up to his reputation. They do tend to wax philosophical, while not focusing an any one theme which is entertaining. If there is a theme, it is about people who live in the lower strata of the social hierarchy. In the beginning of the film, there is overheard a radio talk show in which politics is talked about (this is during the end of Bush's first term, when he is seeking re-election) and there is some commentary on the treatment of the working class etc. This theme is explored to its fullest in Reichardt's later and most recent film Wendy and Lucy.
Reichardt has been stringing together some pretty good independent films. I look forward to her next one.
Oh Yeah, it has a great soundtrack by Yo La Tengo. Listen to it again in the trailer.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Brick Lane **1/2
By Monica Ali.
Published in England by Doubleday 2003.
This Edition: Scribner 2003.
369 pages.
Once in a while I like to look at what other people say about a book, so I went on Amazon and looked at some readers' reviews. Most people loved this book, which is not surprising since it won several awards, including Barnes & Noble's Discovery award, which is where I had heard of it first. So I went to the readers' comments who gave the book a bad review. The trend was that it was slow moving and too long (valid). Some said that it was too soapy (valid) and some said that the depictions of Bengladesh were inaccurate (wouldn't know if that was valid or not since I have never been there). While I agree with some of these criticisms, over all, I liked the book.
This is a story about a young girl, who was saved by 'fate' from sure death at infancy. Fate, or God's will, is what drives her philosophy her whole life, though she does occasionally fight againts fate. She has an arranged marriage to a middle-aged, overweight man in England who lives in the Brick Lane neighborhood, a poor neighborhood with a variety of immigrants. Meanwhile her older sister has run off, scandalized with a man and moves to a Bengaldeshi city. Her life, which is filled with a variety of failures and tragedies, is told to us by a series of letters that she sends to her sister in England.
The young girl, Nanzeen, doesn't really love her husband, Chanu, though he treats her relatively well, which she mentions often. T o make money, she starts a sewing business and meets a young man who brings her orders to work on. They have an affair and she falls in love for the first time. In the mean time, she has become more appreciative and affectionate for her husband. So she's torn. Her oldest daughter (some years have passed at the point of the affair) is rebelious and bitter. And she owes her neighbor money for the purchase of the sewing machine, but she can never seem to pay the debt off, since the interest is continously accruing.
While Nanzeen seems to have found herself and learned to be independent by the end of this book. I really feel sorry for her husband who is painted as arrogant, repulsive and a bit foolish, though he is an educated man. After quitting his 'real' job, because he gets passed over for the promotion everytime, he takes a series of dead end jobs until he finally settles for a taxi job and becomes at peace with him self just to go out and bring home money. He truly loves Nanzeen, after some time, and seems to understand that he has lost her with the gaining of her independence, though he apparently does not know about the affair.
Overall, I liked the characters, and the narrative went to some interesting places.
Here's a trailer of the movie.
Published in England by Doubleday 2003.
This Edition: Scribner 2003.
369 pages.
Once in a while I like to look at what other people say about a book, so I went on Amazon and looked at some readers' reviews. Most people loved this book, which is not surprising since it won several awards, including Barnes & Noble's Discovery award, which is where I had heard of it first. So I went to the readers' comments who gave the book a bad review. The trend was that it was slow moving and too long (valid). Some said that it was too soapy (valid) and some said that the depictions of Bengladesh were inaccurate (wouldn't know if that was valid or not since I have never been there). While I agree with some of these criticisms, over all, I liked the book.
This is a story about a young girl, who was saved by 'fate' from sure death at infancy. Fate, or God's will, is what drives her philosophy her whole life, though she does occasionally fight againts fate. She has an arranged marriage to a middle-aged, overweight man in England who lives in the Brick Lane neighborhood, a poor neighborhood with a variety of immigrants. Meanwhile her older sister has run off, scandalized with a man and moves to a Bengaldeshi city. Her life, which is filled with a variety of failures and tragedies, is told to us by a series of letters that she sends to her sister in England.
The young girl, Nanzeen, doesn't really love her husband, Chanu, though he treats her relatively well, which she mentions often. T o make money, she starts a sewing business and meets a young man who brings her orders to work on. They have an affair and she falls in love for the first time. In the mean time, she has become more appreciative and affectionate for her husband. So she's torn. Her oldest daughter (some years have passed at the point of the affair) is rebelious and bitter. And she owes her neighbor money for the purchase of the sewing machine, but she can never seem to pay the debt off, since the interest is continously accruing.
While Nanzeen seems to have found herself and learned to be independent by the end of this book. I really feel sorry for her husband who is painted as arrogant, repulsive and a bit foolish, though he is an educated man. After quitting his 'real' job, because he gets passed over for the promotion everytime, he takes a series of dead end jobs until he finally settles for a taxi job and becomes at peace with him self just to go out and bring home money. He truly loves Nanzeen, after some time, and seems to understand that he has lost her with the gaining of her independence, though he apparently does not know about the affair.
Overall, I liked the characters, and the narrative went to some interesting places.
Here's a trailer of the movie.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Vertigo ***1/2
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock.
Released in 1958.
Written by Alec Coppel & Samuel Taylor.
With James Stewart, Kim Novak, Barbara Bel Geddes, Tom Helmore.
Seen in Theater.
School has started and I'm way behind in blogging. Must..... keep..... short! This is two films in one. It starts off as a kind of ghost/detective story and turns into a psychodrama for the last fourth of the film. The latter part of the film, I thought, was more interesting.
An idle detective with vertigo is grounded from duty to to an accident in which his vertigo got in the way of saving some one's life. He is asked by an old friend to watch his wife. His friend is convinced that his wife is possessed. This is the slower part of the movie, since we are privy to the slow and monotonous life of a detective on watch. As he follows her around, he begins to have feelings for her as she is of course, in the Hitchcock tradition, beautiful. He watches her jump into a river and proceeds to save her. From there, he falls in love and she (Novak) seems to return his affections. They proceed together to an old mission in the country that has a large tower and Madeleine (Novak) has an "episode" of other worldliness and runs up the tower in a panic. Stewart's character (the detective - "Scottie") runs after her, but of course since he has vertigo, he can't make it up to the top and he hears her scream and sees her falling body from the window.
At this point in the film, there is a beautiful shot of the church from a bird's eye view in which the audience can see the woman laying on the roof, the police hurrying in one side of the mission, while Stewart staggers out the other side of the mission. All in one shot. If I recall, there was many beautiful shots but after two weeks, I can't remember any of them - except for that scene. it was simply stunning! I should start taking notes!
So now the second half of the film begins. Stewart has a nervous breakdown and is institutionalized. When he gets out, every one and every thing he sees reminds him of her. One day he sees a woman that reminds him so much of her that he pursues her. He bullies and coerces her to go out with him. When she does, he tries to turn the new girl into Madeleine, his love. Stewart starts to get controlling and manipulative. He's down right mean. Something you don't see often with him except for maybe in his roles in Anthony Mann's westerns. Meanwhile Novak's character (she plays both roles - so she really DOES look like his dead lover) is starting to get scared and nervous. It turns into this incredibly uncomfortable narrative that makes a person squirm in their seat.
There's a twist in the film, but I won't divulge it here.
Released in 1958.
Written by Alec Coppel & Samuel Taylor.
With James Stewart, Kim Novak, Barbara Bel Geddes, Tom Helmore.
Seen in Theater.
School has started and I'm way behind in blogging. Must..... keep..... short! This is two films in one. It starts off as a kind of ghost/detective story and turns into a psychodrama for the last fourth of the film. The latter part of the film, I thought, was more interesting.
An idle detective with vertigo is grounded from duty to to an accident in which his vertigo got in the way of saving some one's life. He is asked by an old friend to watch his wife. His friend is convinced that his wife is possessed. This is the slower part of the movie, since we are privy to the slow and monotonous life of a detective on watch. As he follows her around, he begins to have feelings for her as she is of course, in the Hitchcock tradition, beautiful. He watches her jump into a river and proceeds to save her. From there, he falls in love and she (Novak) seems to return his affections. They proceed together to an old mission in the country that has a large tower and Madeleine (Novak) has an "episode" of other worldliness and runs up the tower in a panic. Stewart's character (the detective - "Scottie") runs after her, but of course since he has vertigo, he can't make it up to the top and he hears her scream and sees her falling body from the window.
At this point in the film, there is a beautiful shot of the church from a bird's eye view in which the audience can see the woman laying on the roof, the police hurrying in one side of the mission, while Stewart staggers out the other side of the mission. All in one shot. If I recall, there was many beautiful shots but after two weeks, I can't remember any of them - except for that scene. it was simply stunning! I should start taking notes!
So now the second half of the film begins. Stewart has a nervous breakdown and is institutionalized. When he gets out, every one and every thing he sees reminds him of her. One day he sees a woman that reminds him so much of her that he pursues her. He bullies and coerces her to go out with him. When she does, he tries to turn the new girl into Madeleine, his love. Stewart starts to get controlling and manipulative. He's down right mean. Something you don't see often with him except for maybe in his roles in Anthony Mann's westerns. Meanwhile Novak's character (she plays both roles - so she really DOES look like his dead lover) is starting to get scared and nervous. It turns into this incredibly uncomfortable narrative that makes a person squirm in their seat.
There's a twist in the film, but I won't divulge it here.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About his Father **
Directed and written by Kurt Kuenne.
Released 2008?
Seen on DVD.
This movie starts off as a letter to the son of a man (Dr. Andrew Bagby) who was murdered, allegedly, by his crazy ex-girlfriend (Dr. Shirley Turner). The director of the film is a close and personal friend of the victim, so he wanted something to give to his friend's son, so that the boy could know who his father was. He drives cross country, interviewing and filming everyone who was friends or knew Bagby. Until he gets to New Foundland, Canada, the eastern most point of the North American continent. That's where the ex-girlfriend, also the mother of the Bagby's son has fled to. The grandparents (David and Kathleen Bagby) of the Andrew's son (Zachary Andrew Turner) go to New Foundland to facilitate the extradition of her to the states so that she can stand trial for the murder of their son. Though the evidence is convincing, the court releases her on bail several times and allows her to live freely while the legal process continues. This means, that the grandparents, who want to be with the grandchild, have to communicate and play nice to the woman who probably murdered their son. And this stretches out seemingly forever.
I'm going to leave the rest unstated as to not give away the spoiler, but the ending of the movie is pretty astonishing. This is why everyone should watch the film. It is an incredible story! Though I only give the film 2 stars. That's because as a movie, I think it's pretty flawed.
First is the fact of the lack of objectivity. Now of course this film was not intended to be a feature release for the theaters. It was supposed to be a love letter or a valentine to the victim's son - a memorial. So it makes sense that it's not an objective film. Still, I didn't care for the part when Dr. Turner or her lawyer was speaking. It was almost juvenile. They showed a still image of that person and then did a "Clutch Cargo" thing where the mouth moves while the rest of the image doesn't. And the narrator (the director?) would use a mocking voice as the still photos spoke those words. And then it was repeated several times.
And that's my other complaint with the film. There is so much repetition. The same things are repeated over and over as well as some of the scenes. I guess the film maker was trying to emphasis a point in the way directors emphasize points with jump cuts. Jump cuts are repetitions of the same action 2 or three times in a row. The reason is for emphasis. But this is different I believe. Keuune use this technique way too frequently. And the repetitions are not usually all in one place. The repetitions happen through out the whole film.
And then there's the politics. After the events that take place unfold, the grandparents decide that they want to be activists. Specifically they want to see the release on bail laws change so that it is not so easy for a possibly dangerous person to be walking on the street. At face value, this seems reasonable. But I worry, that a reformed law could lead to less civil rights for the prosecuted. What if that person was innocent. Remember, during the setting of bail, they have not proven that the person is guilty of the charge. Still, it's clear that Dr. Turner was allowed out too easily. I suspect that the laws are good enough as they are, but perhaps enforcement and interpretation of the laws are where the problems stem from. Add to the fact that this all takes place in Canada, I'm not really sure how the laws are the same or different than here in the states. Is the Bagby couple working on changing Canadian Law or U.S. law? That's not clear to me or I don't remember them mentioning it. And they even plug the grandfather's book.
And an interview with the director. Sorry about the repeating clips from the trailer.
Released 2008?
Seen on DVD.
This movie starts off as a letter to the son of a man (Dr. Andrew Bagby) who was murdered, allegedly, by his crazy ex-girlfriend (Dr. Shirley Turner). The director of the film is a close and personal friend of the victim, so he wanted something to give to his friend's son, so that the boy could know who his father was. He drives cross country, interviewing and filming everyone who was friends or knew Bagby. Until he gets to New Foundland, Canada, the eastern most point of the North American continent. That's where the ex-girlfriend, also the mother of the Bagby's son has fled to. The grandparents (David and Kathleen Bagby) of the Andrew's son (Zachary Andrew Turner) go to New Foundland to facilitate the extradition of her to the states so that she can stand trial for the murder of their son. Though the evidence is convincing, the court releases her on bail several times and allows her to live freely while the legal process continues. This means, that the grandparents, who want to be with the grandchild, have to communicate and play nice to the woman who probably murdered their son. And this stretches out seemingly forever.
I'm going to leave the rest unstated as to not give away the spoiler, but the ending of the movie is pretty astonishing. This is why everyone should watch the film. It is an incredible story! Though I only give the film 2 stars. That's because as a movie, I think it's pretty flawed.
First is the fact of the lack of objectivity. Now of course this film was not intended to be a feature release for the theaters. It was supposed to be a love letter or a valentine to the victim's son - a memorial. So it makes sense that it's not an objective film. Still, I didn't care for the part when Dr. Turner or her lawyer was speaking. It was almost juvenile. They showed a still image of that person and then did a "Clutch Cargo" thing where the mouth moves while the rest of the image doesn't. And the narrator (the director?) would use a mocking voice as the still photos spoke those words. And then it was repeated several times.
And that's my other complaint with the film. There is so much repetition. The same things are repeated over and over as well as some of the scenes. I guess the film maker was trying to emphasis a point in the way directors emphasize points with jump cuts. Jump cuts are repetitions of the same action 2 or three times in a row. The reason is for emphasis. But this is different I believe. Keuune use this technique way too frequently. And the repetitions are not usually all in one place. The repetitions happen through out the whole film.
And then there's the politics. After the events that take place unfold, the grandparents decide that they want to be activists. Specifically they want to see the release on bail laws change so that it is not so easy for a possibly dangerous person to be walking on the street. At face value, this seems reasonable. But I worry, that a reformed law could lead to less civil rights for the prosecuted. What if that person was innocent. Remember, during the setting of bail, they have not proven that the person is guilty of the charge. Still, it's clear that Dr. Turner was allowed out too easily. I suspect that the laws are good enough as they are, but perhaps enforcement and interpretation of the laws are where the problems stem from. Add to the fact that this all takes place in Canada, I'm not really sure how the laws are the same or different than here in the states. Is the Bagby couple working on changing Canadian Law or U.S. law? That's not clear to me or I don't remember them mentioning it. And they even plug the grandfather's book.
And an interview with the director. Sorry about the repeating clips from the trailer.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Elephant Run **1/2
By Roland Smith.
Published 2007 Scholastic Inc. by arrangement with Hyperion Books for Children.
An imprint of Disney Children's Book Group.
318 pages.
It's kind of unfair to use the same rating scale for children's book as for adult books. If this were a book rated on say, a special scale for children's books, it would be at least rated 3 stars or more. Adult books are usually more complex and subtle and more profound. There might be a few children's book that that one could argue might garner a 4 star rating, but they are usually classics, and I would bet that part of their charm is the memory we have of them when we read them as children. Call me out on this, but I bet that after rereading some of these books as adults, we'd have to reassess our opinion of them if we judged them objectively (which is an impossibility).
The book claims to be a book for reluctant male readers. That's because it has action and adventure and all that. I would agree to a certain point. The beginning 20 - 25% might seem a little slow paced for a 'reluctant' reader, though certainly not for me, a patient and voracious reader. The book is set in war time Burma. Before the Japanese enter the book, there is lots of discussion about the Burmese culture and the training of animals. Fascinating for me, but I wonder if a 'reluctant' reader could get through this.
I've already given some plot points. Here is the summary. A young boy moves from London to live with his father during World War II. He moves there to escape the bombing of London, but soon learns that Burma has it's own set of wartime problems. The Japanese have come, some believe as liberators others as conquerors. Of course they proved themselves to worse than the English Imperialists.
The Young boy, Nick, is the son of the owner of a large tree plantation where they use elephants to help them with the harvesting of the trees. This is where the cultural lessons come. When the Japanese come, they take his father as a prisoner of war, and Nick stays at the plantations home as a servant. There is a deal made to help keep the prisoners compliant, but the Japanese re neg on that deal. After that is realized, Nick plans his escape with the help of an ancient, revered monk and the young daughter of one of the killed elephant trainers, who happened to be close to the father. After his escape, they plan to rescue the father which proves to be exceedingly difficult because he's an enemy and they are guarded and treated much worse than their Burmese counterparts. The Burmese are treated slightly better, but they have more freedoms.
One thing I liked about the book is that one of the Japanese soldiers is portrayed as a very humane, sympathetic character. In other words, not all the Japanese were monsters. That's an important concept I believe since the Japanese were known for their ruthlessness and ferocity. It makes them seem more human.
Published 2007 Scholastic Inc. by arrangement with Hyperion Books for Children.
An imprint of Disney Children's Book Group.
318 pages.
It's kind of unfair to use the same rating scale for children's book as for adult books. If this were a book rated on say, a special scale for children's books, it would be at least rated 3 stars or more. Adult books are usually more complex and subtle and more profound. There might be a few children's book that that one could argue might garner a 4 star rating, but they are usually classics, and I would bet that part of their charm is the memory we have of them when we read them as children. Call me out on this, but I bet that after rereading some of these books as adults, we'd have to reassess our opinion of them if we judged them objectively (which is an impossibility).
The book claims to be a book for reluctant male readers. That's because it has action and adventure and all that. I would agree to a certain point. The beginning 20 - 25% might seem a little slow paced for a 'reluctant' reader, though certainly not for me, a patient and voracious reader. The book is set in war time Burma. Before the Japanese enter the book, there is lots of discussion about the Burmese culture and the training of animals. Fascinating for me, but I wonder if a 'reluctant' reader could get through this.
I've already given some plot points. Here is the summary. A young boy moves from London to live with his father during World War II. He moves there to escape the bombing of London, but soon learns that Burma has it's own set of wartime problems. The Japanese have come, some believe as liberators others as conquerors. Of course they proved themselves to worse than the English Imperialists.
The Young boy, Nick, is the son of the owner of a large tree plantation where they use elephants to help them with the harvesting of the trees. This is where the cultural lessons come. When the Japanese come, they take his father as a prisoner of war, and Nick stays at the plantations home as a servant. There is a deal made to help keep the prisoners compliant, but the Japanese re neg on that deal. After that is realized, Nick plans his escape with the help of an ancient, revered monk and the young daughter of one of the killed elephant trainers, who happened to be close to the father. After his escape, they plan to rescue the father which proves to be exceedingly difficult because he's an enemy and they are guarded and treated much worse than their Burmese counterparts. The Burmese are treated slightly better, but they have more freedoms.
One thing I liked about the book is that one of the Japanese soldiers is portrayed as a very humane, sympathetic character. In other words, not all the Japanese were monsters. That's an important concept I believe since the Japanese were known for their ruthlessness and ferocity. It makes them seem more human.
Monday, August 24, 2009
North by Northwest ***
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock.
Written by Ernest Lehman.
Released in 1959.
With Cary Grant, Eva Marie Saint, James Mason, Jessie Royce Landis, Martin Landau and Edward Platt.
Seen in theater
This is a film that everyone knows about so what is there to say? It's a fun, well made romp through America. There are lots of famous scenes or set pieces. Remember the attack of the airplane in the middle of no where - Highway 41 about a hour and a half out of Chicago. Then there's the chase scene on Mount Rushmore. There's a scene in the United Nations also. All good fun.
So, an advertising exec gets kidnapped because he is mistaken for a government agent by some foreign spies. No one believes him after narrowly escaping with his life, and he is accused of a murder. So he sets out to vindicate himself on his own. And he runs into trouble as well as the beautiful Eve Kendall, who may or may not be trouble also. Telling any more that this would be spoiling the end of the movie, but there's lots of twists and turns. Too many twists and turns for my 8 year old, but Penelope, my 11 year old said she could follow it.
This film is just too light to consider it as a 4 star movie (a masterpiece), maybe a masterpiece of fun. Even Rear Window tries to have messages or food for thought though it too is a basic thriller also.
Written by Ernest Lehman.
Released in 1959.
With Cary Grant, Eva Marie Saint, James Mason, Jessie Royce Landis, Martin Landau and Edward Platt.
Seen in theater
This is a film that everyone knows about so what is there to say? It's a fun, well made romp through America. There are lots of famous scenes or set pieces. Remember the attack of the airplane in the middle of no where - Highway 41 about a hour and a half out of Chicago. Then there's the chase scene on Mount Rushmore. There's a scene in the United Nations also. All good fun.
So, an advertising exec gets kidnapped because he is mistaken for a government agent by some foreign spies. No one believes him after narrowly escaping with his life, and he is accused of a murder. So he sets out to vindicate himself on his own. And he runs into trouble as well as the beautiful Eve Kendall, who may or may not be trouble also. Telling any more that this would be spoiling the end of the movie, but there's lots of twists and turns. Too many twists and turns for my 8 year old, but Penelope, my 11 year old said she could follow it.
This film is just too light to consider it as a 4 star movie (a masterpiece), maybe a masterpiece of fun. Even Rear Window tries to have messages or food for thought though it too is a basic thriller also.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Wendy and Lucy ***1/2
Released 2008.
Directed by Kelly Reichardt.
Written by Jonathan Raymond.
With Michelle Williams, Will Oldham, John Robinson and John Breen.
Seen on DVD.
This is a very lovely film in its simplicity. The acting is restrained and subdued and the story is heart wrenching.
A young girl, Wendy (Williams) and her dog Lucy are travelling cross country from Hammond Indiana to Alaska to take advantage of some perceived lucrative work opportunities. It's implied that she is moving to better her life and not for adventure or short term, between semesters work. She's a girl on the margins of society, yet not completely down and out as she has a car and some cash to help her make it there. It's clear that she was not in good financial shape previous to the trip because in a desperate phone call to her sister and brother-in-law, they tell her that they can do nothing to help her and seem, especially her sister, unsympathetic. Her car breaks down in Portland Oregon and she finds herself stuck there for a while. When she goes to the store to pick up a few items, she attempts to shop lift some very minor items and is taken to the police station. Meanwhile her dog disappears and the rest of the film is about her search for her dog (Lucy) a la "The Bicycle Thief" and her attempts to get her car functioning. Like the neo-realism of the post war Italian films.
This film is a realistic portrayal of people on the edge of losing it all. It's easy to see how one can be homeless and destitute. We're all just a stone's throw away from poverty. Ok, those with less education anyway are much more susceptible to it. Even in today's economy, if a white class worker loses his job, he or she usually has something stowed away (excepting present company - If I were to lose my job, I might end up on the streets).
My eight year old daughter watched it with me (she's been mentioned before in other films I've discussed and is always an interesting measure of a film's quality) She "liked" it though she thought it was sad. I suspect she is struggled with the fact that she liked it at the same time as she was being made sad by it. It's also a testament to the simplicity of the story if she could follow and understand it well enough to appreciate it.
And here is an interview with the director and actor.
Directed by Kelly Reichardt.
Written by Jonathan Raymond.
With Michelle Williams, Will Oldham, John Robinson and John Breen.
Seen on DVD.
This is a very lovely film in its simplicity. The acting is restrained and subdued and the story is heart wrenching.
A young girl, Wendy (Williams) and her dog Lucy are travelling cross country from Hammond Indiana to Alaska to take advantage of some perceived lucrative work opportunities. It's implied that she is moving to better her life and not for adventure or short term, between semesters work. She's a girl on the margins of society, yet not completely down and out as she has a car and some cash to help her make it there. It's clear that she was not in good financial shape previous to the trip because in a desperate phone call to her sister and brother-in-law, they tell her that they can do nothing to help her and seem, especially her sister, unsympathetic. Her car breaks down in Portland Oregon and she finds herself stuck there for a while. When she goes to the store to pick up a few items, she attempts to shop lift some very minor items and is taken to the police station. Meanwhile her dog disappears and the rest of the film is about her search for her dog (Lucy) a la "The Bicycle Thief" and her attempts to get her car functioning. Like the neo-realism of the post war Italian films.
This film is a realistic portrayal of people on the edge of losing it all. It's easy to see how one can be homeless and destitute. We're all just a stone's throw away from poverty. Ok, those with less education anyway are much more susceptible to it. Even in today's economy, if a white class worker loses his job, he or she usually has something stowed away (excepting present company - If I were to lose my job, I might end up on the streets).
My eight year old daughter watched it with me (she's been mentioned before in other films I've discussed and is always an interesting measure of a film's quality) She "liked" it though she thought it was sad. I suspect she is struggled with the fact that she liked it at the same time as she was being made sad by it. It's also a testament to the simplicity of the story if she could follow and understand it well enough to appreciate it.
And here is an interview with the director and actor.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Shark Girl **1/2
By Kelly Bingham.
Published 2007 by Candlewick Press.
276 pages.
I "chose" this book as it was the only one left. The librarian at my school asked the teachers to do some reading over the summer and create questions about the books so that her Battle of the Books team can prepare for competition.
The book did not look so interesting. It has a cover of a young girl with a bikini on showing only ( this is relevant) one side of her torso. I was thinking when I saw it that it would be a 'tween romance.
It is better than I thought it would be. It is a story about a girl that was attacked by a shark (not a spoiler since this happens on the 3rd page of the book) and her efforts to cope with the changes in her life that resulted from losing her arm.
I think the young girl was a realistic character. Her concerns seemed real. She was not painted as a hero. She was moody and bitter. She was frustrated about her abilities and afraid to go to school with her friends. Eventually she does learn to cope with these issues, but it is a difficult struggle. For that reason, I think she was portrayed in a realistc way.
It is a quick read. The story is presented a variety of ways. The author uses letters, poems and newspaper articles to tell the story. Though the majority of the tale is told in poem form. Each poem has a title, but I would say that the poems are more terse and truncated prose than poetry.
A reccomended book for any young teenager in your family, even for boys.
Here's another summary about the book.
Published 2007 by Candlewick Press.
276 pages.
I "chose" this book as it was the only one left. The librarian at my school asked the teachers to do some reading over the summer and create questions about the books so that her Battle of the Books team can prepare for competition.
The book did not look so interesting. It has a cover of a young girl with a bikini on showing only ( this is relevant) one side of her torso. I was thinking when I saw it that it would be a 'tween romance.
It is better than I thought it would be. It is a story about a girl that was attacked by a shark (not a spoiler since this happens on the 3rd page of the book) and her efforts to cope with the changes in her life that resulted from losing her arm.
I think the young girl was a realistic character. Her concerns seemed real. She was not painted as a hero. She was moody and bitter. She was frustrated about her abilities and afraid to go to school with her friends. Eventually she does learn to cope with these issues, but it is a difficult struggle. For that reason, I think she was portrayed in a realistc way.
It is a quick read. The story is presented a variety of ways. The author uses letters, poems and newspaper articles to tell the story. Though the majority of the tale is told in poem form. Each poem has a title, but I would say that the poems are more terse and truncated prose than poetry.
A reccomended book for any young teenager in your family, even for boys.
Here's another summary about the book.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Vol. 1 **1/2
Written by Alan Moore.
Drawn by Kevin O'Neil.
Color by Benedict Dimagmaliw.
Lettering by William Oakley.
Published by America's Best Comics, 2000.
Alan Moore is known for such well known comics such as "The Watchmen" and "V is for Vengeance" (or is it Vigilante?). I read in an interview, in the magazine "Under the Radar", that though he's now retired from comics, he still likes to keep involved with this book and continues work on it. So he holds a special place in his heart for this one.
So the story goes is that some mysterious government man in turn of the century recruits a bunch of misfits and washed ups for some operation that is never clear. These misfits include some infamous chracters such as Alan Quartermain, Captian Nemo, Miss Mina Murray, Dr. Harry Jeckyll/Edward Hyde and Hawley Griffin (AKA The Invisible Man). What is interesting about these characters is that while Moore keeps the legends intact, he makes them incredibly human anf flawed. Flawed in an almost epic manner. Quartemain is an opium addict, Edward Hyde is particularly gruesome in his monstrousness, and Griffin (The Invisible Man) is a particularly untrustworthy character, what with his power of invisiblity and all. He uses that power to gain an advantage for himself, let's say on an all girls school in which some of the young ladies think that they have acheived Immaculate Conception.
There's a lot of mistrust and bickering within the group, yet they manage to acheive and come through for each other when necessary.
After the group is finally assembled (this is an origin story after all) they set off on a mission to recapture a substance which will allow anyone the power to fly. Being still in the 19th century, this power seems too incredible and dangerous if it were to get in the wrong hands, which the league is told has happened. But there are double crosses and backstabbing and the government man does not appear to be who he says he is. An airiel attack is emminent over London, and the League does their best to stop it.
Apparantly, he also did a traditional serial adventure story starring Alan Quartermain, which I liked less becasue it involves other worlds and different realms of existence. I've never been one for that transcendental other/alternate world stuff. It always involves the invention of a new mythology which has to be understood with in the limited time and space of the text. It's too much for me to keep up with. And the language can be silly in those kinds of stories.
I liked better the grittier and violent main story of the book. It's more realistic (well as realistic as a story with ape monsters and invisible men can be).
So whats interesting is the blend of modern and old. The language of the book is old fashioned. Moore's clearly having fun with it. On the title page of the book which is set up like an advertisement in an old fashioned newpaper, the creators are introduced with interesting language and not just listed. For example, "At tremendous expense we are proud to present M. Alan Moore. The World famous Northamptonshire Nightingale famed for his verbal recitations and comical narratives."
So there's this old fashioned language paired and contrasted with a fairly violent and bloody narrative. The monster Hyde, tears people apart, limb from limb in a type of demon rage.
And as any one who follows comics know, Moore is know for his writing and this narrative is well written. The characters are developed and complex.
I look forward to volume 2 and 3.
A trailer of the movie.
And an excellent interview with Alan Moore with examples of drawings.
Drawn by Kevin O'Neil.
Color by Benedict Dimagmaliw.
Lettering by William Oakley.
Published by America's Best Comics, 2000.
Alan Moore is known for such well known comics such as "The Watchmen" and "V is for Vengeance" (or is it Vigilante?). I read in an interview, in the magazine "Under the Radar", that though he's now retired from comics, he still likes to keep involved with this book and continues work on it. So he holds a special place in his heart for this one.
So the story goes is that some mysterious government man in turn of the century recruits a bunch of misfits and washed ups for some operation that is never clear. These misfits include some infamous chracters such as Alan Quartermain, Captian Nemo, Miss Mina Murray, Dr. Harry Jeckyll/Edward Hyde and Hawley Griffin (AKA The Invisible Man). What is interesting about these characters is that while Moore keeps the legends intact, he makes them incredibly human anf flawed. Flawed in an almost epic manner. Quartemain is an opium addict, Edward Hyde is particularly gruesome in his monstrousness, and Griffin (The Invisible Man) is a particularly untrustworthy character, what with his power of invisiblity and all. He uses that power to gain an advantage for himself, let's say on an all girls school in which some of the young ladies think that they have acheived Immaculate Conception.
There's a lot of mistrust and bickering within the group, yet they manage to acheive and come through for each other when necessary.
After the group is finally assembled (this is an origin story after all) they set off on a mission to recapture a substance which will allow anyone the power to fly. Being still in the 19th century, this power seems too incredible and dangerous if it were to get in the wrong hands, which the league is told has happened. But there are double crosses and backstabbing and the government man does not appear to be who he says he is. An airiel attack is emminent over London, and the League does their best to stop it.
Apparantly, he also did a traditional serial adventure story starring Alan Quartermain, which I liked less becasue it involves other worlds and different realms of existence. I've never been one for that transcendental other/alternate world stuff. It always involves the invention of a new mythology which has to be understood with in the limited time and space of the text. It's too much for me to keep up with. And the language can be silly in those kinds of stories.
I liked better the grittier and violent main story of the book. It's more realistic (well as realistic as a story with ape monsters and invisible men can be).
So whats interesting is the blend of modern and old. The language of the book is old fashioned. Moore's clearly having fun with it. On the title page of the book which is set up like an advertisement in an old fashioned newpaper, the creators are introduced with interesting language and not just listed. For example, "At tremendous expense we are proud to present M. Alan Moore. The World famous Northamptonshire Nightingale famed for his verbal recitations and comical narratives."
So there's this old fashioned language paired and contrasted with a fairly violent and bloody narrative. The monster Hyde, tears people apart, limb from limb in a type of demon rage.
And as any one who follows comics know, Moore is know for his writing and this narrative is well written. The characters are developed and complex.
I look forward to volume 2 and 3.
A trailer of the movie.
And an excellent interview with Alan Moore with examples of drawings.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Rear Window ***1/2
Directed by Alfred Hithcock.
Released 1954.
Based on short story by Cornell Woolrich - "It Had to be Murder".
Screenplay by John Michael Harps.
With James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Wendell Corey, Thelma Ritter and Raymund Burr.
Seen in theater.
I haven't seen this film for over 20 years, and when I did, I believe I saw it on video. It was nice to see the camera work on the big screen with its vivid colors of the bulildings and gardens, etc.
Most people already know this film, but this might provide a reminder about what a great film this was. For that reason, I 'll keep the summary short.
A photographer and adventurer, James Stewart, is stuck in his apartmant all day becasue he has a broken leg. He spends all day watching his neighbors through the rear window of his apertment. Meanwhile Grace Kelly's character, an upscale high falutin' fashion executive, is trying to convince him to marry. The photographer is not so sure since he's a rough and ready adventurer after all.
While looking at his neighbors, he starts to invent narratives for them and watches them to see if his invented narratives come true. Eventiually, he begins to think that in one of the house holds something very fishy is going on. He's convinced that the husband, played by Raymond Burr, has killed his invalid wife and disposed of her in a particularly gruesome way. He becomes an amateur sleuth to get to the bottom of the mystery.
One minor complaint I have with the film is that it is kind of slow moving. It almost has to be becasue the narrative and the character development of the neighbors is almost played out in pantomime, like a silent film. So things take a while to develope. It's quite an inventive film technique that Hitchcock uses and there is no way that a film, with this pacing, could be made comercailly in these days. It's both intrigueing and a little slow at the same time. I admired it for this, but I was simultaneously getting antsy, and like i've said in a recent past blog entry, I feel my patience for films is way above the average film goer of today.
There are also some inetersting moral themes being discussed and presented. The whole concept of privacy is an issue. It's funny to me that it seems that the characters don't think that it's bad to spy on their neighbors. Stewart's character makes no bones about his spying, though he doesn't want to get caught, and is quite obvious about it. Grace kelly's character only seems bothered by it, becasue it makes her boyfriend distracted. The characters do discuss th eissue of privacy briefly, but seem to laugh it off.
But... this spying on the neighbors leads Stewart to make some judgements and conclusions about his neighbors based on sparse and imcomplete evidence that he has garnered from his watching. The privacy of the neighbors is being invaded and they are being judged on how they behave in certain contexts. I think that this is the moral of the story. Remember, this was also around the time of Jospeph McCarthy. I don't know if privacy was one of the issues at the time, there might have ben more immediate threats to people's civil rights, but i I would bet that the accused communists were not too thrilled to have their private lives and values exposed to the nation.
Released 1954.
Based on short story by Cornell Woolrich - "It Had to be Murder".
Screenplay by John Michael Harps.
With James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Wendell Corey, Thelma Ritter and Raymund Burr.
Seen in theater.
I haven't seen this film for over 20 years, and when I did, I believe I saw it on video. It was nice to see the camera work on the big screen with its vivid colors of the bulildings and gardens, etc.
Most people already know this film, but this might provide a reminder about what a great film this was. For that reason, I 'll keep the summary short.
A photographer and adventurer, James Stewart, is stuck in his apartmant all day becasue he has a broken leg. He spends all day watching his neighbors through the rear window of his apertment. Meanwhile Grace Kelly's character, an upscale high falutin' fashion executive, is trying to convince him to marry. The photographer is not so sure since he's a rough and ready adventurer after all.
While looking at his neighbors, he starts to invent narratives for them and watches them to see if his invented narratives come true. Eventiually, he begins to think that in one of the house holds something very fishy is going on. He's convinced that the husband, played by Raymond Burr, has killed his invalid wife and disposed of her in a particularly gruesome way. He becomes an amateur sleuth to get to the bottom of the mystery.
One minor complaint I have with the film is that it is kind of slow moving. It almost has to be becasue the narrative and the character development of the neighbors is almost played out in pantomime, like a silent film. So things take a while to develope. It's quite an inventive film technique that Hitchcock uses and there is no way that a film, with this pacing, could be made comercailly in these days. It's both intrigueing and a little slow at the same time. I admired it for this, but I was simultaneously getting antsy, and like i've said in a recent past blog entry, I feel my patience for films is way above the average film goer of today.
There are also some inetersting moral themes being discussed and presented. The whole concept of privacy is an issue. It's funny to me that it seems that the characters don't think that it's bad to spy on their neighbors. Stewart's character makes no bones about his spying, though he doesn't want to get caught, and is quite obvious about it. Grace kelly's character only seems bothered by it, becasue it makes her boyfriend distracted. The characters do discuss th eissue of privacy briefly, but seem to laugh it off.
But... this spying on the neighbors leads Stewart to make some judgements and conclusions about his neighbors based on sparse and imcomplete evidence that he has garnered from his watching. The privacy of the neighbors is being invaded and they are being judged on how they behave in certain contexts. I think that this is the moral of the story. Remember, this was also around the time of Jospeph McCarthy. I don't know if privacy was one of the issues at the time, there might have ben more immediate threats to people's civil rights, but i I would bet that the accused communists were not too thrilled to have their private lives and values exposed to the nation.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Death at a Funeral **1/2
Directed by Frank Oz.
With Mathew McFayden, Keeley Hawes, Andy Nyman, Ewen Bremmer, Daisy Donovan, Jane Asher and Peter Dinklage.
Released 2007.
Seen on DVD.
Vulgar but with some very funny bits. As the title says, there is a funeral which is set at the house/mansion of the the dead man's son's home/mansion. At this funeral a variety of unfortunate and embarrassing disasters happen. And that's the plot.
It's an ensemble effort. There are at least 6 or 7 characters that share time on the screen. Some of the better characters and bits include the young fiance of woman who's father is brother of the deceased. The father hates him and the fiance is a bit of a neurotic wussy. They pick up her brother who is an aspiring pharmacist and deals with illicit drugs too. The woman gives the fiance a little Valium to calm his nerves, but it's actually a powerful hallucinogenic. So this wimpy guy is totally stoned at the funeral. He is very funny, and his eyes actually look like he's stoned.
There is another character who is hypochondriac and is totally annoying at first, which of course is the point. But he starts becoming really funny when the events of the funeral start overwhelming him. He starts to have this glazed eyed look of resignation.
The movies not a life changing event nor is it important or art, but it is fun.
With Mathew McFayden, Keeley Hawes, Andy Nyman, Ewen Bremmer, Daisy Donovan, Jane Asher and Peter Dinklage.
Released 2007.
Seen on DVD.
Vulgar but with some very funny bits. As the title says, there is a funeral which is set at the house/mansion of the the dead man's son's home/mansion. At this funeral a variety of unfortunate and embarrassing disasters happen. And that's the plot.
It's an ensemble effort. There are at least 6 or 7 characters that share time on the screen. Some of the better characters and bits include the young fiance of woman who's father is brother of the deceased. The father hates him and the fiance is a bit of a neurotic wussy. They pick up her brother who is an aspiring pharmacist and deals with illicit drugs too. The woman gives the fiance a little Valium to calm his nerves, but it's actually a powerful hallucinogenic. So this wimpy guy is totally stoned at the funeral. He is very funny, and his eyes actually look like he's stoned.
There is another character who is hypochondriac and is totally annoying at first, which of course is the point. But he starts becoming really funny when the events of the funeral start overwhelming him. He starts to have this glazed eyed look of resignation.
The movies not a life changing event nor is it important or art, but it is fun.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Balkan Ghosts - A Journey Through History **1/2
By Robert D. Kaplan.
Published by First Vintage Departures 1994.
Hard Cover - St Martin's Press 1993.
287 pages.
The following videos are neither exciting nor well produced and the narrator is almost incomprehensible. Who chose the music! But there are some pictures and maps which are based directly on the book.
P.S. I noted something interesting while looking for appropriate videos. There were lots of videos showing future maps where some countries disappeared and and others grew at their expense. In the comments were lots of cursing and racial name calling. The hate is still there even today.
Published by First Vintage Departures 1994.
Hard Cover - St Martin's Press 1993.
287 pages.
From the title, it's easy enough to surmise the content of this book. It's the history of the Balkans. But it does have a slightly weird premise. It's not only history but it's a travel book. Now, when I think of travel books I think of tour guides. The ones that tell you which places you need to see and visit, so I was confused when the author called this a travel book, because he definitely is not recommending places to visit, though you could certainly visit some of these places if you wished.
I guess there is a difference between a travel book and a tour guide. In this book anyway, the author does travel, but he writes about the history and the politics of each place he visits as he visits those places. So it's a historical book.
I like a book, especially non-fiction, that is highly readable. Not too dry, or confusing. I like a well written, well told story when it comes to non-fiction. This book partially succeeds. There are some pockets of very interesting passages in the book, but it does get a little hard to follow at times too. This may not be completely the fault of the writer, since the task he takes on is so huge.
He write about all the Balkan countries. They include Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and the former Yugoslavia territories (which include Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia). He does not include Hungary which is included in his map, perhaps because , as he briefly mentions, it's culture is too European, though it is geographically part of the Balkans (I make that assumption since he includes Hungary on his map). He also spends the most time on Romania and Bulgaria.
It's no wonder the text can be so confusing. There are multitudes of characters, organizations, political parties etc., in each country. He does try to focus on one or two characters in each chapter (The chapters are divided by countries) and on the more recent events of the 1970's, 80's and 90's. That is helpful for the flow of the narrative, but he needs to give background, so he has to go further into that long and almost ancient past and to discuss a multitude of characters and events. All these places and characters are what makes the book confusing. He could have written about any of the countries during a specific time and have enough detail in information to fill a whole book. But he covers (almost) all the countries and several hundred years of history. Maybe a more specific thesis for the book might have been helpful.
So here's what I got out of the reading. Only the most basic concepts are what stick with me during this writing.
There are three religious groups all mixed together in these lands, especially in the former Yugoslavia. Closer to Europe (Austria borders Croatia) are the Catholic Christians - hence Croatia has more European feeling. As one goes further south-East , there are more Orthodox Christians - the ancestors of the Byzantine Empire. And the areas furthest East (Albania for example) are of course mostly Muslim - ancestors of the Turkish Empire. And these three Empires, throughout history have been constantly at war with each other and the hostilities continue until contemporary times. Especially in the East where Turkish and Byzantine groups were constantly at war. The details are different in each country, but the basic idea is the same. The Balkans, because of their location, was and still is the original battleground between the East and the West. This is of course all a generalization.
To be more specific, his travels through Romania, especially the Eastern part are particularly grim with tales of poverty , corruption and prostitution. He was constantly approached by prostitutes when he was there.
Everyone knows about Greece and their classic Hellenic background, but the author makes the case that their many years under Byzantine domination make that country more culturally Byzantine and hence, more Balkan than European.
I requested this book through the Chicago Public Library and I requested an older edition since there were more copies available. Again, this book was written when many of the crises in the Balkans still had not been resolved. I would have liked to have seen a later edition, in which I am sure there would have been updates. I wonder what's going on there now?
The following videos are neither exciting nor well produced and the narrator is almost incomprehensible. Who chose the music! But there are some pictures and maps which are based directly on the book.
P.S. I noted something interesting while looking for appropriate videos. There were lots of videos showing future maps where some countries disappeared and and others grew at their expense. In the comments were lots of cursing and racial name calling. The hate is still there even today.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Europa / Zentropa (In the states)***
Directed and written by Lars Von Trier.
With Barbara Sukowa, Jean-Marc Barr, Udo Kier and Max Von Sydow.
Released 1991.
Seen on DVD.
This is a difficult film. I'll start with a summary. An idealistic young man, played by Barr, from New York decides to come to Germany after the war had just ended to help out in the post war reconstruction. He gets a job as a sleeping car conductor. He meets a German girl (Sukowa) who is daughter of the train company and they fall in love. Meanwhile there is resistance againts the American occupation and these resisters are called Werewolves. It seems that everyone wants something from the young man. The Americans want him to"keep his eyes open" about Nazi resistance. The werewolves want him to do terrorist work for them. The werewolves force him to do a job and the movie becomes a bit of a thriller.
The director's previous films were very arty but clearly also very visually dynamic. I could see that from some of the extras that came on the DVD. He says that this movie is more accessible, (though it's still clearly an art house film). It is because he uses a lot of classic movie motifs. When the protagonist is about to bed the girl, he shoots her face in a hazy profile that looks like it came from a film in the 40's. There are a couple of scenes in which their are large letters, "werewolf" in the background of the lone anguished figure. The film has a lot of clasic film elements embedded in it's arthouse modernism.
The film is mostly in black and white, but the director uses some color in certain important places. He actually mixes the black and white with the color on the same screen. It makes for some beautiful effects. He does this by filming the background and foreground seperately. He then superimposes the foreground onto the background. Frequently there were several layers of background. This means that actors had to be in very specific and exact places. There is not a whole lot of room for organic change and discovery in the acting. The whole film is very precise. For that reason, the film lacks a bit of an emotional appeal. It's a little difficult for the viewer to get emotionally involved with the characters.
But it is a very beautiful film and very well worth seeing if it comes to the theaters, though enjoyable on DVD too.
Note: The director has a spanking brand new film out called "Antichrist", which is supposed to be brutal, but beautifully shot also.
With Barbara Sukowa, Jean-Marc Barr, Udo Kier and Max Von Sydow.
Released 1991.
Seen on DVD.
This is a difficult film. I'll start with a summary. An idealistic young man, played by Barr, from New York decides to come to Germany after the war had just ended to help out in the post war reconstruction. He gets a job as a sleeping car conductor. He meets a German girl (Sukowa) who is daughter of the train company and they fall in love. Meanwhile there is resistance againts the American occupation and these resisters are called Werewolves. It seems that everyone wants something from the young man. The Americans want him to"keep his eyes open" about Nazi resistance. The werewolves want him to do terrorist work for them. The werewolves force him to do a job and the movie becomes a bit of a thriller.
The director's previous films were very arty but clearly also very visually dynamic. I could see that from some of the extras that came on the DVD. He says that this movie is more accessible, (though it's still clearly an art house film). It is because he uses a lot of classic movie motifs. When the protagonist is about to bed the girl, he shoots her face in a hazy profile that looks like it came from a film in the 40's. There are a couple of scenes in which their are large letters, "werewolf" in the background of the lone anguished figure. The film has a lot of clasic film elements embedded in it's arthouse modernism.
The film is mostly in black and white, but the director uses some color in certain important places. He actually mixes the black and white with the color on the same screen. It makes for some beautiful effects. He does this by filming the background and foreground seperately. He then superimposes the foreground onto the background. Frequently there were several layers of background. This means that actors had to be in very specific and exact places. There is not a whole lot of room for organic change and discovery in the acting. The whole film is very precise. For that reason, the film lacks a bit of an emotional appeal. It's a little difficult for the viewer to get emotionally involved with the characters.
But it is a very beautiful film and very well worth seeing if it comes to the theaters, though enjoyable on DVD too.
Note: The director has a spanking brand new film out called "Antichrist", which is supposed to be brutal, but beautifully shot also.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Man on a Wire **
Directed by James Marsh.
Main protagonist - Phillippe Petit.
Released 2008.
Seen on DVD
I've been accused of only liking movies that the critics like, and for the most part, that's true. Though I trust some critics or publications more than others. Well this is a film that got critical acclaim (it even won an Oscar for best documentary), and I would have to disagree with the critics, though not entirely.
Basically it's about an infamous stunt Phillippe Petit pulled back in August of 1974. He broke into the fledgling World Trade Center, set up his equipment and walked a tight rope between the two towers. Some of us older people might actually remember the event.
I'll start with what I liked. The whole concept and the actual performance are quite intriguing - there's no denying that. It's set up like a caper movie. After all, they are trespassing on property and breaking the law. Everything has to be planned, practiced, organized and studied, before performing the stunt.
Another little subplot which becomes relevant for a small portion of the film is that after the big successful event, the small crew that were also close friend and lovers (they did bring on a couple of guys just for this caper to help out) become estranged from Petit. Apparently he gets a bit too big for his britches. He even sleeps with a woman while still being in a relationship with his girlfriend who was there through out the whole process. The celebrity had gotten to him. This is not explored very much which leaves the actual events of the estranging and feelings of the friends a bit ambiguous or unclear. Though I kind of like that because it makes the viewer have to contemplate what happened and why. There are some clues that something went wrong even before we learn about the affair. In a handful of interviews, his best friend breaks down and I'm thinking what in the world is wrong. Nobody dies or gets hurt (at least physically) so whats the big deal. Something for us to think about... or maybe the film makers needed to explore this idea more. Could go either way.
And some of the images of him were beautiful, like he was floating in air.
Now as for my complaints of the film, it was way too slow. I tried showing this film to my eight year old daughter and she had trouble staying focused on the film. Not that the attention span of an 8 year old girl is a proper test for determining what a good pace for a film should be, but I found myself restless, and I consider myself a very patient film watcher. Even the "caper" part of the film though it was interesting, was just too slow. In a fiction caper or heist film, they don't seem to drag on for so long. There's more dramatic urgency and tension. This film seemed to lack that urgency and tension, though they tried. I think that they were simply unsuccessful at creating it.
I also found Petit to be kind of grating. I mean it's logical since he is basically a street performer who specializes in high wire walking. Think of the old saying or idea that when people see a mime, they want want to slug them because they are so annoying. Petit certainly is smug and cocky. He's arrogant. He really thinks way too much of himself, even before he did the World Trade Center.
I'd be curious to see the documentaries that this film beat at the Oscars.
Here's a trailer.
And here's an interview with the man.
Main protagonist - Phillippe Petit.
Released 2008.
Seen on DVD
I've been accused of only liking movies that the critics like, and for the most part, that's true. Though I trust some critics or publications more than others. Well this is a film that got critical acclaim (it even won an Oscar for best documentary), and I would have to disagree with the critics, though not entirely.
Basically it's about an infamous stunt Phillippe Petit pulled back in August of 1974. He broke into the fledgling World Trade Center, set up his equipment and walked a tight rope between the two towers. Some of us older people might actually remember the event.
I'll start with what I liked. The whole concept and the actual performance are quite intriguing - there's no denying that. It's set up like a caper movie. After all, they are trespassing on property and breaking the law. Everything has to be planned, practiced, organized and studied, before performing the stunt.
Another little subplot which becomes relevant for a small portion of the film is that after the big successful event, the small crew that were also close friend and lovers (they did bring on a couple of guys just for this caper to help out) become estranged from Petit. Apparently he gets a bit too big for his britches. He even sleeps with a woman while still being in a relationship with his girlfriend who was there through out the whole process. The celebrity had gotten to him. This is not explored very much which leaves the actual events of the estranging and feelings of the friends a bit ambiguous or unclear. Though I kind of like that because it makes the viewer have to contemplate what happened and why. There are some clues that something went wrong even before we learn about the affair. In a handful of interviews, his best friend breaks down and I'm thinking what in the world is wrong. Nobody dies or gets hurt (at least physically) so whats the big deal. Something for us to think about... or maybe the film makers needed to explore this idea more. Could go either way.
And some of the images of him were beautiful, like he was floating in air.
Now as for my complaints of the film, it was way too slow. I tried showing this film to my eight year old daughter and she had trouble staying focused on the film. Not that the attention span of an 8 year old girl is a proper test for determining what a good pace for a film should be, but I found myself restless, and I consider myself a very patient film watcher. Even the "caper" part of the film though it was interesting, was just too slow. In a fiction caper or heist film, they don't seem to drag on for so long. There's more dramatic urgency and tension. This film seemed to lack that urgency and tension, though they tried. I think that they were simply unsuccessful at creating it.
I also found Petit to be kind of grating. I mean it's logical since he is basically a street performer who specializes in high wire walking. Think of the old saying or idea that when people see a mime, they want want to slug them because they are so annoying. Petit certainly is smug and cocky. He's arrogant. He really thinks way too much of himself, even before he did the World Trade Center.
I'd be curious to see the documentaries that this film beat at the Oscars.
Here's a trailer.
And here's an interview with the man.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Mr. Lincoln's Wars - A Novel in Thirteen Stories **1/2
Written by Adam Braver.
Copyright 2003.
Published by Harper Collins Publishers.
Pages 303.
The title is deceiving because I really would not call this book a novel. Like the subtitle says, its a book of stories, that happened to be themed around Lincoln and the Civil War.
The stories are not typical fictional war stories about bravery and such. They are not typical fictional stories about politicians. The stories are gritty, as a Civil War story should be, but in a more modernist kind of way. The stories get into the feelings of the characters. Such as when Lincoln visited the aftermath of a battle fields or when his wife Mary Todd, visited a soldiers hospital.
In some way the stories are almost so real and yet at the same time they seem so fantastical. I mean here's a Civil War book with actual sex scenes. True, one is about a woman raped by her no-account husband. She then gets off when she has sex with the soldier who delivers the news of her husband's death. She pleads with the young soldier to give details about his death, and the gorier the details, the more aroused she becomes. This is certainly not typical of 19th century sensuality. There's a another sex scene, much more tender and conventional in some ways except for the fact that it happens to be with Lincoln's assassin John Wilkes Boothe.
On the more fantastical side, in one story, an elderly father who is partially senile, tries to find Lincoln ,because Lincoln wrote him a letter explaining the death of the father's son. Of course it was a form letter, so when he presents the actual letter to Lincoln (who happens to be sitting alone on a park bench after one of his speeches - weird right? What president would be left on his own, even in those days), Lincoln feels sorry for not actually being the author of the letter. Lincoln tells the father about the death of his own son and the two men bond as they share the common loss of losing beloved sons.
I liked this book. The author gives some twists on what we know about history and makes it more personal as well as more poetic and mysterious. Lincoln's sadness, in contrast to his accomplishments and legend, is a mysterious thing in itself.
Copyright 2003.
Published by Harper Collins Publishers.
Pages 303.
The title is deceiving because I really would not call this book a novel. Like the subtitle says, its a book of stories, that happened to be themed around Lincoln and the Civil War.
The stories are not typical fictional war stories about bravery and such. They are not typical fictional stories about politicians. The stories are gritty, as a Civil War story should be, but in a more modernist kind of way. The stories get into the feelings of the characters. Such as when Lincoln visited the aftermath of a battle fields or when his wife Mary Todd, visited a soldiers hospital.
In some way the stories are almost so real and yet at the same time they seem so fantastical. I mean here's a Civil War book with actual sex scenes. True, one is about a woman raped by her no-account husband. She then gets off when she has sex with the soldier who delivers the news of her husband's death. She pleads with the young soldier to give details about his death, and the gorier the details, the more aroused she becomes. This is certainly not typical of 19th century sensuality. There's a another sex scene, much more tender and conventional in some ways except for the fact that it happens to be with Lincoln's assassin John Wilkes Boothe.
On the more fantastical side, in one story, an elderly father who is partially senile, tries to find Lincoln ,because Lincoln wrote him a letter explaining the death of the father's son. Of course it was a form letter, so when he presents the actual letter to Lincoln (who happens to be sitting alone on a park bench after one of his speeches - weird right? What president would be left on his own, even in those days), Lincoln feels sorry for not actually being the author of the letter. Lincoln tells the father about the death of his own son and the two men bond as they share the common loss of losing beloved sons.
I liked this book. The author gives some twists on what we know about history and makes it more personal as well as more poetic and mysterious. Lincoln's sadness, in contrast to his accomplishments and legend, is a mysterious thing in itself.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
A Face in the Crowd ***
Directed by Elia Kazan.
Story and screenplay written by Budd Schulberg.
Released 1957.
Seen on DVD.
With Andy Griffith, Patricia Neal, Anthony Franciosa, Walter Matthau, Lee Remick
I think the thing that sticks out to me are the over the top performances of Andy Griffith. and in contrast, the much more real-like performance of Patricia Neal. I am very impressed with Neal's performance. In fact I have to say, I have now fallen in love with the second woman who is more than twice my age (Gene Teirny was the first woman from another era that I had fallen in love with). Her smile and twinkle of her eyes just warm my heart. But isn't that what acting is in a way? At least the more realistic acting. An actor plays a character that says and does certain actions. The actor becomes the character, but I also believe the character becomes the actor. In other words, the actor says and does things that the character does, but with the actor's personality intertwined. Patricia Neal played Marcia Jeffries, but Marcia Jeffries was Patricia Neal.
Evidently Neal is a little older in this film. I saw some shots of her when she was younger, like in her early twenties, but that would have been in the decades of the late forties or early fifties. I guess the makers of the movies needed a slightly older actress, since the action covers a decade or two.
Here's a nice tribute. As beautiful as she is, I think that she was actually prettier in her 30's and 40's. Though no one under the age of 50 knows who she was, you can see that worked with some pretty big names.
So a young radio programmer (Neal) from a local Arkansas radio station goes to a jail to record some stories for her show, "A Face in the Crowd". Hence the title of the film. She discovers Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes, a unemployed hobo with violent and lecherous tendencies (Andy Griffith). But he can sing and tell stories and jokes, and Neal's character (Marcia Jeffries) is completely charmed . So she convinces him to do a local show on a regular basis. And he does great with his down home country charm. Basically from here it becomes a rags to riches story with "Lonesome" becoming a nation wide craze. But there's a dark side to this story, and I believe the film fore shadows it a bit.
Earlier I said that his performance was over the top a bit. And in these contemporary times, that, I think is the reason many people don't watch old fashioned, classic films. The films don't seem real to them, especially the acting. The acting can seem artificial and melodramatic. Now in Griffith's case, I think that this is a plus. It makes him a scarier character. He seems even more manic. His wild, yet lovable charm is intrinsically tied in with this dark mania he possesses.
The film ends when "Lonesome" gets too big for his britches. He thinks he is so powerful that he can control events including politics and governmental policy. He gets involved with a right wing senator and tries to get him elected using his popularity. And this is where everything comes tumbling down.
Here's a trailer from the film.
Story and screenplay written by Budd Schulberg.
Released 1957.
Seen on DVD.
With Andy Griffith, Patricia Neal, Anthony Franciosa, Walter Matthau, Lee Remick
I think the thing that sticks out to me are the over the top performances of Andy Griffith. and in contrast, the much more real-like performance of Patricia Neal. I am very impressed with Neal's performance. In fact I have to say, I have now fallen in love with the second woman who is more than twice my age (Gene Teirny was the first woman from another era that I had fallen in love with). Her smile and twinkle of her eyes just warm my heart. But isn't that what acting is in a way? At least the more realistic acting. An actor plays a character that says and does certain actions. The actor becomes the character, but I also believe the character becomes the actor. In other words, the actor says and does things that the character does, but with the actor's personality intertwined. Patricia Neal played Marcia Jeffries, but Marcia Jeffries was Patricia Neal.
Evidently Neal is a little older in this film. I saw some shots of her when she was younger, like in her early twenties, but that would have been in the decades of the late forties or early fifties. I guess the makers of the movies needed a slightly older actress, since the action covers a decade or two.
Here's a nice tribute. As beautiful as she is, I think that she was actually prettier in her 30's and 40's. Though no one under the age of 50 knows who she was, you can see that worked with some pretty big names.
So a young radio programmer (Neal) from a local Arkansas radio station goes to a jail to record some stories for her show, "A Face in the Crowd". Hence the title of the film. She discovers Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes, a unemployed hobo with violent and lecherous tendencies (Andy Griffith). But he can sing and tell stories and jokes, and Neal's character (Marcia Jeffries) is completely charmed . So she convinces him to do a local show on a regular basis. And he does great with his down home country charm. Basically from here it becomes a rags to riches story with "Lonesome" becoming a nation wide craze. But there's a dark side to this story, and I believe the film fore shadows it a bit.
Earlier I said that his performance was over the top a bit. And in these contemporary times, that, I think is the reason many people don't watch old fashioned, classic films. The films don't seem real to them, especially the acting. The acting can seem artificial and melodramatic. Now in Griffith's case, I think that this is a plus. It makes him a scarier character. He seems even more manic. His wild, yet lovable charm is intrinsically tied in with this dark mania he possesses.
The film ends when "Lonesome" gets too big for his britches. He thinks he is so powerful that he can control events including politics and governmental policy. He gets involved with a right wing senator and tries to get him elected using his popularity. And this is where everything comes tumbling down.
Here's a trailer from the film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
