Bittersweet at its best

Of course it’s beautiful and of course it’s sweet, but it can also be so dark. I am talking about the great story of Christi Brown chronicled in My Left Foot. I said before that this plotline has been done many times. Every time I watch a film like this, where a man triumphs over adversity, it makes me happy but it can also get me really depressed. This film was no different. Some scenes were so amazing like when he writes “mother” on the floor of his house. His father then proceeds to parade him over his shoulder into the pub claiming, “My son Christi Brown. Genius.” That is an amazing scene. However just a few scenes later, when Christi is a teenager there is a shot of him on the ground detached from the boys playing soccer. At first I thought this meant that he wasn’t allowed to play. Then he makes an amazing save with his head and proceeds to be kicked furiously by an opposing player. That initial shot is extremely depressing and the save is even more saddening. One would think this is a triumphant scene, but to me it paints a picture of how he wishes he was just like everyone else and he realizes that he never will be. People like Christi Brown deserve admiration, not pity, but I can’t help but feel sorry for him. He has such mental and emotional strength. Why does he deserve to have a physically weaker form? The sad fact is that people usually judge a book by its cover and true beauty, especially in Christi Brown’s case lies deep beneath the surface. It just stinks that most people are unwilling to dig that deep.

What about the right foot?

After seeing that Jim Sheridan decided to direct the new 50 Cent flick Get Rich or Die Tryin’ I realized people will do almost anything for money or 50 Cent. I knew I had heard the name somewhere and looking back through my steno book I found it under the My Left Foot section. This was a quality film. Again, it is even better because it is a true story. The plot is very interesting and very inspiring. The story almost makes you question your own value and your own self-worth. Christi Brown (Daniel Day Louis) could do all these amazing things like paint and write an entire book with just one foot. I have a fully functioning body and I am an awful painter and would love to see the day when I published a novel. However, like most people who are presented with the steepest road in life, Christi triumphed through adversity and became famous after being born with cerebral palsy to a poor Irish family. The only real qualms I had with the film was that this storyline has been done way too many times: Boy is disabled, boy struggles with himself and others, boy channels his frustration into alternative outlets, and boy becomes famous and proves everyone wrong. It is a very nice story but it is also a very easy one. It doesn’t take much real storytelling besides the actual script. Cinematography is not greatly needed. All Sheridan had to do was step back and film the story which is fairly simple when you have a great cast.

The film continu...ummmm

I would consider Last of the Mohicans, on the film continuum, to be slightly between classicism and realism, definitely favoring the classical side, however. In other words this film is almost totally in the realm of classicism with a touch of realism. This film does avoid the extremes of both formalism and realism. The director, Michael Mann most definitely does not attempt to tell the story objectively. Clearly, beginning in the words of the novel and then translating to what is seen on screen, the story favors Hawkeye’s (Daniel Day Louis) and the Mohicans point of view. Magua (Wes Studi) is painted, literally and figuratively, as a barbaric, blood-hungry character. The only part of the film that could make him seem civilized is when he reaches his hand out to Alice Munro (Jodhi May). This could be all well and good, but then we see the blood of Uncas, her love interest, drip of off Magua’s knuckles. Defining this film by the parameters given is difficult and constraining. For example classical films have been described as being handsomely made, but the style does not call attention to itself. Mann does a beautiful job of directing, making the film very aesthetically pleasing. Because of this, the style not only calls attention to itself, it screams out to the audience. For example, when the British are marching from their recently surrendered fort, they are filmed with a subjective camera angle from Magua’s point of view. There is sparse, if not any at all, diegetic sound during this sequence prior to the Huron’s attack. Mann is quite blatantly expressing the proverbial calm before the storm. Without debate, this is a stunningly shot scene. Due to this, however, the film and its style do call attention to themselves. This film is classical almost by default. It is not distorted like a formalistic film. It is not an objective film focusing wholly on content like a film out of the school of realism. It is stylized and “handsomely” presented and that is why Last of the Mohicans is a classical film.

"Women don't like being referred to as fat mammals, Skank."

I spent the majority of yesterday watching Mystery, Alaska starring Russell Crowe and the Irish guy from Star Trek. Like many great movies of our time, this plot is mostly contrived and over symbolized. But, why is that a bad thing. After all aspects of a film become contrived because they are implemented time and time again for one reason, because they work. Mystery, Alaska was no different. The thing that I love about this film is its wonderful mix of amazingly on time, hilarious wit and deep, introspective dialogue. For example, John Biebe (Crowe) explains to Hank Azaria’s character the trouble a loss could cause for the town. However, within the next two or three scenes, Biebe’s youngest son, being interviewed by a newscaster, exclaims, “I have a toy pony. He takes big sh**ts.” This is just some of the beauty present in this wonderful film. The focal point of the whole film is hockey and how a town can thrive off of a love for one thing alone. The film addresses the true beauty that exists in sport in its most basic form. The town rallies behind the bys of winter as their called in every aspect of life. Even when one character shoots an out-of-towner in the foot, the jury finds him innocent just because he has the best shot on the team. If that isn’t true justice, I don’t know what is. All in all, this film has a little bit of everything. A big helping of quirky and original comedy with a touch of the dramatic and a side of somberness come together to make Mystery, Alaska a wonderful film to enjoy.

Somethimes I wish I were British

Love Actually is actually a quality film. It gets a little bit chick-flicky at times, well most of the time, but it has something for everyone, not just the ladies. There are obvious times when the estrogen seeps out of the writing, like when Mark (Andrew Lincoln) appears at Juliet’s (Kiera Knightly) with a tape player and his poem on poster board. It is touching, but only if your hormones are in the right place. There are also times in the film that just make you feel great, like when the Prime Minister (Hugh Grant) stands up to the President (Billy Bob Thornton). The one truly remarkable aspect of the film is the way it depicts love and gives it a new meaning. All of the main characters are searching for something, some meaning, some kind of love, in the beginning of the film. By the end of the film, all of them, along with the audience, realize that love is recognizing that one doesn’t search for meaning or for love, that it was right there in front of you the whole time. Love is realizing what has been in front of you the whole time. On a cooler note, I wish I could be the prime minister of England, just so that I could dance around pictures of Neville Chamberlain, Winston Churchill, and most importantly Margaret Thatcher.

It's all about Bob

I just watched La Bamba, starring Lou Diamond Phillips. I especially liked it because of its historical significance. However, in addition to the main story line there are a great deal of subplots and contextual richness that fill in the rest of the story. One of these underlying stories that I most enjoyed was more of the following of a character than, just a subplot. Bob Morales (Esai Morales), the brother of Ritchie Valens, played by Phillips, really grows the most as a character. He experiences more than any of the other characters and the viewer truly gets an insight into his psyche more than that of any other character including the protagonist. We see Bob as a drunk, a druggie, and a womanizer for the majority of the movie. Basically, the picture that the film paints of Bob is a slacker who has a great plan of going nowhere in life. However, there are many instances in the film that depict Bob as a more compassionate person. His enthusiasm comes out when he enters the drawing contest and wins. We feel his joy, because we hope that this will turn Bob’s life around, but his hopes are shot down by Rosie, the woman who he shoots down many times. Towards the end of the film, when we realize the fate of Ritchie (at least those of us who have seen the movie once before), we also see that Bob is changing for the better. We find out, during his phone call with Ritchie, who was in Iowa, that Bob was going to go out cruising but he decided to stay back and take care of his baby. Finally, when Ritchie’s death is announced, Bob has the most severe reaction to it. He goes running to his mother and he embraces Rosie. The final shot of the film is of Bob, alone, on the bridge and the last non-diegetic sound we hear is Bob’s voice screaming “Ritchie.” I'm not saying that Bob was to be forgiven for all his faults because of his strong feelings. However, I think Bob gets a bad wrap. He acts in such extreme ways because he feels so much, so strongly not because he is bad person.

Not many movies bring men to tears. In fact there are only two films that I can think of that make me cry every time I watch them. One is Shawshank Redemption and the other is Field of Dreams. Both stories relate to men in a way that no other film does. Both stories, in very distinct ways, touch the base of all masculine emotion. They both address and explore the ideas of camaraderie and brotherly love (the love that exists between a father and his son in Field of Dreams). The idea of hope and dreams is ever present throughout both films. The protagonist in Shawshank, Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) consistently shows hope in the face of grave and desperate situations. He experiences a wrongful conviction, death of friends by suicide, death of friends by corruption and is still able to find the redeeming aspects of life, in spite of the fact that he is in prison. This may be a stretch but I would compare Dufresne’s undying spirit to that of Anne Frank. She said that “in spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart.” This is the way in which Andy leads his life and it pays off in the end. Field of Dreams is the definitive film for all men. Two key components make it so: baseball and the heartfelt, father-son bond. W.P. Kinsella, the author of the novel, greatly uses baseball as a metaphor for life. We start at home with all our adrenaline and energy pumping. We wait for the right time to strike and when our chance comes, we are willing and able to run straight down the line to our goals. As time goes by and as we continue on our journey to that goal we become tired, worn out; we even question what our next move should be. Finally as we get ready to turn into our final stage we realize that our goal is to return to where our journey started, this time aged, learned, and wise. When we finally get home we find that everything we were ever looking for was there all along. Field of Dreams makes this metaphor special by concluding the film with a calming crescendo ending with a catch between Ray (Kevin Costner) and his father John (Dwier Brown). This is something every man can associate with, even if he never experienced it and that familiarity and that “close-to-home” feel to this scene pull the tears from our eyes so fast that we don’t have time to make an excuse for why our eyes are watering.

Duets of Destiny

Being inspired by my most recent entry, I’ve decided to list my top five duet rolls in a movie that have yet to happen and probably never will. Here are the first 2 pairs. Number 5: Bradley Whitford and Lance Bass This may come as a surprise to some of my adoring blog fans that this just made it on the list at number 5. I thought it would be higher too. I would pay double to see a movie with these two gents in supporting roles of each other. I could definitely a picture that combines the cinematic genius of On the Line and the writing magnificence of The West Wing. Or, even better, these two actors could team up to shoot a remake of the timeless classic, What’s Eating Gilbert Grape. Mr. Whitford could definitely fill the shoes of Johnny Depp’s selfless character, Gilbert and Mr. Bass was practically born to play the role of Arnie, Gilbert’s little brother, originally portrayed by a budding Leonardo DiCaprio. These are just my thoughts. Number 4: Benjamin Bratt and Dame Judi Dench This combination may seem a little bit farfetched but after watching both Miss Congeniality flicks and Shakespeare in Love it is easy to see why these two would work great together. Bratt brings his Law and Order background while Dench has been in all of the modern James Bond flicks. I wouldn’t mind watching another Law and Order spin-off with these two starring. It could possibly be a show dealing with obscure crimes. He would specialize in catching those who commit crimes of leaving successful TV careers to pursue one in film, while Dench would hunt down proper grammar offenders. She would of course be supported by her cast of other British knights and Dames. Again, this is just one of many possibilities. Do not fear, my loyal fans, the final three installments are coming soon.

Beaches meets Face/Off. WHAT??

The Last of the Mohicans is a quality film and is an amazing mix between ruthless, gaudy, overdone action and violence and historical context. If the entire film was based around satisfying those two aspects for the full 117 minutes, then I would be perfectly fine with the film. However, despite the barrage of blood and guts and gore, something did not sit right with me after watching this film. How can a film have both the violence of an action film and the love story of a romantic tragedy? I understand that this started as a novel, but that is no excuse. Although this aspect of the film does draw both men and women to the theatres, it is not a new or innovative storytelling technique. This is the same reason why I didn’t like Titanic. Although I stated previously that I did like some of Titanic, the reason why all of it didn’t sit well with me was because the story tried to incorporate two distinctly different plot lines and make them coexist. If you are going to make a bloody action film, make a bloody action film, like Face/Off. If you want to write a romantic tragedy, write something along the lines of Beaches. However, and this is a huge “however” do not try to combine Face/Off and Beaches. I do not want to see Bette Midler and Nicholas Cage “dance” with each other.

The power of non-fiction

As I sat here watching the USC vs. Notre Dame Football game, I couldn’t help but remember Rudy. It is definitely on my top 5 all time films and is possibly in the top 5 of all time sports films. We always root for the underdog. It’s human nature. The compelling story of Rudy Ruettiger is definitely the ultimate underdog story and the best part about it: not that he finally plays, not that he makes his father happy, not that he proves his brother and everyone else wrong, but that it’s a true story. I don’t think something could be better than that. If it was fiction, the film would still be such a great viewing experience. However, we would leave the theatre saying that it was just a movie and the plot was scripted so that it all works out in the end. We would ask ourselves why things like this never happen in real life. And we would be stuck in this bittersweet moment of just being entertained so beautifully for the past 116 minutes, but then doubting the beauty of actual reality and the human race. That’s what it would be like if this story wasn’t true. Thank God, it’s a true story. I would pay money to see that film 20 times for the mere fact that when I walked out of that theatre I would be overcome with the warmest and most amazing feelings. And that ladies and gentlemen is why we watch movies.

A bit of poetic licensing never hurt anyone

Troy is not only the retelling of an epic, it is an epic film. Some cynics may call it overly dramatic and over the top. Well, those critics are absolutely right. However, why are those reasons to not like a particular film? After all what is the purpose of a film is not to entertain? Why do we go to the theatre in the first place if not to be awestruck by extravagant settings, plots, and characters? Troy fulfills all of these reasons why we go to the movies. It has a little bit for everyone. There is a great story for the literary types, some debonair gentlemen characters for the ladies, and the plot is beautiful enough to make a grown man cry. And no, I am not implying anything by that last statement. Seriously though, Homer was an amazing writer and David Benioff is an amazing screenwriter to be able to butcher The Iliad so much without ruining the epic. It’s easy to mess up an already written story by incorporating new plot lines. However Benioff does it masterfully. The storyline dealing with Achilles (Brad Pitt) and the priestess odes not go as in depth into the love story aspect in Homer’s version, but Benioff includes it besides the fact. However, it is incorporated not overzealously or rudely but it is woven into the main quilt of the plot seamlessly. This is done in a few other places throughout the film and not once do these newly discovered subplots overpower Homer’s original work, which makes Troy so enjoyable and engaging.

Straight down the line for both of us, BABY

Phyllis Dietrichson is the quintessential femme fatale. Not only is she good at what she does but she is fully committed to her job. I say job because for her this is a career. We find out from Lola that this is not the first time she has killed to get what she wants. Now the murder is not the only ingredient in a perfect femme fatale. At the introduction of the film, we have an idea of what is to come but I gave Phyllis the benefit of the doubt. I was fooled. I thought she was truly in love with Walter. The one thing that caused me to think more highly of her was Walter’s initial skepticism towards her line of questioning about the accident insurance. In a few lines of dialogue he predicts correctly the rest of the film. I assumed that when he showed his understanding of the shady situation that meant that he was a smart man. So, I initially trusted the rest of the decisions he made. Therefore, when he decided that he would go along with Phyllis I decided myself that there had to be something that could come out of this. Foolish me, I forgot that this was film noir. I should have realized that the film started at the top and went straight into the ground, literally. However, we must all give Phyllis a great deal of credit for turning such a learned, correctly observing man into a murderer. She took an insurance salesman and lured him into committing murder and insurance fraud. Funny how love works in mysterious ways.

My heart may not go on, but I'll never let go

Is it wrong for a 17-year-old male who wishes he played for the Yankees to be writing about Titanic? Well if it is in fact wrong then I don’t want to be right. I spent a good four hours in front of my newly acquired rear-projection HDTV on Saturday night watching the amazingly cliché love story. Now the love story part wasn’t what did it for me, although that is most of the movie, except for the scenes with Bill Paxton’s sidekick, the fat, hairy guy who loved using profanity when talking about great catastrophes. The only explanation for my commitment to the film on Saturday was the in depth historical context of the film. I love how the filmmakers portrayed the different class struggles on so many different levels. The visual comparisons and contrasts between the dining habits, types of entertainment, and topics of discussion of the 1st class passengers and the 3rd class rats, as they were called, very clearly, yet deeply showed the distinction based purely on money. These divisions were present all throughout the film. Even when the boat was sinking and the as water hastily seeped up the stairs of the cellars, the members of the highest echelon of society were being fed and taken care of in every arena, while the residents in the lowest class saw the water rise from their feet to their knees as the gates stayed locked. I find it so interesting how so many story lines can occur in one plot. The struggle of rebellion, the struggle of love, and the struggle of society all have their solos in this symphony of underlying themes; but they all come together so beautifully as an ensemble of one definitive narrative.