I clearly remember the day in 2006 when my brother and I decided to see Brick. We didn’t know a lot about the film, except it was a detective film, was a hit at Sundance, and starred the kid from 3rd Rock from the Sun. This was why I was taken a bit back when I purchased my ticket and was handed a small Brick thesaurus. Needless to say, I was intrigued and frightened. What unfolded for me over the next two hours is still one of the single most inspiring films I’ve ever seen.
Set in a non-descript California high school, Brick is the tale of a young man, Brendan who answers the plea for help from his ex-girlfriend Emily. When he finds Emily’s body, Brendan is wracked with guilt because he did not act fast enough and decides to start shaking things up. As Brendan investigates the last few months of Emily’s life he unearths the shady underbelly of his city that he’s avoided and gets wrapped up with the Pin a local drug dealer, his main muscle Tug, and Laura who may or may not be on his side. As Brendan works through the mysteries surrounding Emily he gets pulled deeper into a void that he tries to keep from spiraling out of control and consuming him the way it consumed Emily.
If you haven’t experienced Brick yet, I cannot urge you enough to find it. This film is Rian Johnson’s feature directorial debut, and let me tell you it has rocketed him to the top of my list of director’s to watch. Brick was made for next to nothing in terms of budgets, but Johnson used every resource available to him, filled the cast with young but impeccable talent, and filled the screen with compelling visuals and uses writing and dialogue the way a painter uses oils. It’s a beautiful thing.
Brick works so well because it’s a hard boiled film noir that chooses not to worry about paying homage to its roots. When the story already has drugs, crime, a femme fatale and an anti-hero there’s enough going on that Johnson knew directly referencing any noir would be like hitting the nail on the head – too hard. Instead you are ushered into an odd setting for a noir, a contemporary high school and given all of the pieces of the puzzle as Brendan is given them and the journey is what drives the homage and the viewing experience.
I can’t get out of talking about Brick without showering some praise on the man that brings Brendan to life – Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Brendan is the role that landed Gordon-Levitt on the map of young actors to watch and provided a solid foundation for the years that have passed since; though he is young Gordon-Levitt doesn’t have to worry about a pay check and instead has chosen to appear in films that he selects based on content – this has kept him out of the trap of making work just to eat. In this, as with most of his films, Gordon-Levitt disappears into the role and what makes the skill involved here most believable is that the complex dialogue rolls off his tongue as if it were second nature. This is quite a feat on a film as unique as Brick.
I’ll finish up by saying it again, find this movie. Sooner rather than later. Maybe like me you’ll want to drive down to San Clemente and explore the sights you recognize from the movie too.
Director & Writer: Rian Johnson
Brendan: Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Laura: Nora Zehtner
The Pin: Lukas Has
Tug: Noah Fleiss
The Brain: Matt O’Leary
Emily: Emilie de Ravin
Dode: Noah Segan
Kara: Megan Goode
Brendan: Throw one at me if you want, hash head. I've got all five senses and I slept
last night, that puts me six up on the lot of you.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
500 Days of Summer
500 Days of Summer might be one of the most unique romantic films since When Harry Met Sally. Instead of being a story about boy meets girl and they live happily ever after, you find out moments into the film that this is the story of boy meets girl, but boy lost girl. As main character Tom wallows in his break-up from Summer the film jumps around the days in their relationship, exploring the good and the bad working its way until Tom makes peace with the relationship he had and lost.
As someone that’s used a time device to tell a story let me say first that making a non-linear film is hard. Trying to find a device that the audience will understand and stil be able to create a flow and development for the characters is tough – Marc Webb does an excellent job of jumping through time with 500 Days of Summer and never losing Tom and the core of who he is. Of course, as much as this is a compliment to the screenplay and direction, kudos must also be given to Joseph Gordon-Levitt who plays Tom.
Gordon-Levitt is a new entry onto the list of actors I adore and want to work with. He’s always been hovering around that list, but I’ve rewatched a few of his films lately and they have firmly planted him on my list. Gordon-Levitt has a way about his craft that throws him in with the greats; he melts into his characters so that you can’t distinguish the acting from the actor – he becomes the character in a way that makes you as a viewer expect that’s who he is in real life, no matter if he’s playing a former whiz kid with a memory issues (The Lookout) or lovelorn Tom (500 Days of Sumemr). The bottom line is that this guy can act and luckily for those of us that have been watching him since Third Rock from the Sun we’ve gotten to be a part of his journey into being a new Hollywood player.
What sells 500 Days of Summer as a quirky romance-drama-comedy is the fact that together the cast and Marc Webb are able to take on every tonal shift throughout the film without missing a beat, making each of them feel as real and genuine as the what comes before and after them. While I feel this film firmly has it’s tonal feet planted in reality, I would have to say that my favorite scene is the one that follows the first time Tom spends the night with Summer. If you haven’t seen the film the scene involves a blissful Tom walking through the city, getting cheered on by the reflection of Han Solo, cartoon birds landing on his shoulder and a full on musical/dance sequence in the park. This doesn’t seem possible when I’ve described the film as being planted in reality does it? You’re going to have to trust me on this one, as Gordon-Levitt & Webb have found the core of Tom’s character the scene works because it’s a world that Tom has created around him, and it’s the reason he falls so hard.
My Netflix queue is filling up as we speak with more of Gordon-Levitt’s films, so be prepared for what’s to come. I am fascinated with Gordon-Levitt and if the last few films of his are any indication of his body of work, there are going to be more positive reviews in the future of this blog – and he’s going to climb higher on my casting dream list.
Director: Marc Webb
Writers: Scott Neustadter & Michael Weber
Tom Hansen: Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Summer Finn: Zooey Deschanel
McKenzie: Geoffrey Arend
Rachel Hansen: Chloe Moretz
Paul: Matthew Gray Gubler
Vance: Clark Gregg
Tom: What happens when you fall in love?
Summer: You believe in that?
Tom: It's love, it's not Santa Claus.
As someone that’s used a time device to tell a story let me say first that making a non-linear film is hard. Trying to find a device that the audience will understand and stil be able to create a flow and development for the characters is tough – Marc Webb does an excellent job of jumping through time with 500 Days of Summer and never losing Tom and the core of who he is. Of course, as much as this is a compliment to the screenplay and direction, kudos must also be given to Joseph Gordon-Levitt who plays Tom.
Gordon-Levitt is a new entry onto the list of actors I adore and want to work with. He’s always been hovering around that list, but I’ve rewatched a few of his films lately and they have firmly planted him on my list. Gordon-Levitt has a way about his craft that throws him in with the greats; he melts into his characters so that you can’t distinguish the acting from the actor – he becomes the character in a way that makes you as a viewer expect that’s who he is in real life, no matter if he’s playing a former whiz kid with a memory issues (The Lookout) or lovelorn Tom (500 Days of Sumemr). The bottom line is that this guy can act and luckily for those of us that have been watching him since Third Rock from the Sun we’ve gotten to be a part of his journey into being a new Hollywood player.
What sells 500 Days of Summer as a quirky romance-drama-comedy is the fact that together the cast and Marc Webb are able to take on every tonal shift throughout the film without missing a beat, making each of them feel as real and genuine as the what comes before and after them. While I feel this film firmly has it’s tonal feet planted in reality, I would have to say that my favorite scene is the one that follows the first time Tom spends the night with Summer. If you haven’t seen the film the scene involves a blissful Tom walking through the city, getting cheered on by the reflection of Han Solo, cartoon birds landing on his shoulder and a full on musical/dance sequence in the park. This doesn’t seem possible when I’ve described the film as being planted in reality does it? You’re going to have to trust me on this one, as Gordon-Levitt & Webb have found the core of Tom’s character the scene works because it’s a world that Tom has created around him, and it’s the reason he falls so hard.
My Netflix queue is filling up as we speak with more of Gordon-Levitt’s films, so be prepared for what’s to come. I am fascinated with Gordon-Levitt and if the last few films of his are any indication of his body of work, there are going to be more positive reviews in the future of this blog – and he’s going to climb higher on my casting dream list.
Director: Marc Webb
Writers: Scott Neustadter & Michael Weber
Tom Hansen: Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Summer Finn: Zooey Deschanel
McKenzie: Geoffrey Arend
Rachel Hansen: Chloe Moretz
Paul: Matthew Gray Gubler
Vance: Clark Gregg
Tom: What happens when you fall in love?
Summer: You believe in that?
Tom: It's love, it's not Santa Claus.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
True Blood: Season 2
I know True Blood is only two seasons along, but I have to say I am already interested to see where they might end. As faithful yet different to the books as season one was, season two ups the ante on adaptations and I have a feeling season three will do even more.
Season two of this HBO series deals with Sookie & Bill being called into Dallas to help Eric uncover what has happened to a vampire sheriff even older and stronger than he, and back in Bon Temps people are again being mysteriously murdered and the people of Bon Temps are caught up in the throes of hormones and their inhibitions have supernaturally disappeared. On the surface this is pretty similar to the book – at least the Dallas part of the scenario – but where the series manages to deviate, and improve upon the books is the series of events in Bon Temps.
First and foremost I cannot tell you how thrilled I am that Alan Ball chose to keep Lafayette around. In the books he’s the first victim in Living Dead in Dallas; Lafayette was an interesting character in Dead Until Dark (the only Sookie Stackhouse book he appeared in) but in True Blood Lafayette is downright fascinating. Alan Ball has a knack for taking characters that represent the outer fringes and making them downright essential. I can also tell you that Tara is a completely different character than she is in the book series and I couldn’t be happier for it. I’ve been reading the latest Sookie book (Dead in the Family) and I keep having to remind myself that this Tara is different than the Tara in True Blood - that’s a sign of good creative juices on Ball’s part no?
In regards to plot where season two of True Blood deviates the most is the storyline with Maryann Forester. While Maryann’s character is in the book, as is her need to create and feed off of debauchery I have to give one more point to Ball here. While the storyline in Living Dead in Dallas is entertaining the whole Bon Temps storyline kind of lost me – especially how Maryann eventually left Bon Temps.
For the series Maryann is a god-like creature who arrives in the happy town and decides to latch onto Tara, and instead of feeding off the debauchery already present in the town she creates it in order to facilitate the rituals she needs. Only Sookie and Sam sense something different and dangerous about Maryann and neither can do anything about her alone.
Perhaps the single coolest thing for me as an avid reader of the Sookie Stackhouse series is that for the first time in season two of True Blood we get to see Queen Sophie-Anne and Hadley. I won’t tell you how they become important in the series but just keep an eye out for them as you lucky people with HBO get to watch season three unfold before DVD.
Chow: How much blood do you think he's lost?
Pam: Oh, I still think he has something to offer.
Chow: I hate to let it all go to waste like this. Seems a shame we have to wait for Eric.
Pam: Well, maybe one day you'll be sheriff and you can make the rules.
Chow: I doubt that.
Pam: Me too.
Season two of this HBO series deals with Sookie & Bill being called into Dallas to help Eric uncover what has happened to a vampire sheriff even older and stronger than he, and back in Bon Temps people are again being mysteriously murdered and the people of Bon Temps are caught up in the throes of hormones and their inhibitions have supernaturally disappeared. On the surface this is pretty similar to the book – at least the Dallas part of the scenario – but where the series manages to deviate, and improve upon the books is the series of events in Bon Temps.
First and foremost I cannot tell you how thrilled I am that Alan Ball chose to keep Lafayette around. In the books he’s the first victim in Living Dead in Dallas; Lafayette was an interesting character in Dead Until Dark (the only Sookie Stackhouse book he appeared in) but in True Blood Lafayette is downright fascinating. Alan Ball has a knack for taking characters that represent the outer fringes and making them downright essential. I can also tell you that Tara is a completely different character than she is in the book series and I couldn’t be happier for it. I’ve been reading the latest Sookie book (Dead in the Family) and I keep having to remind myself that this Tara is different than the Tara in True Blood - that’s a sign of good creative juices on Ball’s part no?
In regards to plot where season two of True Blood deviates the most is the storyline with Maryann Forester. While Maryann’s character is in the book, as is her need to create and feed off of debauchery I have to give one more point to Ball here. While the storyline in Living Dead in Dallas is entertaining the whole Bon Temps storyline kind of lost me – especially how Maryann eventually left Bon Temps.
For the series Maryann is a god-like creature who arrives in the happy town and decides to latch onto Tara, and instead of feeding off the debauchery already present in the town she creates it in order to facilitate the rituals she needs. Only Sookie and Sam sense something different and dangerous about Maryann and neither can do anything about her alone.
Perhaps the single coolest thing for me as an avid reader of the Sookie Stackhouse series is that for the first time in season two of True Blood we get to see Queen Sophie-Anne and Hadley. I won’t tell you how they become important in the series but just keep an eye out for them as you lucky people with HBO get to watch season three unfold before DVD.
Chow: How much blood do you think he's lost?
Pam: Oh, I still think he has something to offer.
Chow: I hate to let it all go to waste like this. Seems a shame we have to wait for Eric.
Pam: Well, maybe one day you'll be sheriff and you can make the rules.
Chow: I doubt that.
Pam: Me too.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Micmacs
There is no imagination quite like the imagination of Jean-Pierre Jeunet. Jeunet exploded onto the international scene with Amiele, a unique and visual wonder and has been watched ever since. I appreciate the films of Jeunet if for nothing else because my artist sensibility can’t picture scenes and the world the visual way he captures it – colors are different, textures unique, his characters are vibrant & odd – it’s complete and wonderful.
Micmacs is no exception to this rule. It is visually lavish and filled to the brim with quirks and oddities that would make Terry Gilliam jealous. The only thing that kept from from fully falling in love with this film is that it’s a message movie.
The basic concept of Micmacs is that Bazil lost his father to a land mine, and was accidently shot in the head during a drive-by shooting and when he finally finds the manufacturer of the bullets and the mine he decides to extract revenge. I’m not supporting war mongering, but I never got attached enough to Bazil to really care about his revenge, and therefore care about his message.
I think the ultimate problem for me with Micmacs came down to the fact that this film is a satire, and I think when translated into English it’s missing its initial and cultural punch. I felt like I was incapable of understanding the real humor because I wasn’t French – I couldn’t get the nuances of the language or the political situation. It took a google search alone today for me to figure out that the name itself is probably a joke; if I understand correctly Micmacs is a term for some indigenous group in French Canada, and the remaining title (which is deleted from translation in America) means “non-stop madness”.
Don’t misunderstand me, I enjoyed the film. There is nothing like taking a walk into a visually rich world that is so different than your own – I just feel like my cultural experiences kept me from understanding what I wanted to understand. I almost feel that I won’t be able to have a full and complete understanding until I do a lot of research on it.
What I did start wondering after Micmacs is how well our satires have translated into other countires. Did half of Europe see Thank You For Smoking and wonder why we thought it was funny? Or did they watch Tropic Thunder and not understand Simple Jack & the controversy behind an actor in black face? I’ll be pondering that issue for awhile.
Jeunet is still one of my favorite filmmakers, and I am still discovering his films. I highly recommend him to anyone that wants to see a fantastic voice outside American film. I would also like to know if anyone else watched Micmacs and had a similar feeling to mine, please chime in on your thoughts of the film.
Director: Jean-Pierre Jeunet
Writers: Jean-Pierre Jeunet & Guillaume Laurant
Bazil: Dany Boon
Micmacs is no exception to this rule. It is visually lavish and filled to the brim with quirks and oddities that would make Terry Gilliam jealous. The only thing that kept from from fully falling in love with this film is that it’s a message movie.
The basic concept of Micmacs is that Bazil lost his father to a land mine, and was accidently shot in the head during a drive-by shooting and when he finally finds the manufacturer of the bullets and the mine he decides to extract revenge. I’m not supporting war mongering, but I never got attached enough to Bazil to really care about his revenge, and therefore care about his message.
I think the ultimate problem for me with Micmacs came down to the fact that this film is a satire, and I think when translated into English it’s missing its initial and cultural punch. I felt like I was incapable of understanding the real humor because I wasn’t French – I couldn’t get the nuances of the language or the political situation. It took a google search alone today for me to figure out that the name itself is probably a joke; if I understand correctly Micmacs is a term for some indigenous group in French Canada, and the remaining title (which is deleted from translation in America) means “non-stop madness”.
Don’t misunderstand me, I enjoyed the film. There is nothing like taking a walk into a visually rich world that is so different than your own – I just feel like my cultural experiences kept me from understanding what I wanted to understand. I almost feel that I won’t be able to have a full and complete understanding until I do a lot of research on it.
What I did start wondering after Micmacs is how well our satires have translated into other countires. Did half of Europe see Thank You For Smoking and wonder why we thought it was funny? Or did they watch Tropic Thunder and not understand Simple Jack & the controversy behind an actor in black face? I’ll be pondering that issue for awhile.
Jeunet is still one of my favorite filmmakers, and I am still discovering his films. I highly recommend him to anyone that wants to see a fantastic voice outside American film. I would also like to know if anyone else watched Micmacs and had a similar feeling to mine, please chime in on your thoughts of the film.
Director: Jean-Pierre Jeunet
Writers: Jean-Pierre Jeunet & Guillaume Laurant
Bazil: Dany Boon
Monday, June 14, 2010
Billy Wilder Speaks
In this case, the documentary is exactly what the name might imply. The filmmakers piggybacked onto a series of interviews Wilder was doing for a book and filmed them with the proviso that they not do anything with the footage until Wilder was dead; Wilder was traditionally pretty secluded and thought the footage would embarrass him if released while he was alive. I have to say I think this was a beautiful yet simple film that gave me the best present I could have asked for – a trip into Billy Wilder’s thoughts.
For just over an hour the film is a series of conversations with Wilder in both English and German, talking about his life, his films and why he made the works he did. Perhaps the tidbit that made me feel the best was when Wilder told of how the day before he was to start his directorial debut The Major & the Minor he went to Ernst Lubitsch his friend and mentor and admitted to him he was scared out of his mind; Lubitsch turned right back at Wilder and said that even though he’d made over seventy films he was still terrified on the first day of every one of them.
This is the kind of candid talk you can’t get from a press conference or an interview and it was wonderful for me to hear it out of the mouth of one of the filmmakers I respect the most.
I’m sure Billy Wilder Speaks is not for everyone, but for those that it will appeal to it’s a gem. I only wish I could find my Cameron Crowe book Conversations with Wilder so that I could really make a weekend of immersing myself in Wilder’s mind.
Directors: Gisela Grischow & Volker Schlondorff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)