Monthly Archives: June 2013

Film Exhibit Reviews

Stanley Kubrick at the LACMA – Film and Art Museum Report

 

Kubrick11
Stanley Kubrick was an enormously popular filmmaker not just among his peers and among film buffs, but also within the art community at large.  The body of work that he has developed over the years has transcended all forms of art and collected all together, it is quite a sight to see on display. The Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) has always spotlighted the art of film within its galleries in the past.  Given that it’s in the “entertainment capital of the world,” I would be shocked if they hadn’t.  But I’m sure that few have been as impressive and as eye-catching as this recent exhibition on the filmography of Stanley Kubrick.  Kubrick made only 13 films in his whole career, which doesn’t sound like much, but each one of those films is considered a classic and they are touchstones for both the film history and cultural history over the last 50 years.  LACMA has put together an impressive collection of artwork, props, costumes and personal documents from each of Kubrick’s movies and has given everyone who visits a great visual history of both the man and his work.
Kubrick2
Kubrick3
Upon entering the gallery, you are greeted appropriately enough by a movie screen displaying selected scenes from Kubrick’s films.  The next room opens up with a large display of film posters at it’s center.  Some of the posters are pretty unique and ones I’ve never seen before, while others I’m sure can be seen hanging on the wall in any film buff’s home.  Across the floor, there is an impressive collection of the camera lenses that Kubrick used on all of his films, including the Todd-AO lenses used on 2001: A Space Odessey (1968) and the extremely large, light sensitive lens used on Barry Lyndon (1975).  The first room also showcases the early works of Kubrick, including Paths of Glory (1957), Spartacus (1960), and Lolita (1962).  There is also a display of Kubrick’s collection of photos, taken during his early years as a photographer for Look magazine.  It’s a lot to display in the first room, and I wish that there had been more emphasis on certain films, particularly with Spartacus and Dr. Strangelove (1963).  I did however find the photography section fascinating, mainly because it shows how Kubrick trained his eye early on in photography, which would have a huge influence in the years ahead.
Kubrick4
The next room highlights Kubrick’s most renowned film, 2001: A Space Odyssey.  This section was the largest in the gallery, and definitely the most popular as well.  On display are original costumes, as well as set pieces like the bright red lounge chairs found on the orbiting space station.  You’ll also find elements used in the making of the special effects in the film, such as the miniature model of the spaceship and the “Star Child” itself.  There’s a collection of research materials found throughout, which gives you a good idea just how well thought out and researched the whole film was.  The displays are impressive, and this is where the exhibition really demonstrates why film art has it’s place within an art museum.  Everything on display demonstrates the work that goes into creating a striking visual image, and each can stand on its own as a work of world-class art.  This is the first room in the gallery that focuses on a singular film, but it’s not the last, as the gallery devotes the rest of it’s space to the later years of Kubrick’s career.
 Kubrick5
Kubrick6
The next section showcases Barry Lyndon, which was a unique film in itself.  The most interesting thing about the movie is that Kubrick used space-age technology to tell a very old-fashioned period piece.  What he did was use very high tech cameras, with the same lenses used by NASA on the Hubble Telescope, to shoot interiors with no artificial light.  It was a technique never done before on film, and it made Barry Lyndon one of the most intentionally artistic films in Kubrick’s career.  It’s good to see that Barry Lyndon is given a lot of attention in this gallery, given how groundbreaking it was in terms of how it was shot.  On display here is the actual “A” camera itself, along with a collection of costumes used in the film.
Kubrick7
Kubrick8
The next two rooms cover two of Kubrick’s darker films, A Clockwork Orange (1971) and The Shining (1980).  These rooms are not quite as detailed as the 2001 room, but do feature some great pieces within.  Primarily, there are a lot of the props from the films displayed here.  You’ll find the mannequins from the Kerouva Milk Bar and the cane used by Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange, as well as the typewriter and fire ax props from The Shining.  Also on display are some original costumes, including the dresses worn by the two girls in the hallway from The Shining.  Both rooms also do a nice job of matching the color schemes of the two films, with Orange obviously dominating the first room, and stark white walls and blood red carpet dominating the room after it.  Given that these are two of my favorite Kubrick movies, this was obviously one of my favorite sections of the gallery.  They may not have been given the same amount of space as 2001, but it’s still a great display nonetheless.
Kubrick9
Kubrick’s last films, Full Metal Jacket (1987) and Eyes Wide Shut (1999) are given less attention, with only a few props and documents available.  The remainder of the gallery covers the research that went into a project that Kubrick never got to make.  It was a film named The Aryan Papers, which would have been Kubrick’s attempt at a Holocaust film.  Kubrick poured a lot of time and effort into researching the story, but he ultimately abandoned it mainly because Schindler’s List (1993) was about to be released by Kubrick’s friend Steven Spielberg, and because he believed that it was too depressing a subject matter for him to get right.  This section as well as other sections devoted to abandoned projects by Kubrick, like Napoleon and A.I. Artificial Intelligence, give a fascinating look into what might have been.  The Napoleon project in particular looks like it could have been a very impressive epic, and some of the location research into authentic French palaces gives a nice sense of the kind of scale Kubrick was going for.  It also helps to underline the overall theme of the gallery, which is to show the evolution of an artist from one project to another.
Kubrick10
Kubrick111
Overall, this was a worthwhile exhibit to visit and I recommend it to anyone who is a fan of both art and film.  Residents in Los Angeles should hurry though, since the exhibition ends on June 30th, meaning this is the final week to see it.  Admission to the gallery is $20 for adults and it includes admission to all other galleries at LACMA, which has a very impressive collection of both classic and contemporary art.  The Kubrick exhibit was definitely the highlight of my trip, given how much a fan I am of film in general.  As a writer, I especially liked the fact that every section of the gallery included Kubrick’s personal copies of the scripts for each pertaining film.  You get to look over the notes he written on certain scenes, which gives a glimpse into seeing the artist cultivating new ideas on the fly.  There’s so much I could go on about, but it’s better to see it for yourself if you can.  Kubrick is a filmmaker worthy of a place within an art gallery and LACMA should be proud of the show they put on in honor of this visionary man.
Kubrick13
Kubrick12
Movie Reviews

Man of Steel – Review

 

manofsteel
Superman has always had a shaky history making it to the big screen.  The character has single-handedly been responsible for some of the most beloved superhero films of all time, as well as some of the absolute worst.  Undoubtedly, there have been more iterations of this character on both the big and small screens than any other superhero, but is it because no one can get the character right?  Hardly.  The Richard Donner-directed, Christopher Reeve-starring Superman:The Movie (1978) is rightfully considered a classic and is still considered a gold-standard by which most superhero movies are judged by today.
The problem with Superman is that he’s a somewhat out-of-date character who constantly needs to redefined to appeal to modern audiences.  Superman was created in a more innocent, pre-WWII period in comic publishing when readers were able to accept the idea of a super-strong man solving crime in tights and a cape.  In the years since, as the world had become a harsher place, more grounded characters like Batman and Spiderman eclipsed the Man of Steel in popularity, and have found an easier road to box-office success.  Superman has had to re-adapt more times than these characters who stay unchanged across history, and this has become the common thread in his cinematic adventures.  Ever since the Christopher Reeve era, we’ve seen no less than 6 new Superman reboots in film and television;  2 on the big screen, 2 on the small screen, and 2 in animation.  Following 2006’s lackluster Superman Returns, we have another, more grittier reboot of the Superman franchise in 2013’s Man of Steel.  Does the film mark a triumphant return of the character, or does it reinforce the character’s irrelevance in modern times?  The former is thankfully what I experienced after watching the movie; for the most part.
The story covers familiar ground for anyone who is a fan of Superman.  It’s pretty much the origin story retold again, but with some significant departures here and there.  In this version, we see Jor-El (Russell Crowe) sending his infant son Kal-El to Earth as the planet Krypton is in it’s final days.  At the same time, the vengeful General Zod (Michael Shannon) is sentenced to exile for attempting a military coup on Krypton.  Zod vows to escape his imprisonment with the intent of finding the son of the man who betrayed him, Jor-El.  Young Kal-El makes it safely to Earth and grows up on a farm raised by the Kents (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane), who name him Clark and help him learn how to focus his unusual powers as well as teach him the moral ways to use them.  As an adult, Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) searches out the clues to his past and learns the purpose of why he was meant to be Krypton’s last survivor.  Once he finally dons the cape, he encounters a tireless journalist named Lois Lane (Amy Adams), who becomes both a confidant and a resourceful ally as he begins to build his new identity as Superman.  Unfortunately, this also draws the attention of General Zod, who has made it to Earth with the intention of building a new Krypton, committing mass genocide in the process.
The film takes a few liberties with the Superman mythos and I’m sure that it will split the audiences’ reaction to the film.  For the most part, I really liked the new direction taken with the story of Superman.  It’s more grounded and less reverential to what has come before it.  The good aspects of the Superman character are expanded upon in a big way and the film takes on a very epic feel.  When Superman flies in this movie, it’s with the speed and velocity of a fighter jet, and the film conveys that adrenaline rush perfectly.  At the same time, the movie downplays or outright removes some of the cornier aspects of the character and his mythology.  The relationship between him and Lois Lane is much more maturely portrayed here than in previous installments.  Sorry Donner’s Superman fans, but there’s no romantic nighttime flight with Lois in this version.  The role of Jor-El in this movie is also expanded upon in a way that actually benefits the film’s structure without getting in the way.
A lot of credit goes to director Zack Snyder and producer Christopher Nolan for resisting the urge to play it safe with the character.  This film is a reboot in the truest sense of the word.  The problem that I had with Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns was that it was trying to hard to be a continuation of the original Richard Donner Superman, which caused it to lack an identity and in the end made it a complete bore of a film.  In Man of Steel, there is no confusing this with any other version of the character.  This is a Superman film we have truly never seen before.  I would compare this to how different the Christopher Nolan Batman films are to the Tim Burton ones.  Both have their merits and are interesting interpretations of the character, but can stand on their own apart from one another.  Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel does what Batman Begins did, which is make a clean slate for the character, unbound from everything that has defined him in the past.
The difficult thing with doing a franchise reboot is that you’ve got to deliver a whole lot of back-story that audiences already know and still make it feel fresh.  Man of Steel does manage to fit in a lot of story without feeling forced or bloated, but not everything works so well as a whole.  One thing that does drag the film down is the lack of character development, particularly with Superman himself.  Clark Kent is a fairly one-dimensional character here, who doesn’t go through a whole lot of change throughout the story.  The film is missing a lot of his inner-turmoil, which is briefly touched upon in childhood flashbacks, but never fully fleshed out.  Once Clark becomes Superman, it feels more like an inevitability rather than a payoff to the man’s journey in life.  To his credit, actor Henry Cavill does the best he can to give the character some weight, and he does come off charming as the character, which is a good thing.  But I believe that writer David Goyer should of done a better job of fleshing out the characters here, because they mostly feel like archetypes rather than individuals.
The most rounded character in the film oddly enough is Jor-El, who manages to become a surprisingly involved character in this story-line.  I won’t go into too much detail as to what role he plays in the movie, but his presence does add a little extra depth to the overall story.  Thanks to a balanced performance by Russell Crowe, Jor-El manages to come off as noble, heroic, resourceful, and even sometimes funny, which helps the character stand out amid the rest.  I also like the portrayal of Lois Lane in the film.  We see a lot more of her tenacity and resourcefulness as an investigative reporter here than in any other version of the character.  Amy Adams manages to make the role her own without straying too far from the essentials of the character.  She especially captures Lois’ determination, showing us just how good she is at her job.   Michael Shannon chews up a lot of scenery as the villainous Zod, but he manages to keep it from becoming a distraction and works it well into this film.  In addition, Diane Lane and Kevin Costner give nice grounded performances as Clark’s adoptive parents.  Most of the performances do manage to work in this movie, even if the material is lacking.
Comparisons to Nolan’s Batman reboot are going to be inevitable, and I’m not going to say that Man of Steel reaches that level of success.  What Batman Begins did so well was to build up the character of Bruce Wayne and explain to us why he became the Batman.  Man of Steel doesn’t have that same kind of depth and instead we are shown the “how” of Superman’s origin and not the “why”.  What the film does deliver well is the action.  We see Superman doing what he does best in newer and bigger ways.  This is far and away the most ambitious Superman film I’ve ever seen; at least on a technical level.  Zack Snyder is a visual filmmaker first and foremost, and he does not hold back on the imagery here.  Man of Steel is a very pretty film to look at, and thankfully it is a stylish departure for the franchise.  While it may anger some fans, I am glad to see DC Comics and Warner Bros. taking risks again with this iconic character.  Whether or not everything works in this reboot, it is a step in the right direction and I’ll eagerly anticipate whatever comes next for Superman.
Rating: 7.5/10
Editorials

The Terrible Threes – The Hard Road of Second Sequels

 

second sequels
The number 3 seems to be unlucky for film franchises.  That’s the thought that came to mind when I watched The Hangover Part III.  Short review; it sucked, and I’m beginning to see how it falls into a pattern.  Movie franchises seem to fizzle out around the point that a third entry is released.  Unless its a part of a pre-planned trilogy, like The Lord of the Rings, it is very rare to see a second sequel rise to the level of its predecessors.  So, why do so many filmmakers insist on moving forward with a series that has clearly lost steam after two films.  The simple fact is that sequels are easy to make and unfortunately the law of diminishing returns applies far too often.  In many cases, the first and second sequels just repeat the formula of the initial films, and that not only shows a loss in creativity, but it also defeats the purpose of building up the brand in the first place.  Audiences naturally want to see new things when they watch a movie, even when it comes from a sequel.  Some sequels do manage to breath new life into familiar stories; even deviate from the previous ones in wild and interesting ways.  But while you can sometimes catch lightning in a bottle in two tries, it almost rarely happens again.
There are many factors that go into making a great sequel.  A sequel has to know what made the first film a success and do exactly the same, only bigger.  In some cases, a sequel can even far exceed its predecessor.  Director James Cameron seems to take that principle to heart when making the sequels to his films.  In the case with Terminator 2 (1992), he not only continued the story of the first film, but made it bigger and more epic in the process.  For many people, it’s the movie they most think about when the hear the word “Terminator.” It’s no simple feat for a sequel to be the definitive entry in a series.  A more recent example of this would be Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight (2008), which became so popular, that it changed the way we market superhero movies today.  We no longer look at Nolan’s films as the Batman Begins trilogy.  Instead, it’s considered the Dark Knight trilogy, which is the direct result of the sequel overshadowing the first film.
Though the track record for a first sequel is good, there’s less success when it comes to the second sequel.  Once a series hits its third entry, that’s the point where it begins to show signs of exhaustion.  By this point, filmmakers are almost trapped by their own success; having to keep something fresh and interesting long after the good ideas have been used up.  Like I mentioned before, unless a series was planned long ahead of time as a trilogy or more, then most of the creativity will be spent by the time the third film comes along.  It’s very hard to be a sequel to a sequel, and audiences can only take so much of the same story before they lose interest.
The genre that seems to suffer the most from this 3rd film curse is the superhero genre.  Usually superhero films that carry a 3 next to it’s name have ended up being the most criticized by their fans.  We’ve seen this with films like Superman 3, Spiderman 3, X-Men: The Last Stand, and now it appears from this year as well, Iron Man 3.  Even Christopher Nolan’s critically lauded The Dark Knight Rises failed to deliver for some fans.  As is the case with most of these films, they are the follow-ups to very some very beloved sequels; ones that fans had hoped these trilogy cappers would’ve built upon.  There are a couple reasons that could explain why these films have fallen short: one, the audiences’ expectations were just too high for the filmmakers to deliver; two, the filmmakers decided to deviate too much from a proven formula as a means to spur on their creative juices; or three, the filmmakers had clearly lost interest and were just trying to fulfill their obligations. The worst case is when a series decides that it’s ready to be done, without the foresight of establishing a means of wrapping up the story.  This was the case with X-Men: The Last Stand (2006), which haphazardly crammed in a bunch of story points and characters in a film that didn’t need them in order to please the fans expectations as they cut the story off way too short.  The final result was jumbled mess that ended up pleasing no one and it hurt the brand for years to come.
Other franchises also suffer from this pattern, but out of some very different outcomes.  Sometimes, a series does plan ahead and creates a trilogy based off the original film’s popularity, leading to the production of two films at once.  This, however, is a huge risk because it puts the pressure on the middle film in the series to deliver; otherwise the third film will be left out to dry if it doesn’t work.  This has happened on several occasions, such as with the Back to the Future trilogy, the Matrix trilogy, and the Pirates of the Caribbean series.  The Pirates films in particular became so notoriously over-budgeted, that it actually led to the end of studios making simultaneous productions for sequels.  While the receptions of the films are mixed, there was no denying that these series lost steam the longer they went on.  The same happens with the opposite as well, when an unnecessary third film is made many years after the previous sequel.  The Godfather Part III (1990) is probably the most famous example, having come nearly 16 years after the last film, and which extended a story that people thought was perfectly resolved earlier, for no other reason other than to do it all over again.
That’s exactly what most 3rd films end up being: unnecessary.  That’s what I thought when I saw The Hangover Part III.  The series has long exhausted it’s potential and is now running on the fumes.  Could the series have sustained enough interest over three films is another question entirely.  It certainly had enough clout for one sequel.  But whether or not a film series makes it too a 3rd film should entirely be the result of the need to explore the possibilities of the story, and not just to repeat the same formula for the sake of making some quick cash.  These films must be able to stand on their own and not just be an extension of what came before.  The best trilogies are ones where each entry has its own identity, and can entertain well enough on their own without feeling like the extended part of a greater whole.  Films like Return of the Jedi, Indiana Jones and Last Crusade, Goldfinger and The Return of the King are beloved because they entertain while also being an essential part of their overall stories.  And most importantly, they didn’t waste their potential.  Something that the filmmakers behind the Hangover films should’ve considered.
Editorials

Your Movie is Loading – Digital Innovations and the Resulting Tightened Gap Between Cinema and Home Entertainment

 

home theater
Growing up through the 80’s and 90’s, it was clear that going to the movies and watching one on TV were very different experiences.  But in the years since, technology has revolutionized the ways in which we experience a movie.  Thanks to innovations like Movie on Demand and digital camera and projection, that line between the two experiences has been clearly redefined.  Film companies can now premiere their projects on multiple platforms whereas years ago, you had to wait for sometimes even a year before you were able to buy a film on video after it left the theaters.  The accessibility of the internet has influenced that shift more than anything; allowing people to see what they want, when they want, all through the process of video streaming.  Like most new things, this shift in how we watch the movies has its pros and cons.  For one thing, it gives exposure to movies and media that normally wouldn’t have been seen years ago, while at the same time, causing previous standards of the movie industry to become obsolete and forgotten.  We live in an era where things are changing rapidly, and I wonder if these changes are just trends or are here to stay for good.
One thing that has changed movie watching dramatically is the actual digitizing of media for home viewing.  Before, we had to to buy a tape or a disc to watch a film at home, but nowadays, many people are opting to just cut the middle man out and download a film off the internet.  Places like iTunes allow for the purchasing of a digital version of a film the same day it’s released in stores, and sometimes even earlier on certain exclusives.  It’s a good place to purchase a movie for those who don’t want to clutter their shelves with DVD boxes.  This has also changed the rental business, with sites like Netflix and Hulu putting old juggernaut rental chains like Blockbuster out of business.  That development right there spells out just how powerful this new trend has become.
But what’s interesting about this change is that the film industry has yet to figure it out.  Accessing a movie through a digital copy or through a streaming service is difficult because there is no standardization.  You have certain movies available on some formats and unavailable on others.  It all depends on who has the contract with the retailer.  At least in the years past, you had standardization with all movies released on the preferred format.  Yes, VHS and Blu-ray had to gain dominance over BetaMax and HD DVD in order to become the standard, but once they did, selections in a video store became only a matter of which title the person wanted.  Nowadays, a person who wants the digital copy of a film has to download multiple media players onto their computer or mobile devices just so that they can watch the movies that they want.  And all of these media providers are competitive enough to survive in this market, so any standardization will not be happening soon.  Perhaps its a good thing for there to be competitiveness in the market of media sharing, as it leads to more innovations, but it has the consequence of making the market difficult to navigate.
One of the things that I do find to be a troubling change is the loss of a movie being an actual physical thing.  It may be strange to think of a movie as an object, but I consider myself a collector as well as a fan of cinema, and when I like a movie, I want to include it in my collection.  I have been collecting movies since childhood, and that has included VHS tapes, DVD’s and now Blu-rays.  I am the kind of person that has multiple copies of a single film in different formats and my library is bound to continue growing for a long time to come.  To me, its just a nice feeling to be able to look at a film sitting on my shelf and see it as a part of a physical history of cinema.  This is why I haven’t digitized my film collection.  I am far more likely to buy a disc of a film rather than download one, mainly because I still prefer holding a movie in my hand, even though the idea of having everything stored on a computer is one that I do understand.  For many, a digital copy is a preferred method for people who have been wanting it for a long time and in many ways it’s the faster and easier mode of distribution.
This trend has definitely changed distribution in Hollywood in a good way.  Some movies in the past have struggled to get appropriate distribution, whether they lacked the funding or they were just too risky a project for the studios to make a fuss about in the first place.  In some cases, movies would become hits long after their run in theaters, once they were seen on cable or home video; cult classics like Office Space (1999) or Clerks (1994).  Now, it is possible for a film to bypass the pressure of a theatrical exhibition and be seen almost immediately on whichever format a person chooses.  This is especially true with documentaries, which can be seen on anything from movie screens to YouTube, and not lose any of their impact.  Director Kevin Smith saw the potential in this multi-platform model of release, and decided to self-distribute his most recent film Red State (2011) outside the Hollywood system.  The results were mixed on the success of the release, but Kevin Smith did make waves due to the attempt, and it has made multi-platform distribution just as viable a trend as anything else we’ve seen in the past few years.
Another surprising thing that technology has done to the film industry is to change the way films are both made and processed nowadays.  Digital photography has advanced so much, that it’s oftentimes hard to tell if a movie is shot digitally or not.  Digital projection has certainly taken over cinemas completely, as it’s now hard to find a place that still runs film prints; another sad change, where a film stops existing as a physical thing.  But digital projection has been around long enough to make audiences no longer see any real difference, unless they have a trained eye.  The same goes for digital photography.  Digital cameras are now able to shoot in such high resolutions that it actually exceeds the clarity of regular 35mm film.  This has enabled some new advancements in the presentation of movies, like Digital 3D and 48 frames per second.  While unique, these trends are sometimes just a gimmick, and are usually dependent on the quality of the film to work for an audience.  But the trend has moved in favor of digital photography for a while now.  Only a few filmmakers have stuck by traditional film, like Quentin Tarantino and Steven Spielberg, but for many filmmakers who have limited means and want to bypass the film processing phase, they are embracing the new technology with great enthusiasm.
This has also crossed over into television as well, which has made that line between cinema and home entertainment even more blurred.  TV shows today are filmed mostly with digital cameras, and that has significantly changed what kinds of TV productions that are seen now.  Shows like Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead are done with such complexity in their production, that they can be comparable to the quality of a theatrical film.  This is thanks to digital camerawork that is able to replicate film clarity and allows for manipulation in post production, either through color grading and/or the additions of visual effects.  Years ago, there was no mistaking the difference between what a film looked like and what a TV show looked like.  They were completely distinctive forms of entertainment.  Now the gap has tightened, and it’s probably what has drawn more people towards home viewing.  Can you imagine what shows such as M.A.S.H and Happy Days would be like if they were made with today’s technology.
It’s an interesting tug-of-war that we are seeing today between film and television; one that has been brought about through digital innovations.  While some things will never change, there are other trends that have clearly made things different than what we grew up with.  I for one have my line with what I’m willing to embrace from these new trends, but I am pleased to see so many advancements made in the last few years.  I certainly like the increased accessibility to films that I would normally have had trouble finding.  Digital photography has also made television a whole lot better in recent years.  But, I also miss the experience of working with actual film.  My years as a projectionist gained me a strong appreciation for the look and feel of a film print, but it’s sad to see it become an obsolete tool in film presentation today.  Also, while digital presentation and video streaming are convenient and innovative, the movie itself is what will make or break the investment in the end.
Ultimately, there’s nothing that beats a good time at a movie theater with an auditorium full of people.  Home entertainment may be at a high standard now, and techniques like 3D and high frame rate may be eye-catching, but it ultimately comes down to the human factor.  I enjoy watching a movie, no matter what technology is behind it, as long as it remains entertaining.  And that’s an experience that will always be timeless, even if the ticket prices are getting painfully and astronomically higher.