All posts by James Humphreys

Collecting Criterion

Collecting Criterion – The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

manchurian candidate

Political films are never an easy sell in Hollywood.  Depending on the movie’s point of view, the very message of the movie is going to alienate some portion of the audience, making it difficult to for that same film to become a success.  Some filmmakers make the mistake of turning their films too one-sided in their arguments and in return it diminishes the power of their movie.  While there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a film that has something to say, political or otherwise, it still is crucial to have a strong enough story to go along with that message.  That is what makes up the best of political movies in the history of cinema; engaging narratives that just so happen to also have an important statement to make.  This enables the movies to reach a more broader audience, even if the film’s message differs from the audience member’s own point of view.  That’s how you get right wingers who end up enjoying the movies of Oliver Stone like JFK (1991), or leftists who enjoy John Milius’ flag-waving extravaganza Red Dawn (1984).  A good story can transcend politics, and that’s what is at the heart of great political films.  It could be argued that every movie in the Criterion Collection is a political film in some way, given that they always drawn to movies that have deeper meanings and messages to them.  But, there are some films in the Collection that are more overtly political than others.  They include the social dramas of Greek director Costa-Gravas like Z (1969, Spine #491) and Missing (1982, #449), provocative documentaries like Robert Altman’s Tanner ’88 (1988, #258) and D. A. Pennebaker’s The War Room (1993, #602), and even silly satirical comedies like Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator (1940, #565).  But, if there are easily definable political movies within the collection, it would be political thrillers, and they’ve selected one of the best to join their catalog; John Frankenheimer’s The Manchurian Candidate (1963, #803).

The Manchurian Candidate is a spectacularly well crafted political thriller.  It’s also definitely a product of it’s time.  In the post war years, between the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, American politics was caught up in a frenzy of suspected Communist infiltration.  With the Soviet Union quickly becoming a competitive world power with hostility towards the United States, many Americans feared that a Soviet invasion was possible, and the fear was only compounded by the rise in nuclear armament during this period.  Thus, began what we know now as the Cold War.  To capitalize on this fear, some in the government like Senator Joseph McCarthay began proclaiming that Communist spies were all around us, both in government and in the world of entertainment.  This then led to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) which was set up to expose any Communists working in America.  The committee was unfortunately a witch-hunt built on Cold War paranoia, and those who refused to testify before the committee or refuse to name names were sadly blacklisted in the film industry; destroying the careers of hundreds of entertainers.  By the time President Kennedy took office, the HUAC hearings had been exposed as the farcical waste of time that it was and McCarthay was disgracefully censured by Congress as a result.  But, even still, the damage was done and Hollywood would never be the same afterwards.  Movies turned more cynical towards the image of America during this time; presenting a nation that was more fractured than united.  That’s the world that The Manchurian Candidate presents.  It’s a rare film in it’s genre, as it takes a critical view of the Cold War paranoia brought on by the McCarthay hearings, while at the same time indulging that paranoia and letting it play out for an intriguing political plot.  It may be multifaceted, but all of this is what makes The Manchurian Candidate an enduring masterpiece today.

The film begins with a battalion of soldiers getting captured by the enemy force in the midst of the Korean War.  Among them is Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey) and Major Bennett Marco (Frank Sinatra).  The film moves ahead to after the war, when each of the captured soldiers return home seemingly unharmed.  According to the army’s reports, the soldiers owe their lives to the heroism of Raymond, although none of the existing soldiers have any clear memory of how he saved them.  Raymond’s return home brings him back into the midst of his blow-hard, McCarthay-esque stepfather, Senator John Iselin (James Gregory) and his manipulative, power-hungry mother Elanor Iselin (Angela Lansbury).  They quickly try to capitalize on Raymond’s war hero status for their own gain, but Raymond shows little interest in their political ambitions.  Instead, Raymond grows increasingly distant socially, retreating into a confused sense of his own identity.  This is noticed by Raymond’s superior, Major Bennett, who himself is suffering from psychological episodes, something that’s affecting his relationship with his girlfriend Eugenie (Janet Leigh).  After doing some detective work, Bennett uncovers a conspiratorial plot where it’s revealed that he, Raymond, and the rest of their battalion were brainwashed during their captivity by Chinese Communist psychologists.  It turns out that they were conditioned to undertake an assassination plot without ever realizing it, triggered into action through Pavlovian symbols.  Bennett soon realizes that Raymond is the key to the whole conspiracy and that he’s only one trigger away from committing an act that will reshape the American political landscape.  It becomes even more insidious when it’s learned that the mastermind behind the entire conspiracy is none other than Raymond’s own mother, Elanor.

The Manchurian Candidate is one twisted ride of a thriller, and yet it amazingly feels grounded at the same time.  I believe that it’s largely in part due to the direction of John Frankenheimer.  Frankenheimer got his start in television, which I’m sure help him develop a good sense of economical story-telling.  The Manchurian Candidate is such a taught, finely-tuned thriller that it enables the more outlandish bits of the plot feel natural and engaging.  It also perfectly captures the delirious sense of paranoia that defined that era of politics.  Throughout the film, you are drawn into a world where nothing can be taken for granted, and that even those among you might be out to do you harm.  This is Cold War thriller stuff to the maximum degree, but it gives us a critical eye towards our own political system.  The movie brilliantly deconstructs the manipulation that takes place when opportunistic people exploit fear and paranoia to suit their own needs, just as it had during the McCarthay trials.  Senator Iselin is a very thinly veiled representation of the disgraced politician, and I love the way the film shows how there is little substance behind the bluster and that his presence is merely as a sideshow to a larger problem.  The film gets in it’s most pointed mockery of the McCarthay witch hunts when it’s revealed that Senator Iselin got his number of suspected Communists in the government from the label of a Heinz ketchup bottle.  But the most brilliant element of the film is the way it portrays the effects of brainwashing.  The most famous scene in the movie is the Garden Party, where the soldiers are presented in their conditioned state to a panel of Communist leaders.  It’s a brilliantly edited scene that cuts back and forth between what the brainwashed soldiers see (a Victorian style Tea Party in a garden with friendly old women) and what is actually around them (a modern looking auditorium in Chinese Manchuria).  This scene is a masterpiece of editing, cutting back and forth between the different settings, and even mixing the two at times, without ever losing the rhythm of the scene.  Brainwashing may not be a clearly defined science, but this scene gives us the most vivid sense of what it might actually be like that’s ever been put on film.

The Manchurian Candidate has it’s political points to make, but it ultimately transcends it’s point of view and place within it’s era due to the strength of it’s story.  And no better element makes this a memorable experience more than the performances of the actors.  The performances in this film are among the best ever, and the great thing about them is that they come from some of the unlikeliest of players.  Frank Sinatra, for example, shows that he’s more than just a beloved crooner in show-business; he could be a great actor as well.  His performance as Major Bennett Marco probably stands as his greatest ever; even more so than his Oscar-winning turn in From Here to Eternity (1953) .  His portrayal brings a lot of moral fortitude to this every-man soldier caught in a web of political conceit.  I especially love the awkwardness he sometimes brings to the character, which is characteristically unusual for a guy with the suave reputation that “Chairman of the Board” had.   Laurence Harvey is also effective as the emotionally distant Raymond Shaw.  The English born actor probably struggled to find the right mode to play an all-American war hero, but he manages to make it work.  The psychological see-saw that he is put through is also perfectly conveyed through his performance, going between manic and emotionless in a vivid way.  But the greatest performance in the movie belongs to Angela Lansbury as Elanor Iselin.  I listed Elanor on my list of Top Ten Favorite Villains here, and it’s a placement that I still feel confident in.  It’s one of the greatest casting against types in film history, with the normally warm and sympathetic Lansbury perfectly embodying a character of pure evil ambition.  Elanor Iselin is one of the most vividly portrayed and written political monsters ever brought to the screen, and Lansbury is frightening to watch in the role.  Who knew the future Jessica Fletcher and Mrs. Potts could be this chilling a political manipulator.  If anything, the movie is worth seeing just for her performance alone.

The Manchurian Candidate makes a great addition to the Criterion Collection, as it fits in with the label’s already high standards of quality cinematic works, but also helps to elevate it even more as one of Criterion’s more mainstream classics.  Made by United Artists, Manchurian Candidate is a studio film, and one that has been long celebrated by both Hollywood and the general audience for decades.  Given it’s reputation, the film has long been given special treatment, including top notch preservation.  Criterion, who usually has it’s hands full working on detailed restorations of sometimes neglected film stock, thankfully were able to source their image from this film’s original negative, still found in the Deluxe Color Archives.  From this, Criterion created a 4K scan of the negative to create a new digital master for their blu-ray release.  The resulting image gives us probably the best clarity that the film has had since it’s initial release.  The movie was shot in black and white, and was purposely made to look a little gritty, with documentary like graininess, so it’s not going to pop out at you like some of Criterion’s other, more flashy restorations.  Even still, as far as films of it’s era go, The Manchurian Candidate looks amazing.  Detail is excellent, as is the gray-scale shading, making the film feel consistent from beginning to end.  Likewise, the restoration of the film’s soundtrack does a great job of preserving the film’s brilliant sound design.  The echoing effect during the film’s climatic race against time is masterfully enriched by the restoration.  The David Amram score is also nice and clear as well.  It’s another top quality restoration by the people at Criterion and an excellent handling of such a prestigious title.

The extras on the disc are not too substantial, but each one is well worth checking out.  First off is a commentary track recorded by director John Frankenheimer.  Frankenheimer died back in 2002, so we sadly can’t get any new insight on the film today, but thankfully he did a lot during his last few years to speak extensively about his films, and this commentary was one such example.  Recorded for the film’s DVD release in the late 90’s, Frankenheimer delivers some great insight into the film’s making, including the political climate in which this movie was made as well as touching upon the unconventional casting of actors that really had an effect on this film’s success.  While Frankenheimer is no longer around to discuss the movie, Criterion still lucked out in getting to sit down with Angela Lansbury about her role.  In a newly recorded interview, the now 90 year old actress gives us a very fascinating look into how she portrayed such a memorable villainess.  She is proud of her performance and celebrates the legacy that this film has had in both the world of entertainment and politics.  I especially found her description of what it’s like to portray someone getting shot very illuminating.  Documentarian Errol Morris is also interviewed, discussing the effect this movie had on him as both a filmmaker and as an activist, and how it’s legacy has endured.  There’s also a neat archival conversation between Frankenheimer, screenwriter George Axelrod, and Frank Sinatra.  This is a neat discussion that also let’s us gain some insight from the film’s headlining star.  Also included is an interview from historian Susan Carruthers, who gives some fascinating context to the Cold War paranoia of the era, as well as an examination into the history of post-war brainwashing.  In particular, she acts as a nice reasonable voice debunking some of the more outlandish theories of brainwashing, which this film and those like it perpetuated during the height of the Cold War.  The blu-ray edition also is beautifully packaged in a recreation of some of the Saul Bass poster art made for the film’s release.  Overall, it marks another excellent set by Criterion, worthy of the collection as a whole.

I for one was really anticipating this Criterion release, since The Manchurian Candidate is among my favorite movies of all time; top 10 easily.  It’s a perfectly executed thriller; never once refusing to give easy answers to it’s audience and always pulling us to the edge of our seats.  I also like that it has the audacity to take no prisoners in it’s political targets; condemning political opportunists who manipulate the public with paranoia and Nationalistic furor, while at the same time showing Communist sedition as an all too real threat. And it’s the cast that really sends it over the top, with Sinatra never better and Angela Lansbury showing just how much range she really has. The movie clearly represented it’s time period (and was also sadly prophetic as the Kennedy assassination proceeded it within less than a year), but it’s messages nevertheless still resonate today.  No one probably realized that American politics would turn into such a chaotic world, but as we stand here now in 2016, politics have become even crazier than what Manchurian Candidate could dream up.  You have one candidate for president that’s prone to leaks of information and is regarded as a ruthless, political manipulator with little concern for who gets in her way, while the other is a bigoted, blow-hard, showboating opportunist who is revealing himself more and more to be under the influence of political outsiders from Russia.  Sound familiar?  Even beyond this election cycle, The Manchurian Candidate will still stand alone as a masterpiece for all time.  Hollywood did try to do an update of the movie in 2004 starring Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep, but it ultimately failed because it was unnecessary.  The original is still as fresh as it ever was and will continue to be so.  Regardless of your political leanings, or your interest in politics in general, The Manchurian Candidate is a political thriller that will never leave you disappointed.  It’s a very strong addition to Criterion’s collection, and a benchmark title among it’s broad political spectrum of movies.

manchurian candidate criterion

 

Film Exhibit Reviews

Guillermo Del Toro: At Home With Monsters at the LACMA – Film Exhibition Report

Del Toro Exhibit Entrance

A few years back, in the early days of this site, I took a visit to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (aka LACMA) where they were holding an exhibition of the art and artifacts from the various movies of Stanley Kubrick; an interesting exhibit in it’s own that you can read about in my previous report here.   Keeping in that tradition, the LACMA museum complex frequently holds special exhibitions like the Kubrick one to spotlight the great contributions filmmakers have made to the artistic world in general.  In particular, certain visually driven filmmakers or special artistic movements in the history of cinema are featured.  This year, LACMA’s selected person of interest is renowned Mexican filmmaker Guillermo del Toro, whose body of work and visual style feels quite at home in the company of the museum’s extensive collection of artistic wonders.  Del Toro has made a career out of delivering captivating visual treats; mostly within the world of the macabre and the weird.  His films are vivid representations of a fertile creative mind and it’s great to see such an exhibit assembled to illustrate the cinematic imprint that he has left on the industry.  Unlike the Kubrick exhibition however, this exhibit was produced conjointly with the filmmaker himself, with many of Del Toro’s own personal assets and collections making up a good portion of the exhibit’s artifacts on view.  And also different from the Kubrick exhibit is the way that it is laid out.  Whereas the previous gallery was set up to take us across the progression of a director’s career, film by film, the Del Toro exhibit is built more around themes and motifs; ones that have inspired the director’s creative process over the years.

Inspiration is at the heart of this gallery, as much of the sights on view showcase the process in which ideas are born from experiencing the works of art from a wide spectrum of sources, and how they’ve manifested in Del Toro’s own work.  As stated in the gallery’s pamphlet and on the various plaques throughout, the exhibition is based off of Guillermo del Toro’s own privately owned gallery, where he houses all of his favorite collections of art and artifacts that he’s accumulated over the years.  Apparently it’s a second home that he bought just for the purpose of housing all of his stuff, when his own living space became too crowded, and he has given it the special title of “Bleak House,” named after the famous Charles Dickens’ novel.  This exhibition is clearly modeled after his private museum, and it’s great to see both Del Toro and LACMA collaborating together to give us a little taste of what it’s like to visit this private den of his and see where he draws his inspirations from.  The gallery takes the home interior motif, and allows the different themes of Del Toro’s films to occupy each of the proceeding rooms, each displaying some of the artifacts on loan from Bleak House, as well as props from his movies, original artwork, and various pieces from LACMA’s collection that fit within the exhibit’s theme.  I visited the gallery this weekend to give a thorough report of what I saw, complete with pictures.  And like previous exhibitions on display at this immense museum complex, it’s an experience well worth exploring.

Del Toro Exhibit 2

Del Toro Exhibit 1

Upon entering the front facade on the ground floor of the Art of the Americas Building, you are greeted by the first of what will be many wax figure recreations of different characters from Del Toro’s films.  This “beauty” that you see above is the Angel of Death character from Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008), played by frequently used Del Toro actor Doug Jones.  Of course, the grotesque but stunning sight gives you the perfect introduction for what else you will be seeing in the rest of the gallery; a mixture of the beautiful and the disturbing.  Beyond this imposing figure is the first room of the gallery.  Here you can see the visual motif of a home interior clearly visible, as the different walls lining the gallery are topped off with rafters, rising above each hallway, but with no roof to hold up on top.  The first room’s theme is  “Childhood and Innocence,” which is a theme that Del Toro explores in many of his movie, particularly with regards to the loss of both.  Standing center in the room is the second wax figure, this time depicting the character Fauno from Pan’s Labyrinth (2006), also played by Doug Jones.

Del Toro Exhibit 3

Del Toro Exhibit 4

The “Childhood and Innocence” room also documents the years of Guillermo’s upbringing in Guadalajara, Mexico.  On the walls, you will find a few childhood pictures on display as well as artwork from many of the different influences that shaped his imagination early on.  Folklore and fairy tales were a big influence on him and none more so than Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland.  A copy of the book is displayed here, opened up to one of the illustrations that clearly left an impression on young Guillermo.  Other works of art displayed include the works of Edward Gorey and Kay Nielsen, both artists who melded darkness and joy very well in their work, which was something that clearly appealed to Del Toro.

Del Toro Exhibit 5

The next room takes us into one of the more obvious visual motifs found in Del Toro’s body of work, and that’s the influence of the Victorian era aesthetic.  Dubbed “Victoriana” this room shows how the period style manifests itself visually within his many films, either overtly or subtlely.  Of course, his most recent film Crimson Peak (2015) is spotlighted here, with authentic props and costumes from the film being displayed.  Front and center is a collection of dresses, worn by Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska in the movie.  Across from them, you find a mixture of different influences that came from the Victorian period that inspired many of Del Toro’s different films.  He often cites Charles Dickens as an inspiration, given the author’s sense of detail for the era, as well as his fascination with the dark and macabre in many of his stories.  Del Toro borrowed the name “Bleak House” for this reason.  You’ll also see how modernizing this aesthetic in the “steam punk” style also finds it’s way into Del Toro’s films, particularly in Hellboy (2004), and there’s a neat looking parody of a Victorian portrait featuring the comic book character in this room.  My favorite artifact though is the painting of Madame Sharpe from Crimson Peak, a great prop that illustrates perfectly the fine line that Del Toro walks between the sinister and the silly.

Del Toro Exhibit 7

Adjacent to the “Victoriana” room is a small section dedicated to Del Toro’s other favorite visual motif; Bugs.  Insects find their way into almost every Del Toro film, whether they are the small creepy kind like those seen in Pan’s Labyrinth, or the large monstrous kind seen in films like Mimic (1997), or even the alien kind seen in Pacific Rim (2013).  A cabinet displaying different kinds of bug life research is shown here, as well as different visual treatments drawn during the development of Del Toro’s movies.  Accompanying these is another costume display; this one of the Ghost of Edith’s Mother from Crimson Peak, a creepy looking dress that carries over the insect motif, as you’ll see moths sewn into the fabric of the dress.

Del Toro Exhibit 8

Del Toro Exhibit 9

Del Toro Exhibit 10

The next room covers the theme, “Magic, Alchemy,  and the Occult.”  Here, different influences from many different genres are spotlighted, mainly to show Del Toro’s fascination with the world of the paranormal.  You see a mixture of magic and science mixed in here as well, as mechanical gadgets such as automatons are mixed in with magical artifacts like crystal balls and tarot cards. A giant wooden hand that was used on the set of Hellboy II is prominent here, as is a wax figure of one of Del Toro’s primary influences: H.P. Lovecraft.  Many of the figures throughout the gallery were crafted by artist Thomas Kuebler, and his Lovecraft figure may be the most striking in the gallery.  It’s so lifelike that I almost thought it was a real person standing there at times.  Lovecraft, one of the most influential horror and sci-fi writers of the last century is a favorite of Del Toro’s, and he has stated many times that he intends on adapting the author’s classic At the Mountains of Madness into a film one day.  Also included here is a nod to another of Del Toro’s dream projects; a painting of Medusa found in the Disneyland attraction “Haunted Mansion.”  It’s interesting to see the influence of Lovecraft and Disney mingled together in this room, and yet both are true to the theme of magic that has clearly been a big part of Del Toro’s creative process.

Del Toro Exhibit 11

As you make your way down a lengthy hall to the next room, you see a wall cut out with a ghostly figure staring back at you through it.  It’s another wax figure of one of Del Toro’s creations.  This time, it is the ghost boy Santi from the film The Devil’s Backbone (2001).  As you approach the display, there is a nice effect to replicate the way that the character looked in the movie, with transparent skin and a ghostly flow of blood blowing out of his head.  This is done with the same effect that is used to create the ghosts at the Haunted Mansion, and it’s a nice little spectacle in this gallery.  Perhaps more than anything else in the exhibit, this was the display that was being photographed by the most people.  And like the Lovecraft figure, I’m impressed with the level of creativity and detail that was put into this attraction.

Del Toro Exhibit 12

Del Toro Exhibit 13

Into the next room, we see another huge influence in Guillermo del Toro’s life, and that is Pop Culture, particularly with Comic Books and Movies.  Titled “Movies, Comics, Pop Culture,” this room presents many examples of the different comic books that Del Toro read during his childhood and up through his film career.  The pamphlet states that Del Toro arguably had amassed the largest comic book collection in all of Mexico growing up, and whether or not that’s true, it’s undisputed that his films reflect a sense of love for the medium.  Naturally, Hellboy is spotlighted here, with some of the props from the film on display, including the jacket for the main character, worn by actor Ron Pearlman.  On the wall are various panels of comic book art from some of Del Toro’s favorites, as well as artwork from Mike Mignola, the creator of the Hellboy character.  At the opposite end, there are tributes to two of Del Toro’s most beloved icons in the film industry; stop-motion animator Ray Harryhausen and make-up artist Dick Smith.  Harryhausen is represented by another lifelike figure, reclined in a chair, surrounded by some of his skeleton puppets from the movie Jason and the Argonauts (1963).  Across from this is a larger than life bust of Dick Smith, the man behind the amazing make-up work on films like The Exorcist (1973).

Del Toro Exhibit 14

Del Toro Exhibit 15

Del Toro Exhibit 16

Adjacent to this room is a small little section made to look like a 60’s era living room.  Here, you’ll find more comic book artwork from around the world, including European artist Moebius. In the center is a pair of recliners and a table, facing a screen that’s playing a parody of a Mexican horror movie called The White Angel.  It’s a short film that Del Toro made himself for the TV series The Strain, mocking the old horror B-Movies from Mexico that he himself probably grew up with, with a luchadore wrestler fighting off a cult of vampires. It’s the perfect kind of cheesy, which Del Toro likes to indulge in occasionally in his movies.

Del Toro Exhibit 17

Del Toro Exhibit 29

The next room’s theme is fairly obvious, as it celebrates the most singular of cinematic influences for Guillermo del Toro; Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.  Titled “Frankenstein and Horror,”  the section not only celebrates the titular monster, but the overall visceral effect of brutality that Del Toro finds interest with, in the horror genre.  You enter the section passing under a massive recreation of the monster’s head (one of the actual artifacts on loan from Bleak House), and you see numerous visual representations dedicated to the legendary novel and the classic film that was inspired by it.  The highlights of this particular section are a couple of wax figure tableaus devoted to Frankenstein.  The first one shows actor Boris Karloff in the process of having his make-up applied, showing the casualness of the performer before he must transform himself into a monster.  The next tableau depicts a domestic setting, with Frankenstein and his Bride attempting to be intimate, while a menacing looking Dr. Pretorius looks on.  Even as still figures, you get a nice sense of storytelling going on in these tableaus, and they make a welcome addition to the gallery.  Also in this section, you see a cabinet full of macabre, cadaverous artifacts, including specimens in jars, skulls and books on the occult.  Just like previous rooms showed the mystical and magical side to Del Toro’s work, this room begins to show the darker, more violent side of his movies; ones where he fully delves into some brutal imagery and themes.  And it only gets weirder from there.

Del Toro Exhibit 19

Del Toro Exhibit 18

Del Toro Exhibit 20

The next room is entitled “Freaks and Monsters” which carries over the fascination of the grotesque from the previous room.  Here, the gallery spotlights the many creatures and abnormal human beings that inhabit the worlds of Del Toro’s stories.  In the center, you’ll find wax figures of characters from another one of Del Toro’s favorite films; Todd Browning’s Freaks (1930).  The film centers around a group of circus sideshow performers, and featured people with real physical abnormalities.  But, what I’m sure Del Toro found fascinating about that movie was how each of the so-called “freaks” found strength and identity through their physical handicaps and were able to overcome prejudice from all the “normal” people out there.  It’s that embracing of your peculiarities that Del Toro likes to explore in his movies and it’s why the movie Freaks is focused on here.  The same film’s dark atmosphere and macabre sense of humor is also an influence that affected Del Toro, and you see a focus on how monsters and “freaks” are represented in his movies.  Small figures of the Kaiju in Pacific Rim are found here, as is a replica of one of the Mimic creatures.

Del Toro Exhibit 21

Del Toro Exhibit 23

Del Toro Exhibit 22

The final theme room is titled “Death and the Afterlife,” and it should be obvious what is focused on here.  Ghost stories have long been a favorite genre for Del Toro to work in, as evidenced with The Devil’s Backbone and Crimson Peak, but it’s also the fear of death that characterizes many of his ghostly tales.  Here, the specter of death is prominent, with representations of demons and vampires shown vividly around the room.  A cabinet in the center includes nods to F.W. Murnau’s Nosferatu (1922) as well as Francis Ford Coppola’s version of Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992).  Also at the corner of the room is a vivid figure recreation of the Pale Man from Pan’s Labyrinth, one of Del Toro’s most frightening creations ever in any of his movies.  I found it really interesting that this room is situated right next door to the room dedicated to childhood, seeing as how these two themes of Innocence and Death seem to combine very frequently in Del Toro’s movies.  I don’t know if that was by design, but it definitely fits the narrative for this gallery.  And it’s also fitting that situated right behind the Pale Man are costumes for the character of Mako Mori from Pacific Rim, a character whose whole drive in life was born out of the death of her family.  Death and Rebirth, side by side.  That spells out the gallery as a whole as the exhibit comes full circle.

Del Toro Exhibit 25

Del Toro Exhibit 26

But, passing by this finale to the tour, guests will notice a passage leading down to the middle of the gallery, hidden from all the other exhibits.  You pass walls showing artwork from all of Del Toro’s favorite influences, from Gorey to Disney, and even portraits of his literary icons like Lovecraft and Edgar Allen Poe, and you finally find yourself in the final room of the exhibit.  It is called “Del Toro’s Rain Room,” and it’s based off of a real space that Guillermo had made for himself in Bleak House.  In the real room, Del Toro had it manufactured to where the windows would be rear projected to look like rain is falling from outside at all times, enhanced by little silicone droplets hanging down the glass plane and thunder sound effects playing in accompaniment.  It’s a nice effect to make it look like a real rainstorm is going on outside, which I’m sure is the atmosphere that helps Guillermo find inspiration whenever he’s working in this room.  Situated in the middle of this recreated space is the final wax figure of the gallery, one of Edgar Allen Poe, looking as content as he could be reclined in a chair in this macabre room.   It’s a nice little added surprise, and I love the atmosphere that it emulates, especially with the digitally projected clouds on the ceiling.

Del Toro Exhibit 27

Del Toro Exhibit 28

I should also point out that in addition to all the different artifacts that the exhibit has from Guillermo del Toro’s different films, as well as from Bleak House, the gallery also makes use of actual pages from the director’s personal notebook.  The notebook in question is a documentation of all the ideas he has put down when he’s been developing his movies.  Written in a mix of Spanish and English, it’s a neat little insight into the mind of a filmmaker.  Even more interesting are the little sketches that he’s drawn within on some of the pages, showing the first ever visualizations of some of characters and creatures that would inhabit his movies.  Various pages are found throughout the gallery, pertaining to that room’s theme, and in addition, there are touchscreen tablets that allow you to flip through scans of the entire book as a whole.  I especially liked seeing what were ultimately the first ever drawings made of things like the Elemental in Hellboy II, or Young Mako from Pacific Rim, or of the entrance to the Labyrinth in Pan’s Labyrinth.  Del Toro’s creative genius is found in that notebook and it’s a great little treat for him to share such a thing in this gallery.

Del Toro Exhibit 24

So, there you go.  I loved this exhibition and would recommend it to anyone, even if you’re not a fan of Guillermo del Toro’s movies.  I understand that his style is not for everyone, but when you see such a well laid out presentation like this, even his detractors will find something fascinating to find.  It’s not just a great presentation of one filmmakers body of work, but an examination of the processes that make a filmmaker who they are.  It’s about the influences that shape an individual and gives them a voice.  Here, you’ll find different kinds of art mingled together and how they came to influence certain films.  It’s as much about the history of art as it is about the history of a filmmaker.  You could create an exhibition like this for many other filmmakers, but Del Toro makes the ideal subject because the confluence of all these influences have yielded such an interesting result in his body of work.  And as a movie fan, I just enjoy seeing cinema celebrated alongside other works of art on display in a museum.  Guillermo del Toro’s exhibition is a worthy addition to LACMA’s long history of standout presentations and I would recommend it to anyone living in the Los Angeles area, or to those just passing through.  The exhibit runs until November 27, so there is still plenty of time to view it.  For a film buff like me, this was definitely worth seeing, and I’m happy to have shared it with you.

Del Toro Exhibit 30

http://www.lacma.org/guillermo-del-toro/about-the-exhibition

 

Movie Reviews

Suicide Squad – Review

suicide squad

There’s a lot to be said about the way that DC Comics is going about bringing their catalog of characters and stories from their many years of publishing to the big screen.  A lot of what defines their work up to now, unfortunately, is that of a company desperately trying to play catch up.  As of right now, DC’s long time rival Marvel is the undisputed champion at the box office, with seemingly everything they touch turning into a smash hit, which also includes sub-tier comic book characters like Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy.  DC, hoping to replicate the same success, have up to now stumbled to repeat what Marvel has accomplished.  For several years, DC was doing fine, riding the wave that was Christopher Nolan’s acclaimed Dark Knight trilogy, but with Nolan’s guidance gone, DC has had to scramble and the results are shaky at best.  Man of Steel (2013) rubbed a lot of fans and casual viewers the wrong way with it’s grim and heavy-handed retelling of Superman’s origins (although I didn’t hate the movie myself as much as other people did; read my review to see what I thought).  Despite it’s mixed reception, Man of Steel did make money, and DC took the next step of building an interconnected universe where all of their characters would interact with one another, just like what Marvel was doing with their Avengers series.  Their first attempt at this, unfortunately, turned into a convoluted misfire called Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016).  While not the worst Superhero movie ever made, it was nevertheless a movie that did a terrible job of what it was trying to accomplish, which was to build the foundations on which this cinematic universe was going to stand.  Even Man of Steel defenders like me couldn’t excuse the massive logical problems of the story and the uncharacteristic ways that these iconic superheroes were behaving.

The reason why Marvel is continuing to lead the way while DC is struggling is because DC and it’s parent studio Warner Brothers are making it so obvious that they are trying to copy what Marvel is doing.  There is so much studio meddling behind the building of the DC universe (making sure that every movie hints at future films yet to come) that it’s drawing too much attention to itself, making it feel hollow.  With Marvel, we know that much of their movies have connecting threads, but the studio makes sure that each individual movie has it’s own identity and is able to stand on it’s own outside of it’s place within the grander picture.  Batman v. Superman failed because it felt too much like it was there to set things up for later and not a complete narrative in it’s own right.  It was basically a two and a half hour prologue.  And even at that, studio inference continued to hamper what could have been an interesting action film, with an uneven edit of the movie creating enormous plot holes and conveniences that left audiences everywhere confused and dissatistified.  A lot of the fault rest on the director Zack Snyder, who has more visual sense than storytelling sense, but Warner and DC certainly hold a great deal of blame because they’ve launched this massive undertaking without ever feeling totally committed to it.  There are some things that I think works for them, especially taking a darker tone which does differentiate their universe from Marvel’s.  That’s why I think the best thing that they could do right now is to refocus their cinematic universe on a story that suits their darker character, but is able to stand on it’s own and have more fun with it’s characters.  That’s the hope behind Suicide Squad, but is it the shot of adrenaline that DC needs, or is it a further step backwards?

Suicide Squad is a unique entry in the Comic Book adaptation genre in that it doesn’t focus on a team of Superheroes, but instead focuses on some of their rogues gallery.  As the marketing for this movie has stated, most Superhero films are about Good vs. Bad.  Suicide Squad on the other hand is about Bad vs. Evil.  We are introduced to some of DC’s more grounded, human villains as they serve time in maximum security.  They include master sharpshooter assassin Deadshot (Will Smith) and maniacal Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie); both criminals incarcerated after their encounters with Batman (Ben Affleck).  Also in prison are bank robber Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), the vicious Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), and the remorseful fire wielding gangster Diablo (Jay Hernandez).  They are collectively brought together under the supervision of Captain Rick Flag (Joel Kinneman), who directs them to assist in a risky mission in exchange for time off of their sentences.  The catch is that if they try to escape, or refuse, or attempt to kill Captain Flag, they will be instantly killed by explosives implanted in their necks.  Their mission, brought to them by high level security agent Amanda Waller (Viola Davis), is to extract an important contact in an area under supernatural attack.  One of Waller’s assets, the god-like supervillain Enchantress (Cara Delevingne), has gone rogue and is attempting to build a superweapon capable of destroying the planet.  The “Suicide Squad” realize quickly that their place in the mission is to purposely be the fall guys in this foolish mission, but as they find themselves deeper into the heart of darkness, they learn that there’s a definable line between the bad things they do, and the greater evils that can threaten them all.  And things get even more complicated when Harley’s devoted boyfriend, The Joker (Jared Leto) gets thrown into the mix.

So, did Suicide Squad succeed or fail at righting the ship of DC’s cinematic universe?  Well, it depends on what you want to see going into this film.  If you are looking for a serious comic book adaptation that rivals the spirit of Marvel’s movies, then you will probably come away from this film very disappointed.  This is not the huge shift in the right direction that DC needed to move away from the issues of their previous films.  Plus there are choices made with these characters and their place in the universe that may be off-putting to some die hard fans of the comics.  But, at the same time, if you are just looking for an action movie that manages to have a little fun with the character dynamics of it’s ensemble players, then you might have a good time watching Suicide Squad.  And that’s the reaction that I came away with from it.  Suicide Squad is a flawed movie to be sure, but not one that left me dissatisfied nor angered by the direction that it took.  I kind of knew going in that this movie was not going to be the “be all end all” of DC’s comic book movies, and that helped to temper my expectations a little bit.  What I wanted in the end, more than anything, was to see a movie that played off of these kinds of characters and stand on it’s own separated from it’s place in the DC universe and in that respect, it worked for me.  As an action movie, it’s got personality and purpose, which is much better executed here than in Batman v. Superman.  Even still, I will acknowledge that it still falls short of Marvel quality entertainment, even with regards to the rival’s less successful efforts (although this didn’t anger me like Iron Man 3 did, so that’s a plus).  It’s flaws don’t ruin the experience completely, but sad to say, it does prevent this movie from truly becoming the success that it wants to be.

I would say that the most obvious flaw of this movie is it’s plot, or rather the way it is handled.  There are a lot of threads that are thrown into this movie, and not all of them mesh together very well. I think that it has to do with the terrible editing job that the film suffers through, which is clearly characteristic of studio interference.  Whenever the movie does begin to pick up and find it’s rhythm, it’s undercut by a poorly handled scene transition or loss of perspective.  The movie also suffers some serious pacing issues in the second act, which meanders through some repetitive action sequences that add nothing to the overall experience.  The movie works at it’s best when it remains focused on the characters themselves and what they are going through, but even here, studio meddling messes with the chemistry.  The many attempts to connect the story with the larger world undermines the story several times, and unless you’re an expert in everything related to DC comics, you might find yourself lost in the process.  What I found particularly problematic was the lack of focus on the real threat of the narrative.  It’s kind of ironic that a movie about a collection of villains would have a problem finding a strong antagonist, but that’s the case here.  Enchantress, despite a decent performance by Cara Delevingne, is never fully developed as a character and her motives make little sense, so she kind of becomes the main villain by default.  It could be argued that Viola Davis’ Amanda Waller fills that role too, but her place in the story never quite reaches that.  Most infuriating is the way that the Joker is shoehorned into the movie.  Some people are going to hate this version of the iconic character.  I was mixed on it.  Leto’s performance is different and an interesting way to take the character, but he has no business being in this movie, and if you cut him out completely, he wouldn’t have been missed.  It’s strange additions like this that make the movie too messy at times.

At the same time, the movie doesn’t fall into the same morose pit that ultimately sank Batman v. Superman, and that’s largely thanks to it’s excellent casting.  There aren’t any wasted performances here; they are only let down by the plot in the end.  It’s to the actors credit that they manage to make us care about this ragtag group of criminals.  For one thing, the headlining star, Will Smith, is well served as the brash Deadshot.  Oh, how I have missed this charismatic version of the former Fresh Prince superstar and it’s so refreshing to see Will have some fun again as a character like this in a big budget action flick.  Better yet is Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn.  While this film let’s down the Joker in many ways, it doesn’t waste the same opportunity of making his beloved Harley a welcome presence here.  She is a fan favorite that people have long wanted to finally see on the big screen, and I truly believe the filmmakers succeeded by her.  Margot does a great job embodying the character, making her twisted and endearing all at the same time.  I especially like the fact that she nails the “puddin'” affectation that has defined the character so much in the comics and her early animated incarnations.  In many ways, Harley is the movie’s shining star, and she owns every scene she’s in. However, I would say that my favorite performance in the movie comes from Viola Davis as Amanda Waller.  Here you have a character with no special powers of her own, and yet she has to project complete authority over everyone regardless of how powerful they are, and Viola nails that perfectly in her commanding presence.  There’s a scene late in the movie where she takes some drastic measures to ensure her security that gets a remark from Deadshot, “That was straight up gangster;” and it certainly is.  It makes me anxious to see where she takes the character in future DC films, because she is definitely a highlight of their cinematic master plan so far.  The remaining cast also does a credible job of portraying their characters, and most importantly, it looks like they are having fun doing it.  Having an engaged cast of characters certainly helps to make some of the more flawed aspects of the movie feel less troublesome as a result.

I also think that director David Ayer should be credited for holding together a production that could have fallen apart with all the weight put on it.  Coming from a background of making thoughtful action films centered around character dynamics like End of Watch (2012) and Fury (2014), and writing scripts for films like Training Day (2001) and Harsh Times (2005), this was a project that was right up his alley.  And the film’s best moments, namely the character interactions and a few standout action sequences, are representative of what he’s best at as a director.  It’s only when elements of the cinematic universe start to converge into the plot that the movie loses it’s focus.  I get the feeling that in order for this movie to appease the wishes of the execs at Warner Brothers and DC, Ayer had to leave a lot of stuff he wanted out of the movie, and that’s probably the reason why the final edit of the film feels so scattershot.  I would’ve loved a lot less backstory forced into the movie, because it ultimately is irrelevant to the story.  These characters are who they are, so why don’t we just see more of them doing what they’re best at.  At the same time, I am pleased that DC is recognizing that this is a problem and significant re-shoots were made to inject more humor into the movie, and prevent this from becoming the depressing slog that Batman v. Superman was.  I believe the re-shoots helped, because the humor does work here.  There’s also a little camp value to the way this movie goes over the top at times towards the end.  Some might find it too silly, but honestly, that’s something that DC should embrace more.  What David Ayer brought was some visual pop and personality, and despite the roadblocks in his way, he managed to make an engaging film.

So, in the end, this will probably be a divisive movie for many people.  Some will embrace it’s quirkiness, and some will bemoan it as another convoluted mess by DC.  While I can’t say that I loved the movie, I at the same time still found myself entertained for most of it.  Is it a flawed film? Absolutely.  There are still many nagging issues that DC has yet to address with their cinematic universe, namely their insistence on force feeding the construction of this world on us, instead of letting it grow naturally.  This especially hurts Suicide Squad in the long run by undermining the separate identity that it wants to establish.  On the other hand, it is pleasing to see the director and cast actually having fun with these characters, and not taking itself too seriously.  In that regard, it is a step in the right direction for DC.  However, what the cinematic universe needed was a giant course correction, and I don’t think that Suicide Squad was the right movie to lay that responsibility on.  This movie probably would’ve worked better had it been made after a longer running cinematic universe had already been established.  Pushing it to the forefront asks a lot more of this movie, and it’s something that audiences just aren’t ready for yet.  I especially think that this movie does a disservice to the Joker character, considering that we know so little of his place in this universe up to this point.  I hope both him and Harley are given more development in future Batman films.  My hope is that this different flavor of film-making enables DC to try different things in their universe.  Variety is good, and already I have high hopes for a strong showing from Wonder Woman next year.  Suicide Squad may not be Marvel quality, but it tries, and it at least is way better than Batman v. Superman, which isn’t such a bad result after all.

Rating: 7.5/10

The Director's Chair

The Director’s Chair – The Coen Brothers

While film-making in general is a collaborative process, the role that takes the most prominence in the creation of a film is that of the director.  It’s the director who makes sure that everything captured in the camera’s frame is precisely in tune with the storytelling.  Primary among all their different tasks on the set is to guide the rest of the production team itself, ensuring that everything that the camera captures creates the perfect illusion of life.  This includes working with the cinematographer to determine how the film will be shot, dictating to the production designers what is needed on the set to fill each shot with foreground and background details, and of course, helping the actors find the motivation they’ll need to perform as their character within each scene.  It’s a multifaceted job that requires a lot of personal involvement, and that is why the director is often given the most important credit on a film.  Authorship in film-making often falls to the director, because they are the chief creative force behind each project.  In many cases, there are filmmakers whose style is so distinctive, that you can look at their whole body of work and see some chief characteristics that define it as a whole.  That’s why I wanted to start a new series for this site dedicated to looking at the distinctive film-making styles and cinematic breakthroughs made by some of the most celebrated filmmakers.  Entitled “The Director’s Chair,” my hope is to spotlight a different director in each entry of this series and spotlight 5 distinctive things about each one that has made them a special contributor to cinematic history, whether it be a distinctive trademark, a unique cinematic style, or just the impact that they have left on the industry as a whole.  And for the premiere article in this series, I decided to not just look at only one director, but instead spotlight two filmmakers that somehow have established themselves under a singular visionary style: the Coen Brothers.

Joel and Ethan Coen have worked together continuously for the last 32 years, beginning with their debut film Blood Simple in 1984, all the way up to their most recent film, Hail, Caesar (2016), and they plan on continuing to collaborate for many years to come.  They’re working relationship has been so close in fact, that they’ve often been jokingly referred to as “The Two-Headed Director.”  And it’s easy to see why.  While many other films that have been directed by two or more directors feel disjointed in their storytelling, every single Coen Brother movie is uniformly distinct and feels characteristically in line with every other movie they have made.  Sure, their style has evolved over the years, moving from the straight-forward thrills of Blood Simple to the complex, psychological tension of No Country for Old Men (2007), but the Coen Brother’s filmography has become something quite unique in the world of film-making that is purely of their own design.  One of the main reasons they have built such a unique body of work is mainly because of that close collaboration.  They write, produce and direct all of their movies, as well as work solely on the editing, under the pseudonym of Roderick Jaynes.  They also remain in charge of picking each of their projects; never taking on a commercial studio production and always working independently.  It’s worked out for the most part, apart from a few misguided speed bumps (2003’s Intolerable Cruelty and 2004’s The Ladykillers).  Their ability to experiment in different genres has also given their filmography a nice bit of variety, even though their style remains the same.  And among their body of work, distinctive characteristics become apparent, and it’s those features that I want to elaborate upon in this article, and see how they define each of the different films that the Coen Brothers have made over the years.

1.

CHARACTERS

barton fink

If there was ever something that truly defined a Coen Brothers movie, it would be the unforgettable characters that populate them.  The Coens are masters of creating easily definable, enduring characters in their movies, and it’s mainly because their characters are perfect representations of every day human foibles personified in a single being.  Whenever we watch a Coen film, we always end up remembering these characters.  We don’t always remember their names, but we remember their personalities.  There are some extreme personalities that exist within their strange universe, such as John Goodman’s Walter Sobchak in The Big Lebowski (1998), or Nicolas Cage’s H.I. McDunnough from Raising Arizona (1987), but the most endearing characters the Coen Brothers have ever created are the ones more grounded in reality.  One of their most beloved creations would have to be Marge Gunderson from Fargo (1996), played by Joel Coen’s own real life spouse Frances McDormand.  Marge, a pregnant small town cop in the American Midwest, is such a fascinating character in the movie simply by being so ordinary.  Her charm is not in being quirky, but by being the audience’s eyes into the crazy world that she stumbles into, and the more identifiable she is, the more we relate to her.  She’s just the average working class American hero, the kind of person who you’d want to meet in real life and listen to her stories, and that’s why we love her.  Another interesting aspect of Coen Brother characters is their often helpless situation.  The Coens had a religious upbringing in the Jewish faith, and while their movies aren’t based in religion, some biblical themes do manifest within their stories; in particular, the story of Job.  Like the biblical character, many of their characters often have to deal with situations well out of their control.  But while Job was shown mercy by God in the Bible, Coen Brother characters often left out to dry with no redemption or hope, like John Turturro’s Barton Fink or Michael Stuhlbarg’s Larry Gopnik in A Serious Man (2009), or Oscar Isaac’s Llewellyn Davis in Inside Llewellyn Davis (2013).

2.

fargo

PITCH BLACK COMEDY

Another trademark aspect of the Coen Brothers’ movies is their incredibly dark sense of humor.  There are certainly some Coen Brother films that are more serious than others, but the one thing that defines them all is a twisted, often absurdist outlook on the world.  Oftentimes this is played off of the different quirks of the characters interacting with one another, but other times it’s because of the completely insane situations that the characters find themselves in.  Fargo is often cited as one of the perfect examples of a black comedy, and that’s due to the film’s horrific situation of kidnapping and murder being undercut by the silly personalities involved within it.  Any other filmmaker would have played a story like Fargo straight, but the Coens found the interesting angle of exploring how this situation would play out within this type of Western Minnesota community.  The backwaters setting and peculiar regional accent are certainly poked fun at within the movie (never in a mean spirited way though) and that helps the audience to find the humor in such a bleak story.  Some of the Coens’ more broader comedies also are injected with some horrifically dark moments, showing just how masterfully the Coens can walk the fine line between the unsettling and the hilarious.  A perfect example of that would be in the movie Burn After Reading (2008), where Brad Pitt’s dimwitted character Chad sneaks into the home of George Clooney’s equally dim Harry.  When discovered hiding inside a closet, the funny moment suddenly turns dark as the startled Harry shoots Chad in the head in a very grisly and graphic way.  By shifting the tone so dramatically, it actually punctuates the moment making it even more hilarious, just cause of the audacity of the Coens to go that extreme in the moment.  That’s why their comedy works so well, because of the fearless way that they shock our sensibilities in order to get a laugh out of us.

3.

no country for old men

SHOT AND REVERSE SHOT

Something about the Coen Borthers’ style that might not be apparent to most viewers right away is the masterful use of one of cinema’s oldest techniques.  Shot and Reverse Shot, or the practice of editing between characters to establish on-going action during scenes of dialogue, is a technique as old as cinema itself and is often taken for granted by most filmmakers.  The Coen Brothers on the other hand use this technique to it’s full advantage by crafting their movies around it.  Character interactions are key parts of any Coen Brother film, so it makes it more important to capture the little reactions each character makes in each scene, because it reveals a lot about them that the writing itself cannot tell.  The Coens capture this by changing the rules a little bit with their framing.  Most dialogue conversations between two characters in movies are usually done over the shoulder, putting both actors in the frame.  The Coens put the camera in between the characters and capture each actor in a single composition.  By cutting back and forth between the two actors, they are able to emphasize more of the reactions that each character gives the other in their conversations, and given the way they edit each scene, those different reactions can often determine the tone.  Probably the most brilliant example of this is the Gas Station scene from No Country for Old Men, where Javier Bardem’s villainous Anton Chigurh asks the petrified proprietor (Gene Jones) “what’s the most you’ve ever lost in a coin toss.”  Apart from a single insert of a candy wrapper, every moment in this scene is in one-shots of the two actors.  The choices of how long to stay on each shot and when to cut back to the other determines the tempo of this whole scene, and it is a masterwork of building tension.  By determining which character is focused on in each shot, the Coens establish how important their reaction must be, and thereby reveal more about what each one of them is thinking.  By perfectly executing a technique that most of us take for granted, the Coens make their stories resound a whole lot more than they normally would, and it’s a testament to their skills as filmmakers.

4.

o brother where art thou

ROGER DEAKINS

The Coen Brothers often fill many of the most important roles themselves, but the one position that they rest heavily on the shoulders of someone else is that of the cinematographer, and they could not have found a better man for the job than Roger Deakins.  Deakins is, apart from the Coens themselves, the one most responsible for crafting the look of a Coen Brothers film.  Since first working with the duo on Barton Fink (1991), Deakins has been the cinematographer on almost all of their subsequent films.  And even the movies of their that he didn’t work on, like Burn After Reading (shot by Emmanuel Lubezski) and Inside Llewellyn Davis (shot by Bruno Delbonnel) still retain a Deakins inspired aesthetic to them, showing just how much the Coens value his input.  Roger Deakins style is a perfect match for the Coen Brothers, because it perfectly understates the style of storytelling they are after.  Deakins often muted colors and faded lighting helps to define the bleakness of the Coen Brothers’ world, and his extensive use of wide-angle lenses help to make much of the real world details of the settings part of the focus along with the characters.  It was because of him that the Coens put the camera in between the actors for their scenes of dialogue, because of his interest of showing the characters within their environment as part of each scene, making their uses of the Reverse Shot technique all the more effective.  I also like how his choices of color grading help to enrich the setting of each film.  When you look at the washed out colors of O Brother, Where art Thou (2000), or the Black and White photography of The Man Who Wasn’t There (2001), you get a strong sense of a bygone time that these two movies are trying to invoke.  The Coen Brothers movies have a distinct look all their own, and it’s because of the valued input of a high class cinematographer like Roger Deakins that we can identify a Coen film from all the rest purely in a visual sense.

5.

the big lebowski

UNRESOLVED NARRATIVES

One of the things that I love about a Coen Brothers’ movie is the fact that they rarely play by the standard rules of storytelling.  Whereas most Hollywood films follow a simple three act structure, Coen Brothers movies tend to be much more flexible.  This is mostly due to the brothers’ writing style, which relies less on pre-planning and instead involves them just writing scenes out and letting the story build out of that.  This can be infuriating to viewers who just want a story to go somewhere familiar, but the way that the Coens build their stories as they go along actually feels very refreshing.  And the unique thing that I noticed about a number of their movies is that they don’t resolve themselves at the end; at least not in a conventional way.  Oftentimes, each story just seems to play out as a series of unfortunate events that ultimately change nothing about their main character’s life in the long run.  In The Big Lebowski, Jeff Bridges’ Dude gets involved in a caper involving kidnapping and ransoms, but instead of him figuring the mystery out and triumphantly exposing the conspiracy around him, the whole plot ends up resolving itself without his help and he just goes back to the life he had before, apart from losing his car, his rug, and his friend Donny (Steve Buscemi) in unrelated incidents.  Burn After Reading goes even further by stopping the movie cold right after John Malkovich’s character murders Richard Jenkin’s character with a hatchet.  The scene shifts abruptly to J.K. Simmons’ CIA director literally closing the book on the crazy case told in the movie and simply asking, “What did we learn?”  Sometimes this unconventional route can be frustrating, like Josh Brolin dying off-screen in No Country for Old Men, but other times it can be provocative, like the ambiguous Tornado finale A Serious Man, and it’s that ability to not take the conventional route that makes the Coen Brothers movies memorable in the end.  I like that they don’t have to rely on happy endings, or have their characters transform by film’s end, because usually it’s those differences that make the story better.

It’s easy to see why the Coens are some of the most beloved filmmakers working today.  Remarkably, they are two minds that have created a singular vision and it’s one that has maintained it’s own, uncompromising character over several, now classic films.  They are celebrated the world over, with Joel Coen being the only 3 time winner of the Best Director award at the Cannes Film Festival (for Barton Fink, Fargo, and The Man Who Wasn’t There) and the duo being only the second team of Directors to ever win the award for Best Director at the Oscars for No Country for Old Men (the other two winners being Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins, sharing for West Side Story in 1961).  The Coen Brothers have also had a long lasting legacy in cinema, with Fargo now adapted into a critically acclaimed series on FX.  The Big Lebowski is also considered today to be among one of the funniest and most often quoted movies ever made, also turning the Dude into a cultural icon in the process.  Regardless if you find their style appealing or not, each one of their movies is worth looking at; even some of the bad ones.  I particularly think that the back-to-back masterpieces of Fargo and The Big Lebowski perfectly illustrate the brilliance of the brothers at the peak of their craft.  The Oscar-winning No Country for Old Men is also a cinematic treasure worth experiencing.  And if you haven’t seen it already, please watch their newest film Hail Ceaser, which is a near perfect love letter to classic Hollywood that any film buff will enjoy.  Watching any film of theirs becomes especially interesting when you start to notice the common themes and stylistic choices that tie them all together, especially with their editing choices and their twisted sense of humor.  It’s filmmakers like them that make it so enriching to look at their body of work as a whole, which I hope to continue with more beloved filmmakers in future articles like this.

 

Movie Reviews

Star Trek Beyond – Review

star trek beyond

This year, the Star Trek franchise hits a milestone, as it marks it’s 50th anniversary.  What started off as an ambitious, but admittedly cheesy prime time sci-fi adventure series on televisionin the 1960’s has since blossomed into one of the most influential and recognizable brands in entertainment.  In the last 50 years, the original series has spawned a movie franchise that in total has produced 13 films, albeit with questionable continuity.  It has also led to the creation of 4 different spin-off series, with another currently in development, all of which help to expand on the mythos that Star Trek is built upon and build up it’s legacy further.  And through all this, it’s still remarkable how Star Trek has managed to remain relevant all these years later.  Sure, the devoted fan base of the Trekkie population has always kept the series in the spotlight, but we are also still seeing even the casual viewer taking interest in Star Trek today, still holding it up in high regards.  I think what has helped Star Trek to adapt over the years has been the way it’s been guided by expert filmmakers who bring a bit of their own interests into the series.  When J.J. Abrams was tasked with bringing a re-imagined Star Trek to the big screen back in 2009, he stated that he was coming at it as someone who wasn’t a passionate fan of the series.  Don’t get him wrong, he still respected the Star Trek universe, but what he wanted to do was to create a version of the series that was not geared solely to the die hard fan, but also to the uninitiated viewer who may or may not be experiencing this universe for the first time.  And it was a new direction for the long running series that really paid off in the end.

J.J. Abrams re-imagined the Star Trek universe by bringing it back to it’s roots, with all the original characters, but opened up the possibilities of different directions by injecting the concept of an alternate timeline into the mix.  It was a genius way to allow a new, more up-to-date take on the origins of the Star Trek, but also give the devoted fan base the relief that it’s not rewriting what has happened before it; keeping the original series and films respectfully a part of this on-going franchise (take note Ghostbusters).  The 2009 relaunch of Star Trek was universally praised by both Trekkies and general audiences alike, but this also put pressure on the filmmakers on how they would follow this up.  The sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness (2013), encountered a much different reaction when it was released.  While not an outright disappointment, a lot of fans of Star Trek were underwhelmed by the uneven sequel.  The plot made very little sense; some of the cast were very out of character; and the finale of the film shamelessly stole scenes wholesale right out of the beloved Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), showing clear-cut audience pandering that left many fans cold.  While I stated in my review that I still enjoyed Into Darkness overall, I do acknowledge that it had a lot of unsolvable problems that hurt it, namely in the dreary, taking itself too seriously screenplay by Alex Kurtzman, Robert Orci and Damon Lindelof.  When it was announced that another Star Trek was in the works, many people feared that the wrong direction that Into Darkness was taking the series into was going to continue, and with J.J. Abrams jumping ship to relaunch the Star Wars series with The Force Awakens (2015), it looked like Star Trek was heading for a downfall, just as it was finding it’s footing once again.  So, with Star Trek Beyond now in theaters, are we seeing the best days of the series long behind us, or will this movie take it back to it’s celestial heights?

The story finds the crew of the starship Enterprise in the middle of their five year mission into deep space, or as famously stated, the Final Frontier.  Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) begins to question his place within the Federation hierarchy as the mundane and thankless missions take their toll on him, and he seriously considers giving up his captain’s seat for a vice admiral position.  At the same time, his First Officer Spock (Zachary Quinto) is torn by his duty to the ship and his desire to help his Vulcan people rebuild their culture, leading him to also consider leaving his position.  Their personal struggles are put on hold when a distress call is brought to their attention, leading them to take the Enterprise out to a remote planet on the edges of the galaxy.  There, the Enterprise is attacked by an immense, swarm-like fleet of ships, which leads to the destruction of the Enterprise and the forced evacuation of it’s crew. After crash landing on the remote planet, the Enterprise crew is split apart and at the mercy of the ruthless mercenary force, led by the mysterious Krall (Idris Elba).  Kirk and Chekov (the late Anton Yelchin) search for answers as to where their lost crew might be, and what Krall is after.  Spock, wounded from his encounters with the alien force, must rely on the help of Dr. “Bones” McCoy (Karl Urban) to survive.  Sulu (John  Cho) and Uhura (Zoe Saldana) seek to escape the clutches of Krall’s forces as they are confined with the other hostages.  And Scotty (Simon Pegg) runs across a lone wolf rebel on the same planet named Jaylah (Sofia Boutella), who may have the means necessary of helping the crew reunite and fight back against Krall.  But time is short for all of them, as Krall seeks to use a weapon in the Enterprise’s possession that could destroy millions of lives at the nearby Federation star base.

A lot of questions were raised whether or not the Star Trek franchise would manage in a post-Abrams direction, and the choice of direction given over to Justin Lin of Fast and the Furious fame seemed to make a lot of fans uneasy.  Thankfully, all of our fears were for not because Star Trek Beyond is a success all the way through; not just as a continuation of the Star Trek franchise, but as a movie in general.  From beginning to end, this is a thoroughly enjoyable film, and probably the most fun I’ve had watching a movie all summer.  The action scenes are phenomenal, and very creatively staged.  The cast is engaged and clearly having fun.  The script is also much more in tone with the basics of what this series is about.  It should be noted that a draft of this screenplay was written by Simon Pegg (who plays Scotty in the movie) and his input brings a renewed focus to the series.  Pegg is clearly a fan of Star Trek and he manages to show that in his writing by essentially crafting a two hour episode of the series.  The crew encounters a strange, new world; do battle with the hostile force; and return home after saving the day as a team; nothing more complex than that, and it works.  Pegg doesn’t have to rely on paying homage to the past or rehashing old ideas in a new context.  Here, he just let’s the story and characters go about their business like they normally would, and that makes for a much more engaging adventure in this universe.  Also, a lot of credit should go to director Lin for managing to keep the momentum going in this series after the departure of it’s high profile director.  Trekkies, rest assured, your franchise is in good hands.

Before I go into the many great things that work in this film, I also want to point out that it’s not 100% perfect either.  I think that the while I do enjoy the direction of Justin Lin in this movie, it can sometimes veer dangerously close to incomprehensibility.  Lin’s style matches the frenetic vibe of the Fast and the Furious series perfectly, but it sometimes clashes a bit with the story being told here.  The pacing for instance suffers a bit from the quick-editing that Lin is more used to, at least in the film’s opening act, where plot points are thrown our way without much time to stick properly.  But, thankfully, when the film reaches the remote planet in the second act, it begins to settle down, and allows the narrative to flow out more naturally.  Lin’s style also helps to make the action scenes more kinetic than in past films, and thankfully it’s not in a way that feels out of place here.  Those of you worried about the image of Kirk riding a motorcycle that was shown in the trailer, be rest assured; it plays out much better in context and is not a forced injection of Fast and the Furious machismo into the Star Trek universe.  The only other negative working against the film is unfortunately the central villain, Krall.  He’s something of a weak, underwritten character who’s motivations are barely explored, and even when we find out more about his past, it’s kind of shoe-horned in very awkwardly.  This is more the fault of the screenplay rather than the actor playing him, because Idris Elba does try his very best and does leave somewhat of an impression.  The character is adequate, but never grabs our attention the same way that Eric Bana’s Nero or Benedict Cumberbatch’s Khan had done before.  Even still, the character could have been much more poorly handled, and it’s to the credit of Elba’s abilities as a performer that he works fine at all in this film.

Perhaps the film’s greatest strength would be the absolute stellar cast assembled for this series.  These actors were given the unenviable task of taking over iconic characters and making them their own, and each one of them has done a superb job.  Given that one of the stars of the film also served as screenwriter, it’s no surprise that much of the movie is devoted to building the interconnected relationships with one another.  What I love best about the film is that it attempts to pair up characters that don’t normally share screen-time together in this series and allows us to see what might happen as a result.  I especially liked the pairing of Spock and Bones in this film, as it gives the movie it’s most amusing subplot.  Spock, of all people, gets some of the film’s biggest laughs, and I thought it was a welcome surprise for this series to use the character this way, yet still remain true.  Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, and everyone else continue to impress as these iconic characters; embodying the roles without falling into parody.  I also liked the fact that they’re able to find new angles to explore with them.  News broke earlier that this film was going to reveal that this version of Sulu is gay (something that original Sulu and out actor George Takei objected to, despite it being a special acknowledgement to him), but I was pleased to see that it was presented in a very subtle, non-exploitative way that does not change anything about the character at all; it’s just a nice added detail.  I also liked how well the new character of Jaylah fit into the story, and the character dynamics overall.  She could have easily have been a stereotypical tough girl character, but her determination and resourcefulness really helps to add something to the film, and it makes her a more interesting character as a result.  I think she works especially well because she is paired with Scotty for most of the movie, and their distinctive personalities mesh together surprisingly well.

Star Trek Beyond’s visuals are also noteworthy of praise.  The film supposedly had a smaller budget than Into Darkness, but you wouldn’t know it.  Amazingly, this movie feels quite epic in scope.  The most impressive centerpiece of the film is the Yorktown Space Station, a massive glass enclosed satellite base that’s other-worldly and breathtaking at the same time.  It gives the viewer a sense of awe and wonder that you normally don’t find regularly in the Star Trek franchise.  The Base also provides a perfect setting for the climatic battle at the end, which is a significant upgrade from the previous film, which end in a very lackluster way.  I especially loved the way that the cityscapes of the colossal base seemed to layer on top of one another, making the climax all the more eye-catching.  The planet where most of the film is set also is beautifully realized, and feels at times like a hearken back to the classic series itself; with rock quarries and the remote California deserts and forests acting as stand-ins for an alien world (although this time, Canada served as the location shooting for this film).  Overall it’s a movie that feels big without ever trying too hard to look big.  It’s all in how the visuals ended up being used I guess.  Justin Lin takes the best of what he’s learned from Fast and the Furious and gives Star Trek a consistent, non-flashy identity, and that’s to be commended.  J.J. Abrams sometimes distracting lens flares are no where to be seen this time around, and I think that’s a positive move for the series.  There’s noting groundbreaking in this Star Trek; it’s just pure solid action in service of the story rather than a distraction from it.

So, I would highly recommend seeing Star Trek Beyond.  It may not be the greatest we’ve seen from the Star Trek universe, but it’s a worthy addition that provides great thrills nonetheless.  The characters are all still wonderfully realized, and the movie allows them to play off one another in a very fun and engaging way.  I especially like the new direction that Justin Lin brought to this series, which was in danger of growing stale after Into Darkness seemed to take a step backward.  He gives the movie an impressive sense of scale, while at the same time never overwhelming us with the action either; allowing the characters to drive the story instead.  I also love the way that Simon Pegg brought a sense of fun back to this franchise with his script.  He doesn’t try to be sanctimonious or too smart with the material, which is a good thing.  He knows what Star Trek is supposed to be, and he just let’s it play out like it normally would, making the adventure all the more engaging.  My hope is that this team continues on this road in future installments, because it came together almost perfectly here.  Sadly, they’ll be missing a crucial piece with the sudden passing of Chekov actor Anton Yelchin, who thankfully gets more of a presence in this feature and likewise delivered with a great amount of charm in his role.  The movie also pays tribute to original Spock, Leonard Nimoy, in a respectful way, and how they eulogize him within the film is an incredibly touching moment.  Overall, this was one of the most enjoyable experiences I’ve had watching a movie this year.  Movies like Captain America: Civil War and Finding Dory may be better overall, but Star Trek Beyond might be the most fun cinematic experience you will have at the movies this summer season.  It’s blockbuster entertainment at it’s finest, and a very worthwhile way to honor the 50th anniversary of this monumental series.

Rating: 8.5/10

Focus on a Franchise

Focus on a Franchise – Harry Potter: Part One

harry potter

Many of the franchises that I have covered in this series usually evolved over many years, and sometimes decades, adapting to the times and taking interesting turns the further they went along.  That wasn’t so much the case with the Harry Potter franchise.  Based on author J.K. Rowling’s sprawling, seven volume epic series of novels, Harry Potter was a huge gamble for Warner Brothers to take on in the early 2000’s.  They had to build a franchise around a cast of young characters in a genre that had, until that time, not clicked at the box office.  And the big problem with planning such a long lasting franchise starring child actors is that they eventually grow up; fast.  And yet, Warner Bros. benefited from having a source material with a built in audience that not only could work on the big screen, but in deed lended itself perfectly to the medium.  Rowling’s grand magnum opus was a phenomenon that deserved all of it’s praise, and the pressure was on to make the films just as engaging as the books themselves, and do it quick (8 films in 10 years).  As we know now, the franchise was a smash hit, and managed to fulfill it’s promise of capturing the full breadth of Rowling’s narrative.  Following the titular hero on his adventures at the Hogwarts School of Wizarding and Witchcraft, the Potter franchise is both surprisingly faithful to the spirit of the novels, but distinctive in it’s own right as a cinematic achievement.  Despite all it’s success, it wasn’t without some hurdles over time, especially in the beginning, but by the release of the eighth film in 2011 (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2), everyone could agree that this was one of the most monumental film franchises ever.

Because there is a lot to talk about with each film, I decided to do something different with this series and spread my discussion over two parts.  For this first article, I will go over the first four films in the Harry Potter franchise, and then discuss the final four in the next entry of this series; hopefully before the release of the spin-off movie Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them this Thanksgiving.  I’ll avoid going over plot summaries, since I’m sure that most of you already know these stories intimately by now.  What I will write about is the way that the franchised progressed, movie by movie, and how this massive series built itself up to what it became in a relatively short amount of time.  I will examine the development of the cast, the different visionary approaches to the same story, and more or less discuss how well each brought the world of J.K. Rowling’s universe to life.  So now, let’s grab our brooms, don our robes, and hold out our wands as we look back at the franchise about the “boy who lived,” Harry Potter.

harry potter and the sorcerers stone

HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER’S STONE (2001)

Directed by Chris Columbus

So, a lot of anticipation led up to the premiere of this first Harry Potter film.  Fans of the books couldn’t wait to see this story come to full life while, at the same time, were worried that it wasn’t going to live up to their imagination.  The film certainly had a sizable budget behind it, as well as the backing of everyone at Warner Brothers, hoping the boy wizard would be the next big thing.  And indeed, their gamble paid off, becoming a huge box office success and the highest grossing film of 2001, even in direct competition with Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings, which was released only weeks after.  But, here’s the thing; yes the movie was popular, but was it any good?  The answer is, kind of.  Unfortunately for Sorcerer’s Stone, in hindsight, it is universally viewed as the weakest film in the series, and it’s easy to see why.  My own big problem with the movie is the fact that it’s not well directed.  Chris Columbus has proven to be a fine producer over his many years in Hollywood, but his track record as a director is a bit shakier.  Some of his movies are beloved (Home Alone); some are not (Pixels).  While Harry Potter doesn’t represent Columbus’ worst work ever, it still shows a lot of his short-comings as a filmmaker.  Namely, the fact that his movies lack any style to them.  Sorcerer’s Stone is beautifully constructed, but the uninteresting cinematography and simplistic staging only reinforces the fact in the mind of the viewer that they are watching something shot on a soundstage, and not in a living, breathing world.  Couple this with the fact that the movie is afraid to remove anything from the book, so you have a movie that feels both flat and bloated.

But, that’s not to say that the movie is a failure either.  There is still plenty things to like and at times the film can be quite watchable and absorbing.  Despite Chris Columbus’ short-comings as a director, I do give him credit for at least establishing all the pieces that would come to define the series in the years ahead and making them all appropriately iconic.  Hogwarts is wonderfully realized, and effectively epic in scale.  The production design overall is solid, with costumes, sets, and visual effects feeling all appropriately magical, if perhaps a little too basic.  But, what’s most special about this movie, and for the franchise overall is the stellar, all-star cast.  Many of Britain’s best character actors can all be found here, including Richard Harris as Professor Dumbledore, as well as Maggie Smith, Richard Griffiths, Robbie Coltrane, David Bradley, and John Hurt all giving their best.  It should also be mentioned that they lucked out with the casting of Alan Rickman as Professor Snape, in what would be the greatest role of his stellar career, and a perfectly matched one too.  But, it’s the casting of the main roles of the children where the movie really shines.  Emma Watson and Rupert Grint click almost immediately in the crucial roles of Hermoine Granger and Ron Wesley respectively, and so do many of the other young stars.  The only one who seems a little out of his league in this first film, unfortunately, is Daniel Radcliffe as Harry himself.  I don’t see that as his fault, though, considering that he’s got to play the boring, every-man protagonist here, and I think that too much was expected of him so early on.  He at least looked perfect for the role.  As we would see in future movies ahead, his growth as an actor and his role as the character would take many unpredictable turns in the years ahead.

harry potter and the chamber of secrets

HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS (2002)

Directed by Chris Columbus

Filmed simultaneously with Sorcerer’s Stone, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets made it to theaters exactly a year later.  And while the movie improved on the original in some ways, it also sadly had some of the same problems.  For one thing, the filmmakers seemed uncertain whether or not to cut moments from the book, so again they hedged their bets and included just about everything.  This results in a movie that runs a staggering 162 minutes (the longest in the whole series) and you feel every bit of it.  While it is neat to see so much time devoted to showcasing this amazing world, there are still plenty of things that could have been cut down.  The Quidditch Match scene for example, while beautifully executed and epic in scope, goes on for way too long and could have done with a couple edits.  Some of the plot detours could have used some better focus and time management too, like the whole Polyjuice Potion segment.  Still, the movie does excel better than it’s predecessor.  Chris Columbus manages to utilize his directorial tricks more effectively here, giving the movie a better cinematic look overall.  He also manages to deliver on tone much better.  The scenes within the Forbidden Woods and the titular Chamber are effectively creepy without feeling toned down.  In addition, the film actually takes some chances by being shockingly violent at times, including a moment where Harry’s arm is brutally stabbed by the fang of a ferocious giant serpent.  But, that’s not to say that the movie veers too quickly into darker territory.  It’s still a film aimed at audiences of all ages (perhaps a little too much so) and it still retains an aura of wonderment overall.

Again, the cast is the shining element of this film.  All the key players return, along with some welcome additions.  Jason Issacs brings an appropriately menacing and sneering turn as the villainous Lucius Malfoy, father of hated Potter rival Draco (played by Tom Felton).  My favorite addition to the cast though is Kenneth Branaugh as the pompous Professor Gilderoy Lockheart.  The famed Shakespearean thespian and filmmaker delivers a delightfully hammy performance that enables him to steal every scene he’s in and it’s an overall inspired choice of casting.  The child actors are also improved as well, especially Radcliffe as Harry, although he still hasn’t shaken off the bland, wide-eyed wonder expression that plagues his performance in these first couple films (seriously kid, it’s your second year at school; you should be used to this stuff by now).  This was also sadly the final screen performance of actor Richard Harris, as this movie was released posthumously after his death in between films.  He thankfully finished all his scenes before passing, and manages to deliver a wonderful swan song of a performance here.  The movie is also notable for the introduction of Dobby, the series first fully CGI animated principle character.  While he was annoying to some (mostly because he was unfairly compared to Lord of the Rings Gollum, who also was introduced that same year) the animation on the character was no less groundbreaking for it’s time and his presence helped to give this movie a much more magical feeling overall.   It may not have been the fully realized Potter film we’ve been wanting to see just yet, but this entry nevertheless showed us that better things were to come for the franchise, and with Chris Columbus stepping aside as director, we would see that those better things were much closer than we expected.

harry potter and the prisoner of azkaban

HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN (2004)

Directed by Alfonso Cuaron

Now this is more like it.  After Chris Columbus’ departure, Warner Brothers tapped Mexican filmmaker (and future Oscar-Winner) Alfonso Cuaron to direct the third feature in the series, and his input made a whole lot of difference.  Cuaron proved to be a perfect choice because he brought a very distinct sense of style to the movie; something that would go on to define the rest of the series thereafter.  The film no longer looked basic, but instead had visual flair to it.  With artistic tricks like ink-blot transition fades, impressionistic framing, and Cuaron’s trademark long takes, this became a film that not only stood out from it’s predecessors, but also made Harry Potter distinctive from other films too.  What Cuaron also did to change the face of the franchise was to take it out into the real world.  Instead of shooting entirely around the vicinity of the studio lot that most of the original films were made in, Cuaron shot several exterior scenes on location in the Scottish Highlands.  Because of this, the movie has an authenticity that the first two films didn’t.  The universe of Harry Potter finally felt like a lived-in, functioning world, and that’s the biggest and most rewarding contribution Prisoner of Azkaban made to the franchise.  At the same time, the film still feels like a natural continuation to what came before, and in addition to the great artistic leaps that this movie made, it also benefited from a renewed focus on the story.  Prisoner of Azkaban finally delivers some much needed insight into Harry’s backstory, including the truth behind the murder of his family, and why his importance in this world matters.

Because of the more introspective details of this plot, it puts Harry’s personal journey more into the spotlight, and this in turn leads to one of the film’s other great improvements.  For the first time in the series, Daniel Radcliffe finally shines as the character of Harry.  He gives his best performance to date here, and I think that it’s because the series finally allows him to emote rather than react to what’s happening.  It basically becomes a difference between performing and acting, and here, Radcliffe finally figured out how to embody the character.  And it makes sense; Harry finally learns more about how the tragedies that shaped his life and how nothing is what it seems, making his inner turmoil all the more defining to his character.  It also helps that Radcliffe had fantastic role models in the cast to help guide his acting abilities to new heights, such as the additions of Gary Oldman as Sirius Black and David Thewlis as Reamus Lupin, both giving standout performances.  Also worth noting is the recasting of Dumbledore, with veteran actor Michael Gambon assuming the role after Richard Harris’ passing.  While I admire Harris’ take on the character, I actually thing Gambon proved to be a better fit.  Harris was a bit too ethereal as Dumbledore, while Gambon’s version came across as much more accessible, and a lot more natural as a result.  The movie also makes the wise choice of cutting out any unnecessary scenes, making this movie feel much less bloated than previous films.  Quidditch is portrayed to the bare minimum, and more time is devoted to the things that matter, like character relationships.  While some things are curiously left out (the true authors of the Marauder’s Map) there’s nothing in this movie that shouldn’t be here, and that’s refreshing.  Prisoner of Azkaban changed up the franchise in the best way possible, and that’s why it’s considered by most to be the best in the series.

harry potter and the goblet of fire

HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE (2005)

Directed by Mike Newell

While I do admire Prisoner of Azkaban a great deal, and what it brought to the franchise as a whole, I actually would consider it’s successor to be my own favorite film in this series.  Azkaban revolutionized and set the tone for the rest of the series, but I believe Goblet of Fire is the one movie that perfected it.   My reaction may have to do with Goblet also being my favorite book from the series, but it’s not without a lot of remarkable film-making that helps to earn it that distinction as well.  Director Mike Newell takes what Alfonso Cuaron built in the last movie, and amps it up to 11.  The scale is bigger, with all the Triwizard Tournament sequences making a colossal impression; as does the impressive Quidditch World Cup that opens the feature.  Not only that, but the characters themselves go through many life-altering changes.  Romantic relationships come more into focus in this movie, with Harry finding his first crush in his fellow student Cho Chang (Katie Leung).  Ron and Hermoine’s budding romance is also explored further, with sometimes very hilarious results.  Conflicts between characters are also given more insight, as Harry begins to feel more of the pressure that his celebrity status in the Wizarding World and the negative effect it has.  His friendship with Ron hits a few hurdles, as Harry seems to achieve glory without any effort and Ron sees it as a betrayal.  I love all of this deeper stuff injected into the story, making the movie feel more than just a spectacle, but instead closer to the rich narrative that J.K. Rowling had imagined.

New members of the already stellar cast once again proves the ambitious casting choices of the series paying off so far.  Brendan Gleeson delivers a delightfully unhinged performance as the curmudgeonly Mad Eye Moody, a character that both commands attention in every scene and brings some very welcome comic relief.  Many other great British character actors bring plenty of flavor to the film as well, including Miranda Richardson as the nosy Rita Skeeter and Doctor Who‘s David Tennant delivering a very slimy performance as Barty Crouch Jr.  Also, future sparkling vampire Robert Pattinson shows up as Hogwart’s resident hunk, Cedric Diggory.  But, the film’s greatest addition to the series is the role that was probably the most crucial casting choice overall apart from Harry himself, and that’s the role of the primary villain; Lord Voldemort.   After teasing his return for three movies, Voldemort finally shows his ugly face in the climax of this feature, and the filmmakers should be commended for getting someone as noteworthy as Ralph Fiennes for the role.  Fiennes performance is iconic; both mesmerizing and terrifying at the same time.  The way he goes from cool confidence to seething rage in an instant is frighteningly realized and the whole resurrection scene near the film’s end is easily one of the series finest moments, if not the best overall.  Because of this dark turn, the franchise would likewise never be the same after this.  The wizarding world would become a much darker place, where even Hogwarts would no longer be a safe haven, and the films commendably adopted that newer, darker tone gracefully.

So, there you have the first four features in the Harry Potter franchise.  Unlike most series that tend to loose luster over time, Harry Potter is one of the few examples where it managed to get better the longer it went on.  Much like how the children at it’s center grew up and matured, the series itself started off unfocused and uncertain, only to gain confidence as it kept growing.  Sorcerer’s Stone and Chamber of Secrets are by no mean bad movies, but they do pale in comparison to where the series would ultimately go in the years after.  I can’t stress enough how important Prisoner of Azkaban was in finally setting the tone for the series and helping to give it the distinctive character that it was lacking up to that point.  But, when looked at entirely, you can’t deny that it does faithfully bring to life J.K. Rowling’s imaginative story; especially with regards to the characters.  Just as with the novels themselves, I believe the real appeal of the Potter series is the incredible way that it perfectly captures the experience of childhood within a school environment.  Sure, this a world of witches and wizards, but the interconnected relationships between characters are as real as anything we’ve all experienced when going through school.  Just like all of us, Harry and his friends have to deal with the pressures of homework, the dangers of school bullying, as well as the reliance of friends in times of crisis.  Rowling’s genius is in the fact that each of her novels is devoted to an entire school year, making the progression of the narrative feel familiar to any of us who recall our memories of school based on all the different levels of development we achieved.  For the start of this franchise, we would see the sweet innocence and promise of youth give way to the harsh realities of adulthood just across the horizon, and that’s what awaits us in the final four films of the Harry Potter franchise.  So, until then…

….to be continued.

Editorials

Artsy Fartsy – The Fine Line Between the Surreal and the Pretentious in Movies

swiss army man

In the midst of all the big summer season blockbusters that are released this time of year, there are also a handful of small independent films that make it into theaters.  Usually the independent film industry tries to aim for year end releases, if they feel that their movie is award worthy, but oftentimes there are some films that are released earlier in the year, purely because of audience curiosity hitting a high pitch on which the filmmakers wish to capitalize, or because the studios didn’t know where else to put them in their schedule.  This latter camp could be for two reasons; one, because the movie in question is so strange that the studio is unsure how the audience will react to it, or that it’s just plain unwatchable and the studio dumps it into theaters.  Whatever the movie turns out to be, the audience ultimately decides.  There is a part of the indie film audience that craves for the weird and unpredictable, but this is also an audience with discerning tastes.  For the most part, art house audiences want to see something challenging and provocative; something different from the norm of the average studio output.  But, like with all art-forms, there stands a fine line between making something that’s provocative, and something that rings hollow.  Filmmakers must never forget that cinema is an art-form with the clear purpose of entertainment.  You need to make something that can grab and hold your audiences attention for two hours at a time, and to do that, concessions to the audiences tastes must be accounted for.  That’s not to mean that a filmmakers artistic expression needs to be watered down to appeal to the public; it just means that the filmmaker must examine whether or not their vision can hold weight within the medium of cinema.

This was the thought that ran through my head over the last couple weeks as I experienced two of this summer’s most talked about independent films.  The first one I saw was a bizarre, dryly dark comedy called The Lobster, which stars Colin Ferrell as a lonely man who is mandated to find his true love at a resort, or else he will be transformed into the animal of his choice; the titular lobster.  The second film that I saw was Swiss Army Man, a buddy comedy about a marooned castaway played by Paul Dano who finds his way home thanks to the many talents of his resourceful friend; a farting corpse played by Daniel Radcliffe.  Both films commit to their ridiculous premises and even manage to find a surprising profoundness within their narratives, mostly pertaining to human relationships and the pressures that society puts on the individual.  But, after seeing both, I’m surprised how different my reaction was to both movies.  I found Swiss Army Man to be the far more effective of the two, ,mainly because of it’s charm, and the very noticeable lack of charm in The Lobster.  Even still, I can understand completely how some people might have the opposite opinion and prefer The Lobster as the better film, or find them both equally charming.  I can also completely understand if someone ends up hating both as well.  It’s clear that indie films like Swiss Army Man and The Lobster are not for anyone, and their target audience may be minuscule at best.  But, if one keeps an open mind, they may find the appeal of movies like these in unexpected ways, and that sense of discovery is what really helps to drive the independent market.  Indie films tend to be a crap shoot for the industry, because oftentimes you’ll find movies within it that have limited appeal and then other times you’ll find the next big thing.

I think the reason why I responded so strongly to something like Swiss Army Man was because there was a sense that came through that the filmmakers knew what kind of movie they were making.  The directors, Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert (credited as The Daniels), have even stated in interviews that the movie sort of started as a bet, seeing whether or not they could make a movie centered around a flatulent corpse.  The fact that they made it work, and even found a surprisingly humane narrative about companionship with it, is something rather remarkable and it shows the real power of creative storytelling.  But, what the movie also does well is to not take itself too seriously, while at the same time keeping it relentlessly absurd.  I think this was helped immensely by the performances of the two leads, Dano and Radcliffe.  If you don’t buy into their performances, then the absurdity of the premise rings hollow.  Radcliffe in particular takes command of the film, making the film’s sentient corpse feel authentic and not at all farcical; like an artsy Weekend at Bernie’s (1989).  The humor is overall balanced, and that’s a large part of why it works.  The gags come naturally out of the situation and support the narrative of these two characters.  By doing that, it avoids a pitfall that too many other quirky independent films fall into called pretentiousness.

The Lobster is unfortunately the kind of movie that I feel earns the label of pretentious; but at the same time, it is also far from being the most pretentious thing I’ve ever seen on the big screen.  The Lobster’s main fault is that it takes what should be absurdly funny within it’s premise and strips it down into a cold, sterile presentation.    It’s clinical, when it should be farcical.  I recognize where the humor should be, but the staging undermines what humor could have been there.  The director, Yorgos Lanthimos, crafted a pretty looking movie around this premise, with beautiful cinematography, but he did so in detriment to the humor.  The film has a languid pace to it, making the ridiculousness feel like a chore, and that ultimately is what makes the movie fail.  It becomes pretentious because it never quite earns the huge artistic leaps that it attempts to take.  If the movie stuck with a cohesive tone either underlined the message of the film, or the artistic ambitions of the director, or the desire to cultivate an absurd world in which this story takes place, there might have been something here; and yet, nothing comes out of all that ambition.  But, maybe pretentious could be too strong a word to label this movie.  I don’t know what the director’s ultimate intent was, but the result feels too much like art for arts-sake.  But, it could have just been because this movie didn’t connect with me like Swiss Army Man did.  Swiss Army Man has it’s pretentious moments too (including existential soliloquies by it’s characters, and rhythmic montages that don’t really add anything, and a completely baffling finale) but they didn’t spoil the experience for me.  Man balances it’s art with story, while Lobster let’s the art overwhelm everything else.

It’s an occurrence you see a lot within the artistic community; where there becomes a disconnect between the artist and the viewer.  Sometimes it’ll take a while for a piece of art to connect with it’s audience, and then there are other times when no connection will be made at all.  The most dangerous thing for an artist to do is think that what they make is for their own indulgence.  Movies should have a broad appeal, because it’s the only thing that justifies their creation in the end.  You take an audience’s reaction for granted and you open yourself up to failure.  But, pretentious film-making isn’t usually characteristic of most independent film-making; if anything, pretension more often comes from established, mainstream artists.  The Wachowskis for instance have made what I consider some of the most pretentious films in recent memory; and they accomplished this through big studio backing.  The Matrix (1999) managed to be that rare box office hit that kept it’s philosophical musings and crowd pleasing action sequences in a nice balance, because both were delivered with an earnestness that kept everything interesting.  But the novelty wore off in the sequels, and The Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions (both 2003) collapsed under the lack of cohesion, and both the action and philosophical elements lost their power due to the Wachowskis desire to show off instead of reinvent their franchise.  They have continued down this road with muddled messes like Speed Racer (2008) and Jupiter Ascending (2015), movies that never become as profound or as thrilling as the Wachowskis seem to think they’ll be.  The films of M. Night Shaymalan also come to mind, where it seems like the filmmaker is holding the audience at a distance while trying to make his narrative hit the mark that he believes it should make.  And action filmmakers Roland Emmerich and Zack Snyder are achieving new levels of pretentiousness as they make films that believe they are provocative, but are really just stupid.

But, should a filmmaker compromise their vision in order to avoid appearing pretentious and find broader appeal.  Not at all.  The thing that will help a filmmaker out the most in the industry is to find their own unique voice.  Some audiences will accept something odd and unique at their local theater if they already are familiar with the person or people that make it.  Some independent filmmakers luck out whenever their unique style clicks with an audience, and it helps them gain a little more ease when attempting to make films their own way.  A really unique voice to rise and mature out of the independent field would be someone like Wes Anderson.  Anderson’s style is unlike any other in film-making, and easy to define, and has changed little since his early days.  And still, it’s understandable if his style doesn’t click with everyone, but the man has earned enough trust with his audience to where he has a sizable fan base that will allow him to make whatever he wants to.  His confidence in his art has allowed his movies to avoid the pitfalls of pretension, even though his overly artistic style could easily fall that way if he ever took it for granted and choose to just repeat himself over and over again.  A fundamental understanding of a person’s own artistic limits and their skills to tell a story are essential for becoming a success.  I think that’s one of the things that separates the amateurs from the professionals, and why a good film education is needed.  I had my own film school experience, and it showed me how knowledge of the medium would give my fellow students the much needed balance that they would need to make movies that would work.  Any person can point and shoot a camera, but a film education teaches you how to pace, compose, and edit a scene, making what you shoot all the more potent in the end.

But what a filmmaker must also realize is that their artistic style is also prone to evolving into pretension if not experimented with.  The best filmmakers have their own style, but they also change their styles slightly to fit with the times.  Picking the right subjects for your future projects makes all the difference.  Some filmmakers make the mistake of relying too heavily on their styles, forcing them into story-lines where it doesn’t fit.  This is a problem that I see with someone like Terrence Malick.  He famously took a nearly 30 year break from film-making, only to return in the late 90’s with the war epic, The Thin Red Line (1998).  Since then, he has been consistently turning out ambitious, but overly poetic dramas, each one more dense than the last.  His style basically involves a free flowing narrative with his characters expressing their emotions in dubbed over narration that often sounds like their reading poetry.  Interesting enough, his style works best when it’s put into unexpected places, like a World War II setting in The Thin Red Line, or pre-colonial America in The New World (2005).  But since these epics, he’s focused his style on examinations of American life, whether it’s post-War suburbia in The Tree of Life (2011), the contemporary American Midwest in To the Wonder (2013) or the glitziness of Hollywood in Knight of Cups (2016) and his style has lost much of it’s appeal in the process.  While before he was reinventing different genres with his unique voice, now he is repeating himself with too many similar narratives, and his style now feels minimized as a result.  His last three films are pretentious, because they say noting that Malick hasn’t already said before and are just are for the sake of art; beautiful as they may be.  Filmmakers of the same ilk as Malick, like David Lynch or Stanley Kubrick have similar uncompromising styles, but they made them work over longer periods by applying them to different things; whether it be different genres or narrative structures.  It’s how they’ve avoided the pitfalls of pretension that Malick has sadly found himself within.

Overall, we as an audience must decide what is deemed pretentious and what is not, and ultimately, we probably will never find a full consensus of what that actually means.  We do know pretentious when we see it, but sometimes a pretentious piece of art may actually be something we appreciate, while for others it will remain garbage.  I certainly responded the former way to Swiss Army Man, even though I do acknowledge that it will not be for everyone.  Hell, the movie rubbed some people the wrong way right from the moment it premiered at Sundance Film Festival, where audience members at the prestigious event even walked out; probably put off by the seemingly sophomoric flatulence humor.  But, there were others like me that responded well enough and it got the buzz that it deserves to receive a big enough release (no pun intended).  The Lobster on the other hand left me underwhelmed because it was quirky without the emotional drive needed for me to care.  That being said, many other critics have praised the film for it’s uniqueness, and I can understand that response as well.  Surreal movies that defy easy explanation are necessary for the film industry, because they allow for new ideas and techniques to take hold in the medium.  It takes earnestness in the project itself and a willingness to make it appealing that ultimately decides whether or not it will connect with it’s audience.  Also, trust the intelligence of your audience.  If you go too far artistically, or make your themes too heavy or not heavy enough for the narrative to carry, than the audience will reject your work.  It’s the story that ultimately matters most in the end, and a commitment to that can allow for any of the insane things that you attach onto it.  Believe me, I’ve seen some weird things on the movie screen over the years.  Some of it may drive people away, but if you commit to seeing it through to the end, then you’ll know for sure if it escapes the pitfall of pretension and achieves what it’s maker wanted, and it could be the movie that can possibly change cinema forever.

Evolution of Character

Evolution of Character – Wyatt Earp

wyatt earp

In my last article for this series, I highlighted Queen Elizabeth I, a real historical figure that has enjoyed many varied depictions on the big screen.  In this article, I chose to highlight yet another subject from history, but from a decidedly different era altogether. The American West has given the world many fascinating figures of legend , whether real, fictional, or a combination of both.  Larger than life characters like Jesse James, Calamity Jane, Billy the Kid, and “Buffalo” Bill Cody have all achieved immortality within folklore and later through cinematic adaptation.  But if there was one that stood out as the most prolific, it would be legendary U.S. Marshall Wyatt Earp.  Born in 1848, Earp worked all across the American frontier, but once he arrived in the town of Dodge City, Kansas, he fell into the role that would eventually define him; that of a lawman.  After a semi-successful career in Dodge City (where he would meet one of his most trusted associates, John “Doc” Holliday), Earp took up the head U.S. Marshall position at a boomtown in the Arizona Territory called Tombstone, and it was here that he would become a legend.  The moment that defined his life and career came on October 26, 1881, when Earp, Holliday, and two of Earp’s brothers faced down the Clanton gang at the Tombstone O.K. Corral, which led to the most famous gunfight in U.S. history.  In the end, the cowboy gang was slaughtered and Earp’s posse was triumphant.  The incident became the basis for so many Western legends since.  Naturally, Wyatt Earp makes for an ideal Western hero, and Hollywood has revisited his story many times on the big screen.  In this article, I will take a look at how that legendary image translated to cinema and endured over the years as the genre itself had changed.

earp randolph scott

RANDOLPH SCOTT in FRONTIER MARSHALL (1939)

Wyatt Earp’s standoff at the O.K. Corral had been recreated many times over in the silent era of film, but in the era of talkies, Hollywood didn’t get around to adapting his story until this feature.  In the role of Earp, the filmmakers cast rising star Randolph Scott, an actor who would come to define the Western genre in the years since.  Though Scott plays the role of a frontier lawman well enough, the problem is that the character he depicts in the movie shares nothing with the real Wyatt Earp other than just his name.  The movie Frontier Marshall doesn’t portray the story of Wyatt Earp so much as it appropriates it into the formulaic Western narrative that it wanted to tell.  Here, Earp is as interchangeable as any other Western hero from that time period.  The film even rewrites the famous O.K. corral scene, portraying it as a lone standoff between Earp and the outlaw cowboys.  Doc Holliday (portrayed here by Cesar Romero) is not present in that moment like he was in real life; something that would be rectified in future adaptations. Despite Hollywood playing loosely with the real life facts behind the story, Scott still leaves a serviceable impression as the legendary lawman.  In the role, you can see the makings of the genre icon that he would eventually become.  Because of that, you can excuse the fact that he also doesn’t look much like the real Earp as well, missing the trademark mustache.  Eventually, though, Hollywood would recognize that the real life Gunfight was due for an accurate portrayal.

earp henry fonda

HENRY FONDA in MY DARLING CLEMENTINE (1946)

As the Western genre matured, so did the attempts to adapt the life of Wyatt Earp as well.  Fun fact: Wyatt Earp lived long enough to see the early cinematic adaptations of his legendary gunfight being filmed, and on one occasion, Earp visited a set where a young director by the name of John Ford was working.  Many years after that encounter, Ford would bring the story of Wyatt Earp to the big-screen in what many consider to be one of the greatest Westerns ever made.  For one thing, the casting of Henry Fonda couldn’t be more perfect.  The dashing leading man gives the role a dignified air, and while at times he can be a bit too stoic in the role, Fonda nevertheless delivers on making Earp a beloved hero worth rooting for.  They also got the look right, with Fonda sporting the trademark mustache for the role.  The gunfight in particular is perfectly staged; intense and suspenseful.  The buildup to the climatic moment is what really makes it a standout, building quietly without music and minimal dialogue.  It’s a mastery of direction that you would only find from the genre’s definitive director, John Ford.  In addition, the movie also finds time for the other members of Earp’s posse, with Victor Mature lending great support as Doc Holliday as well as from Ward Bond and Tim Holt as the Earp brothers.  But make no mistake, it’s Fonda that really carries this movie, making Wyatt Earp the idealized lawman; pure in his intentions and steadfast in his resolve.  The image of Earp sitting on the front porch of his office, with one leg raised up against a pillar as he looks down the street has since become one of the most iconic images of the Western genre, and it’s a moment that only a great artist like Ford could pull off.

earp joel mccrea

JOEL MCCREA in WICHITA (1955)

When the genre entered the 1950’s, the Western became a perfect showcase for the new widescreen process.  Naturally, with the wider canvas, Hollywood wanted to show off the Western frontier in a big way and they drew once again from some of the most legendary stories in the genre.  Wyatt Earp was once again chosen as an ideal subject for this new era of Westerns, but Wichita did something very different with the character, and that was to portray the early years of the man’s life instead of the most defining ones in Tombstone.  In this film, we are introduced to Earp during his time as a cattle rustler in Kansas.  As the film shows, the young Earp runs afoul of bandits and other outlaw cowboys making life hard for the people of Wichita, and through these encounters, it leads him down the road to becoming a marshal of law in the small town.  It’s an interesting look into Earp’s early years, seeing the events that would eventually lead him down the road to the man he would become.  Unfortunately the movie also has the disadvantage of not being too historically accurate.  It was in Dodge City that Earp finally became marshal; not Wichita, where he was only a deputy.  Also, Earp was in his mid twenties during his time in Wichita, so casting middle-aged Joel McCrea in the role seems a little off.  Despite this, McCrea is perfectly serviceable in the role, giving Earp a rugged sternness that works well enough.  The widescreen panoramas are also beautiful to look at, capturing the beauty of the American Prairie wonderfully.  Overall, this movie does offer up an interestingly different side to the legend of Wyatt Earp, showing his beginnings rather than just relying on showing us his most famous moment yet again.

earp burt lancaster

BURT LANCASTER in GUNFIGHT AT THE O.K. CORRAL (1957)

A couple years later, the legendary gunfight would also be revisited on the big screen, only this time, portrayed with a more gritty tone.  The interesting thing about this version of the story is that it gives equal attention to both Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday.  The moving stars longtime friends Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas as Earp and Holliday respectfully, and it’s easy to see their comraddery translate perfectly into this film.  Lancaster makes a natural choice for Earp, though they interestingly left the mustache off this time.  He gives the character a nice hard edge, making him both trustworthy, but also intimidating at the same time.  But, Kirk Douglas steals the spotlight here as the slick Holliday, and their conflicts on screen generate the best moments on screen.  The climatic titular battle is also legendary, supposedly shot over a full week just for six minutes of screen-time.  Director John Sturges illustrated his skill as a filmmaker with his spectacular recreation of this scene.  You feel the power of ever gunshot as a viewer and for the first time ever, you see the carnage of the event portrayed without diluting the impact.  Physically imposing Lancaster would stand for many years after as the standard for the character, maybe not so much in physicality, but certainly in terms of personality.  Earp would in the years ahead move away from the purer image seen in My Darling Clementine, and instead become the more tough as nails version that Lancaster portrayed him to be, and that would indeed be a good thing considering how the Western genre changed over time.

earp james garner

JAMES GARNER in HOUR OF THE GUN (1967)

Years after Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, John Sturges once again returned to Wyatt Earp as a subject, only this time from a different angle.  Instead of rehashing the legendary gunfight again, Sturges chose to show what happened afterwards; portraying the later years of Earp’s life as he deals with the consequences of his actions.  This makes an interesting companion piece with Wichita, as that movie showed the origins of a legend, this movie likewise shows his deconstruction in the years after the moment that would define his life.  Hour of the Gun came at a time when the Western genre was going through a big change, as the genre was less interested in glamorizing the violence of the old West and instead was looking more introspectively into the grim realities of Western life.  In this movie, Earp’s triumphant shootout is shown to be just the beginning of a continuing nightmare, as retribution comes back and Earp must face the reality that his duty as lawman puts a bulls-eye on him at all times.  The film shows him cleaning up the remaining Clanton gang with his friend Holliday (portrayed here by Jason Robards), and the hunt proves to be even more perilous than the shootout he faced before.  Replacing Lancaster as Earp this time was TV’s Maverick himself, James Garner.  Garner gives the character of Wyatt Earp a nice vulnerability that you rarely see in other versions.  Here, Earp questions his abilities and yet never loses his resolve to serve the law, and it makes for a nice rounded portrayal.  And thankfully the mustache makes a return here.  It’s a nice look into how a person deals with the consequences of accomplishing a legendary act and how that may be harder than anyone might expect.

earp kurt russell

KURT RUSSELL in TOMBSTONE (1993)

As Hollywood moved into the blockbuster era, the Western genre would also leave the gritty and introspective mood of the 60’s and 70’s, once again returning to the over-the-top spectacle that it once was.  Wyatt Earp’s story would be given such a treatment in this classic retelling that has since become a beloved hit among Western fans.  Let’s be clear, Tombstone is not a subtle movie by any means.  Anyone looking for a true to life portrayal of the events surrounding the legendary gunfight should look elsewhere.  Still, this larger than life approach is exactly what makes this movie so good.  Kurt Russell portrays the legendary Marshall, and it is by far my favorite version of this character.  Russell manages to balance the two sides of Earp perfectly; the charming, straight-narrowed man of the law as well as the ruthless, sometimes unhinged gunfighter.  Russell gives Earp a ferociousness little seen in other versions of the character, and that makes this portrayal especially great to watch.  I especially love the scene where Earp’s posse is ambushed at a watering hole, and Earp begins to lose his mind and take on the entire team of outlaws himself.  This moment in particular also has what is perhaps the greatest utterance of the word “NO” ever put on screen.  Russell isn’t the only great thing in the movie though, and in fact, his Earp is actually somewhat underdeveloped in relation to other characters.  The spotlight in the movie actually belongs to the scene stealing Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday, making it the best version of that character we’ve ever seen.  Bill Paxton and Sam Elliot are also solid as Earp’s brothers, as is Stephen Lang as the leader of the Clanton gang.  Few other re-tellings of the legendary gunfight have as much cinematic fun with the events as this one does, and though it may be over-the-top, it’s done in a way that actually elevates the legend rather than deter from it.

earp kevin costner

KEVIN COSTNER in WYATT EARP (1994)

The year following Tombstone, we received another movie about the legendary lawman, this time from Director Lawrence Kasdan and star Kevin Costner.  While most films about Wyatt Earp kept focus on the famous O.K. Corral gunfight and it’s participants, this movie chooses instead to tell the full breadth of Earp’s life, from his early days in Kansas to his final days in California.  It’s an ambitious film, clocking in a little over 3 hours, and it does a noble attempt of trying to give Earp’s life an epic overview.  Unfortunately, such a broad canvas also makes this film feel unfocused and a little stale at times.  There’s a reason why previous films focused on just certain events in Earp’s life, because they were the moments that revealed the most about who Wyatt Earp really was.  Portraying the full scope of the man’s life and career only diminishes these moments because they become only parts of the whole, rather than the standouts.  Still, the movie is not bad and Costner does alright as Earp, even if it is kind of one-note.  What I do praise, however, is the portrayal of the legendary gunfight.  This film presents what is probably the most historically accurate portrayal of this moment.  In reality, the gunfight lasted only 30 seconds, according to eyewitnesses.  Wyatt Earp recreates that precisely, showing the shootout as the ugly, quick-bursting killing spree that it probably was in real life; not glamorizing the moment one bit; instead showing the brutality of it.  For that attention to detail, I do commend the movie for at least seeking to be true to history.  Still, we’ve seen better in the Western genre from both Kasdan (Silverado) and Costner (Dances With Wolves, Open Range), and Wyatt Earp stands as a very flawed, but noble take on the legend.  It may have hit a note a little harder had Tombstone  not outshone it a year before, but that’s how we judge movies in the Western genre in general.  The legends tend to be more fun to watch than the real history.

It’s clear that Wyatt Earp has been a resilient figure in the Western genre over the years, and whether or not the movies represent a historically accurate portrait of the man, it’s nevertheless clear that he’s left an impact.  You can see the influence of Wyatt Earp in every heroic fictional Western lawman from Gary Cooper’s Marshall Kane in High Noon (1952) to Adam Cartwright in TV’s Bonanza.  The legendary O.K. Corral gunfight has also become the inspiration for pretty much every shootout ever portrayed in cinema, even in the revisionist Spaghetti Westerns.  But, it all shows how one moment of destiny can turn any ordinary individual into a legend for all time.  Wyatt Earp may not have been the greatest lawman the West has ever known, but his story (embellished or not) has over time become the quintessential representation of everything that we love about the Westerns.  I think that when Wyatt Earp’s story is presented in it’s most idealized form, like with My Darling Clementine and Tombstone, it makes for the best Western.  Even still, Wyatt Earp, Gunfight at the O.K. Corral and Hour of the Gun also do a serviceable job of building on the legend as well.   Whether or not the real Wyatt Earp was like his cinematic portrayals is beside the point now.  Just like with how we look at the Founding Fathers of our country, we focus more on the legacy that men like Wyatt Earp leave behind, rather than taking a hard look at the person that they really were.  The Western genre is built around idealized heroes and Earp fit that image perfectly.  Had he not come out of that pivotal gunfight unscathed, Westerns today would look very different.

Top Ten Lists

Top Ten Animated Films Not Made by Disney or Pixar

pixar watching movies

Many animation companies have risen and fallen over the years, but if there is one that has stood tall as the standard, it would be Disney.  Disney has continuously put out animated features for nearly 80 years now, and will continue long into the future, and through all that time, it has grown stronger despite facing respectable competition at times.  One of the reasons it has remained at the top is because Disney has been the one that has more or less charted the direction of the industry.  Whenever Disney touches upon a big hit, it will have ripple effects across the industry as all the other studios try to follow their lead.  For instance, when Disney animated musicals based on fairy tales started becoming popular again in the 90’s with films like Beauty and the Beast (1991), it spawned a bunch of similar movies from rival studios trying to capitalize on the same success, like The Swan Princess (1994) and Anastasia (1997).  That’s not to say that Disney has always remained ahead all the time.  Sometimes a string of failures would catch up to them, or a change in the market leading to tougher competition.  Pixar Animation, more than any other, has had the same kind of effect on the industry, being the trend-setter and innovator, and it was very smart of Disney to partner up with them when they did; otherwise Disney’s days at the top would’ve ended.  But, even with these two dominant brands leading much of the animation market, it doesn’t mean that none of the other animation studios have put out an inferior product.  In fact, some of their movies are just as good as anything by Disney and Pixar.  In this article, I will list what I think are the 10 best animated movies not made by Disney or Pixar, because honestly if I had to make a list of the greatest animated movies of all time, those two would dominate.  The reason I want to highlight the other studios here is to show the incredible diversity that you’ll find in animation, both today and from the past.  So, let’s begin.

10.

rango

RANGO (2011)

Directed by Gore Verbinski

Not many people knew what to make of this film when they first saw it advertised.  The visual designs were bizarre, as were the characters, and the main protagonist was a squeaky voiced lizard wearing a Hawaiian shirt.  But, when the movie was released in the spring of 2011, audiences and critics were surprised to find that this Nickelodeon made film was actually a lot of fun to watch.  The voice cast, led by Johnny Depp as the titular lizard, was top notch.  The visuals were imaginative and well-executed.  But, more importantly, it was also hilariously written.  What I took away most from this film was the brilliant way that it parodied the Western genre, right down to the smallest details.  The design of the western village, made from scrap pieces of junk found by the critters that inhabit the town, is clever, as is a hilarious Apocalypse Now reference when the townspeople try to escape from a mole colony.  It’s all hilarious, beautifully animated and it even functions as a true Western.  In fact this works better as a Gore Verbinski directed Western starring Johnny Depp than The Lone Ranger (2013) did.  Verbinski spent years in visual effects before becoming a director, so this movie really shows him in a creative comfort zone; free to make whatever he wanted.  What this movie does perfectly is to not waste it’s premise (basically a spaghetti Western with critters) and bring it to it’s full potential.  The best I can say about it is that it doesn’t resemble any other animated film that I know of, and still feels familiar enough to understand.  It’s refreshingly original and shows that not every animated film needs to stick close to a standardized formula.

9.

triplets of belleville

THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE (2003)

Directed by Sylvain Chomet

Europe has a long history of crafting beautiful animated features themselves.  Whether it be English made films like Watership Down (1978) or Yellow Submarine (1968) or the French made sci-fi classic Fantastic Planet (1973), animation is a proud art-form found all across the continent.  The finest example of European animation in my opinion would be this fairly recent film from French animator Sylvain Chomet.  His style is unlike anything else I’ve seen in animation and it gives the world of this movie a unique identity.  The movie follows an elderly old woman with a club foot as she crosses the ocean in search of her kidnapped grandson, who’s also a Tour de France cyclist.  On her journey, she reaches the city of Belleville where she befriends the titular triplets (a long retired night club act) who agree to help her out.  The movie is told with minimal dialogue and it’s amazing how well Chomet is able to tell his story purely with visuals.  And those visuals are amazing.  Every frame of this hand drawn masterpiece is stunning and finely detailed.  Not only that, but the characters are wonderfully realized (visually and narratively) and the humor is charmingly twisted as well.  Keep an eye out for a small little mechanic character who bears a close resemblance to another famed animator.  Suffice to say, this is a very French movie, complete with characters dining on frog legs.  But, that’s also part of the joke too.  Chomet’s designs really stand out as being stylistically unique; and very non Disney.  If you haven’t checked this one out before, please do so.  It may not be what you’re used to, but then again, it’s very much worth taking in some international flavor when watching some quality animation.

8.

paranorman

PARANORMAN (2012)

Directed by Chris Butler and Sam Fell

Stop motion animation has been a popular medium for many decades, but it wasn’t until 1993’s The Nightmare Before Christmas that a full length feature was made utilizing the technique.  Since then, plenty of other stop motion animated films have been released.  I could have easily included something from Aardman Animation on this list, like Chicken Run (2000) given the UK-based studio’s high regard in the industry.  But, for what I consider to be the best film to come from the medium, I would have to say it’s this film from the Portland, Oregon-based Laika Studios.  Laika made a splash right away in it’s still young history with the critically acclaimed Coraline (2009).  But, it was with their follow-up ParaNorman that they really showed off what their capable of.  ParaNorman is a spectacular animated film, featuring a surprisingly mature story about social acceptance and over-coming prejudice.  It’s also got plenty of self-aware humor to it as well, poking fun at horror movie cliches. The animation is also astounding.  The 3-D printed models used for the characters are a far cry from the clay-molded ones of yesteryear, with incredible life-like detail to them.  It’s hard to believe sometimes that you are watching something crafted and animated by hand rather than with computers.  Like Disney and Pixar, Laika is taking it’s art-form to the next level and leading the medium forward, and it’s doing so on it’s own terms.  With a well-rounded story and stunning animation, ParaNorman showcases what stop motion is capable of more than any other feature in it’s class to date.

7.

south park

SOUTH PARK: BIGGER, LONGER, AND UNCUT (1999)

Directed by Trey Parker and Matt Stone

South Park isn’t the only animated TV series to spawn it’s own film.  The Simpsons finally got their own movie in 2007, and there have also been films based on Spongebob Squarepants (2004), Powerpuff Girls (2002), and even with classics like The Flintstones (1994) and The Jetsons (1990).  But, what is interesting about the South Park movie is that it made it’s way to theaters very early in the show’s run.  This was released in the middle of the show’s third season and today the series is still on the air getting ready for season number 20 this fall.  During all that time, the show has evolved and matured, and yet, the movie still holds up well.  The fact that it’s uncensored as opposed to the show makes this an especially fun movie to watch, because it shows the duo of Parker and Stone at their most irreverent.  Like all the best satires, the movie takes aim at everybody; whether it be Canadians, overly-sensitive parents, political leaders, religion; even Gandhi isn’t spared.  And it’s all laugh out loud funny.  What also makes this movie memorable is it’s musical score; mocking the Disney musical cliches while at the same time standing on it’s own lyrically.  The movie was even nominated for an Oscar for the song “Blame Canada,” although the musical highlight for me is still the hilariously obscene “Uncle F***a.”  I also get a kick out of the show’s depiction of Saddam Hussein, who it turns out is in a homosexual relationship with Satan here.  The way the character is animated, with a Photoshop cut-out of the real-life dictator’s head, and the high-pitched voice that they chose to give him are both silly to perfection.  All the show’s characters transition well to the big screen, especially the foul-mouthed Cartman, who gets much more free reign here to say whatever he wants.  It’s a perfect translation of a still legendary series that took full advantage of the creative freedom of the cinematic experience.

6.

akira

AKIRA (1988)

Directed by Katsuhiro Otomo

Of course, you can’t look at the whole of animation history without taking note of the world of Anime, imported over from Japan.  Japanese animation is unlike anything else that we see in the genre; using limited character animation in conjunction with highly artistic and sometimes stylized background art.  There are many different types of anime out there, from really cartoonish to hyper-naturalistic, but despite all this diversity, Anime still has a distinctive look that characterizes it.  One of the first Anime films to really grab a hold of Western audiences was this punk-infused dystopian masterpiece, Akira.  At a time when Disney was getting back into the groove of making colorful fairy tales once again, Akira was wowing audiences with it’s dark atmosphere, it’s sometimes shocking use of violence, and it’s jaw-droppingly beautiful animation.  It was also grand in scale, at a time when few other animated features were allowed to be, even at Disney.  Akira follows a group of biker gang members who get caught up in a conspiracy involving genetic mutation and children with extraordinary psychic powers.  When one of these children named Tetsuo begins to run amok, it’s up to his friend Kaneda to try to stop him, before he loses control and destroys the city.  The near-distant future-scape is stunningly realized, but not overdone.  It appears that director Otomo draws just as much inspiration from action movies from that time period as he does from other animated films, and it’s a combination that works really well.  Akira is considered one of the most important and influential Anime films of all time, and it’s a distinction that’s well deserved.

5.

THE LEGO MOVIE (2014)

Directed by Christopher Miller and Phil Lord

One of the most unexpected animated classics to come out in the last few years, period.  I’m sure that none of us ever expected The Lego Movie to be as good as it ended up being.  When originally announced, I’m sure that most of us thought that this was just going to be a crass commercial exercise in order to sell the public into buying more LEGO sets.  But what we ended up getting was much more than that.  It was a brilliantly crafted comedy full of so many sight gags and in-jokes that it’s hard to count.  It really is a movie that has everything we could want in a feature.  The duo of Miller and Lord have also been responsible for the 21 Jump Street (2012) movies, which also ended up being much smarter and funnier than people had expected.  All the pop culture references are hilariously executed, but the jokes also work because effort is put into the central story.  The film’s main protagonist, Emmett, really helps to ground the film and make it work, and he’s portrayed with a lot of heart by actor Chris Pratt.  Other new characters like Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman), Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks), and Good Cop/ Bad Cop (a hilarious Liam Neeson) are also great in the film.  But, what also makes this movie stand out is the amazing animation.  The film is CGI, but it’s animated to look almost like stop motion, making the whole LEGO world appear as if it was hand-crafted.  It’s visually amazing to watch, especially when the finished result looks like real LEGOS, right down to the smallest detail.  By being both stunningly animated and laugh-out-loud hilarious, The Lego Movie has become an instant masterpiece.  And, it also gives Batman his own song, which is just awesome.

4.

secret of nimh

THE SECRET OF NIMH (1982)

Directed by Don Bluth

During the years following the sudden passing of Walt Disney, the Disney company found itself stuck in a mire of self-doubt and lack of direction.  No one in the animation department knew what to do without Mr. Disney at the helm, so for several years they just resorted to coasting on formula rather than making breakthroughs in their medium.  This naturally led some of the animators working for Disney to become frustrated with the direction of the company, and one of those animators was Don Bluth.  Bluth famously parted ways from Disney and set out to create his own, independent animation studio to directly challenge the stranglehold that Disney had over the industry.  His goal was to make riskier and more mature animated features that would help elevate the animated medium over the “kid-friendly” stuff that Disney was making.  And over the next decade, Bluth indeed created a stellar body of work, including An American Tail (1986), The Land Before Time (1988), and All Dogs Go to Heaven (1989).  Though all his movies for the most part took risks and refrained from falling into formula (at least at first), no movie better illustrated his mission statement than his first feature, The Secret of NIMH (1982).  NIMH is a remarkably assured and gripping animated feature, different from Disney in every way, and yet animated to a level on par with Disney at it’s best.  Following the trials of farm mouse Mrs. Brisby, the movie is harrowing and unforgettable; and even not afraid to be a little violent at times, without sensationalizing it.  Bluth’s latter films like Rock a Doodle (1993), Thumbelina (1995), and Anastasia (1997) would fall into a formulaic hole later on, but The Secret of NIMH was at least a much needed shot in the arm for animation in it’s time, and gave an animator who had something to say his due respect.

3.

HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON (2010)

Directed by Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois

For the last decade or so, the animation industry has been defined by one primary rivalry, and that’s been Disney vs. Dreamworks.  Dreamworks made a splash in the industry with their enormously successful Shrek franchise, and for many years they were also the box office champions in the animation world.  The only thing that eluded them though was critical praise, as most of their animated films were viewed more as crowd pleasures that were just okay, rather than all-time masterpieces.  Pixar, under the roof of the Disney Company, was instead soaking up all the accolades and awards during this same time.  This was until a movie called How to Train Your Dragon was released in 2010.  Created by two Disney ex-pats, Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois, Dragon is just as strong as anything from Disney and Pixar, both visually and with it’s story-telling.  The movie is exceptionally well written, relying more heavily on character development than pop culture references and slapstick gags, something that unfortunately characterized a lot of Dreamworks’ earlier films.  The animation is also high-caliber, giving Dragons a sense of scale few other animated films ever try for.  The central relationship between the protagonist Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel) and his dragon companion Toothless is also the heart and soul that drives the movie; reminiscent of movies like E.T. (1982) or even Lilo & Stitch (2002), which these same directors are also responsible for.  This was also the first ever time where I ever felt  that Dreamworks actually bested Pixar, with the similarly themed Brave (2012) feeling  un-compelling by comparison.  Dreamworks’ Dragons deservedly garnered universal praise, and it showed that they were capable of creating more than just commercial entertainment; they could create popular art as well.

2.

spirited away

SPIRITED AWAY (2002)

Directed by Hayao Miyazaki

Like I highlighted before with Akira, Japanese anime was and is a medium that’s unafraid to push a few buttons in the world of animation; even going to extremes in terms of depicting violence and sex on screen.  But, not all of anime is defined by this.  There are other animation studios from Japan that also have made a name for themselves by portraying a more colorful and lighthearted view of the world.  This has been the defining characteristic of the acclaimed Studio Ghibli, and also the style of it’s creator, Hayao Miyazaki.  Miyazaki is often considered by many to be the Walt Disney of Anime, and it’s not hard to see why.  His animation style is very grounded, but also highly imaginative, setting a high standard that the rest of the industry tries hard to emulate, even outside of Japan.  Though Miyazaki has created violent films from time to time (Princess Mononoke for example), his films often are more characterized by more innocent, fairy-tale-like stories; not all that dissimilar from Disney.  Some of his movies like My Neighbor Totoro (1988), Kiki’s Delivery Service (1989), and Ponyo (2008) are beloved family classics, but what many consider to be the director’s finest work is the Oscar-winning Spirited Away (2002).  Spirited Away is without a doubt one of the finest anime films ever made, if not the best.  Following the story of a lost girl named Chihiro in a world inhabited by spirits and monsters, every frame of this film is a work of art.  The best moment in the film though is the train ride sequence.  It’s a quiet, reflective moment that you rarely see done in an animated feature and it shows the confidence that Miyazaki has in the art-form, showing that even animation can have a contemplative side to it.  It’s moments like this that make Spirited Away a masterpiece and Miyazaki one of the industry’s greatest artists.

1.

THE IRON GIANT (1999)

Directed by Brad Bird

If I had to choose any animated film that would stand on the same level as anything from Disney and Pixar, it would be this Brad Bird directed masterpiece.  Made by the short-lived Warner Brothers feature animation studio, The Iron Giant is a movie that gets everything right; from the high-quality animation, to the voice casting, to the unforgettable coming-of-age storyline about the bond between a young boy named Hogarth and his 100 foot tall robot friend.  Though it was a flop when it first premiered, the movie has steadily been rediscovered and is now universally beloved.  Not only does it represent the best that animation can do today, but I would dare say that this film is exactly what Walt Disney would’ve made in his time, or at least would’ve approved of.  And that’s probably the kind of result that Brad Bird was aiming for.  He was trained in art school by some of Walt Disney’s own top artists, so really The Iron Giant is a manifestation of the lessons he took to heart during his education.  Of all the films on this list, this movie shows the greatest representation of a Disney style film made outside of the influence of the Disney company.  The characters are especially what makes this a standout; never once falling into archetypal caricatures and instead feeling like fully fleshed-out individuals.  The depictions of Hogarth and the Giant are especially effective, and whoever could’ve predicted that Vin Diesel of all people could touch so many hearts as the voice of the Iron Giant.  If you don’t feel anything the moment when the Giant says “Superman” as he saves the day, then you my friend are made of stone.  Brad Bird eventually became part of Disney company later, making hits like The Incredibles (2004) and Ratatouille (2007), but his only feature outside of the House of Mouse is still what I think is his best work, and absolutely one of the greatest animated features ever made.

I’m sure that after reading this that some of you will probably complain over some omissions, and I certainly understand that.  There are so many good animated features made outside of the long reach of Disney, and more are created every day.  These are what I believe to be the best of that crowd, and it’s based not just on how good they are, but also by what they represent.  For the most part, these movies represent different animators or animation studios finding an identity that’s all their own that can stand the test of time.  One of the big problems in the world of animation is a lack of identity, instead choosing to just look at what Disney is doing right at the time and just copying their formula.  Copycat movies are an unfortunate result in the animation industry, but the good thing is that audiences have discerning tastes in the market as well, and they resoundingly reject animated films that choose to be unoriginal and lazy.  Overall, we need a big studio like Disney to set the standard for the industry, because their success pushes all competitors to up their game in order to compete.  And if there is anything to understand from a list like this is that the best animated features are the ones that rise to the challenge.  In some cases, like with How to Train Your Dragon and The Iron Giant, we’ve seen strong cases for animated films that may have actually bested the powerhouses of Disney and Pixar at their own game.  Animation is a great art-form, and made better still when everyone involved works toward making a better product overall.

Movie Reviews

Finding Dory – Review

finding dory

One thing that you’ll learn about the making of an animated film is that it takes a very long time.  On average, an animated film takes about 4-5 years to make, depending on the time put into development.  It’s not a medium where you can merely just grab a camera and start shooting.  Everything, and I do mean everything, you see in an animated film is built from scratch, all to create the illusion of life.  It’s painstaking whether you’re working with drawings on paper or pixels in a computer, or even with puppetry.  That’s why you rarely see sequels that are actually as good or better than the original in the genre.  Animated sequels are common, but too often you’ll see studios rush too fast capitalize on an animated hit, and the end result will not be worth it.  That long development cycle is necessary, because it allows the filmmakers to discover whether or not there is more story to tell and if there is more creative ideas left to explore.  But, sadly in the animation market, too many animators get anxious and just fall back onto formula and create sub-par efforts that pale in comparison to their predecessor.  We’ve seen this happen with Dreamworks Animation and their sequels to Shrek and Madagascar, as well as with the mundane Ice Age series.  Disney even managed to disgrace it’s legacy with an era of terrible Direct to Video sequels to their classic library.  Pixar on the other hand takes their time between movies (sometimes over a decade) and the results have worked out very well for them.

You would think that with the remarkable success that Pixar has experienced over the years that they would’ve produced more sequels over the years.  Sure, they have done a few, but Pixar’s history is one of incredible self-restraint.  They don’t just rush a sequel out into the market just because audiences demand it.  They assess whether or not a sequel is warranted and then they devote many years to getting the film done just right.  They have only once failed to live up to this, and that was the rushed-into-production Cars 2 (2011).  The movie became Pixar’s first ever critical failure and it’s a lesson that I’m sure that they’ve taken note of.  A lot of people were also not happy with the Monsters Inc. (2001) prequel Monsters University (2013), though I actually didn’t mind that one so much.  It was a little superfluous (like most bad animated sequels), but the clever visuals and strong characterizations helped to lift it up.  And, for a sequel made 12 years after the original, I felt that it was a more than welcome return for the characters.  And that’s something that Pixar has become especially great at; making such a long wait worth it.  There was an 11 year gap between Toy Story 2 (1999) and 3 (2010), and yet the series built onto itself like no time had passed at all.  Now, Pixar is releasing another sequel after the longest time gap in their history; 13 years.  It is the sequel to one of the studios biggest hits, the underwater adventure Finding Nemo (2003), only this time, the focus is on the original film’s lovable sidekick Dory (voiced by Ellen DeGeneres), appropriately titling it Finding Dory (2016).  The question now is whether or not the 13 years was worth the wait.  Did Pixar manage to live up to the legacy of the original movie, or did Finding Dory just wash away with the tide like it was nothing worthwhile?

The film brings us full circle with Dory as a character.  We see her in childhood with her Mom (voiced by Diane Keaton) and Dad (Eugene Levy), who both adore her as their sweet, innocent child but also fear for her, due to Dory’s debilitating short term memory.  After some time, we see that Dory has lost her family, due to a reason that she can’t even remember and she spends her entire adolescence searching for the answer.  We cut to years later and Dory has found a new home living with Marlin (Albert Brooks) and Nemo (Hayden Rolance).  Despite living a happy life with the clownfish duo, Dory soon has flashbacks to memories of her lost parents, with a clue as to where they may be.  She resolves to go look for them, even though they may be on the other end of the ocean.  Marlin and Nemo tag along and the trio eventually reach Morro Bay, California, where they find a Marine Wildlife Aquarium and Rehabilitation Center.  Unfortunately, Dory is separated from her companions and brought to a quarantine room at the facility.  There she meets a stealthy octopus named Hank (Ed O’Neill) who agrees to help her only if she gives up her classification tag to him, which will get him on a truck destined for an aquarium in Cleveland.  Though they have conflicting interests, the two work together and eventually swim their way across the aquarium meeting other creatures, including a near-sighted whale shark named Destiny (Kaitlin Olson) and a temperamental beluga whale named Bailey (Ty Burrell).  Meanwhile Marlin and Nemo try to find a way to reunite with their friend, helped out by two lazy sea lions named Fluke and Rudder (Idris Elba and Dominic West).  The only question that remains is whether or not Dory is too late to reunite with her parents and whether or not her short term memory will stand in her way of solving the riddle.

The good news for fans of the original is that Finding Dory is a very worthy follow-up to the original film.  One thing that this sequel benefits from is that it was crafted by the original director, Andrew Stanton.  In the intervening years between movies, Stanton created another animated masterpiece with Wall-E (2008), but he also had a disastrous foray into live action film-making with John Carter (2012).  Finding Dory finds Mr. Stanton in his comfort zone once again and you can tell that he put a lot of love and care into the movie.  It’s still the smart, funny, and heart-touching experience that you remember it being, and the best thing is that it’s all done without retreading too much familiar ground.  There are nods to the original movie, but they are used sparingly, and the movie makes a concerted effort to try new things out rather than rest on it’s laurels.  So, does all this make it as good as the original, if not better?  Unfortunately, I can’t say that it is.  It’s a very solid film to be sure, but there are some nagging issues that prevent it from being a near masterpiece like Finding Nemo and many other of Pixar’s best.  The first issue is the fact that the novelty has worn off from the original.  Finding Nemo was a hit because it triumphed as a great story and a groundbreaking visual wonder, creating an unforgettable world to explore that we’ve never seen.  Finding Dory doesn’t really add much to the world it’s created, unlike say how Toy Story  managed to find new avenues to explore within it’s environment; taking the toy heroes out into the open world.  Visually, it’s a continuation and not a reinvention, which is nice, but it doesn’t push the envelope in the same visceral way.  The other problem with the movie, sadly, is the inclusion of Marlin and Nemo in the story.  I still love these characters, but their arcs completed in the last movie.  They have nothing to do here but to just tag along and offer support.  I understand why they’re still here (why wouldn’t they be) but their moments in the film count among it’s weakest points.

Thankfully, there’s still much to praise about the movie beyond it’s shortcomings, and chief among them is the expanded role of Dory.  This isn’t the first time that Pixar has elevated a supporting character from the original film into the central role, and the last time they did, it proved disastrous (making the obnoxious Mater the Tow Truck the central character of Cars 2).  This time it works because the movie thankfully devotes enough time to establishing the stakes in Dory’s quest for answers.  The film also does the very honorable step of taking her disability seriously this time around.  Dory’s short-term memory was portrayed mostly for laughs in the original movie, but not in a mean spirited way.  Here, it’s given more weight and we see the awful effects it can actually have at times.  It’s a very mature examination into how people live with disabilities in their life and the way that things we take for granted become more of a challenge for them.  Sure, the movie still plays up Dory’s forgetfulness for a few laughs, but I did admire the fact that it took the time to address the seriousness of it as well.   Ellen DeGeneres also delivers some of her best work ever here.  The character of Dory has been dear and close to her heart over the years and she campaigned a long time for this sequel to happen.  You can tell that she adored returning to play this character and the movie once again plays to her strengths as both a comedian and an actress.  I especially love the way that the optimism of the character defines ever move she makes, whether she’s in peril or not, and it’s that indomitable spirit that helps to make her expanded role all the more sensible.  She earns the spotlight and it helps to make this a worthier sequel.

Much of the other positives found in the film belong to the exceptional new cast of characters.  If there’s anything that defines the difference between good and bad sequels, it’s the strength of newly introduced characters into the story, and thankfully, each one is a worthwhile addition here.  Thankfully, the movie actually uses very few of the original film’s cast of characters, choosing instead to focus on Dory, Marlin and Nemo.  The rest of the movie gives us a good amount of time to establish the new cast, and they are just as funny and interesting as anyone we’ve seen before.  The best of the new characters would be Hank, the seven-armed octopus, whose character arc is the strongest of all the characters in the movie.  We see him first as a self-interested curmudgeon (something actor Ed O’Neill has plenty of experience playing) and through his interaction with the eternally optimistic Dory, he opens up more and more, becoming perhaps the movie’s most complex character.  It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia alum Kaitlin Olson also makes a great addition to the cast as the clumsy but lovable Destiny, as does Modern Family’s Ty Burrell as the irritated Bailey.  Albert Brooks also makes a welcome return as the voice of Marlin, maintaining the dry witty humor of the character from the first movie, despite losing the central focus on his story.  The movie also makes non-verbal characters just as memorable, including a bizarre helper bird named Becky, who’s one of the film’s funniest additions.  Also, Sigourney Weaver has a great cameo as herself in one of the film’s best running gags.  Overall, this well rounded cast helps to make this a very enjoyable experience.

It should also be noted that this movie is absolutely beautiful to look at.  Of course, that is to be expected at this point from Pixar.  But, keep in mind, Finding Dory has to live up to the groundbreaking visuals of it’s predecessor, and it does so here in a magnificent way.  The first part of the film will feel very familiar to fans of the original, taking viewers back to the coral reef home base of Marlin, Dory and Nemo.  But, even here the filmmakers include sights we haven’t seen in this world before, including a really spectacular sequence depicting a manta ray migration.  The Aquarium scenes are also beautifully represented, with all the translucent lighting and deep color spectrum that you would usually find in a place like that.  The animation is also beautifully handled with all the characters.  Of course Dory, Marlin and Nemo still act the way you’d expect them to, but you can definitely see that Pixar is benefiting from updated digital models that are far more expressive than the ones used in Finding Nemo, showing just how much the art-form has advanced in the last 13 years.  The animation of Hank the octopus in particular is especially astounding.  He has the ability to camouflage himself to appear like any texture and this plays out in the movie in a lot of creative and hilarious ways.  I was especially amazed to see the variety of things that Hank could turn himself into and each reveal is wonderfully realized.  Also, because you can’t see Hank’s mouth for much of the movie, a lot of acting had to be done through the character’s eyes, and the animation team did a spectacular job of capturing a wide range of emotions through the character in this manner.  It may be an entirely different generation removed from it’s predecessor given the technology of today, but this film compliments the original perfectly and they both work together as a unified whole in terms of visuals.

So, despite some minor story issues, Finding Dory is a very welcome follow-up to a beloved classic.  It may not reach the same dramatic heights, but it doesn’t let the viewer down either.  I did love the fact that they gave a lot more weight to the character of Dory, making her much more than just a comic relief sidekick.  The movie also manages to maintain the same sense of fun from the original; never going too heavy into the dramatic parts while at the same time keeping the humor on point and not too distracting.  Pixar has always managed to find that right balance between pathos and comedy, and Finding Dory continues to show their command over these two sides.  There will indeed be moments that will pull at your heartstrings (have those Kleenexes ready) which by now is a Pixar trademark.  The laugh out loud moments are there too, and you won’t be disappointed by them either.  So, it may not have the sublimeness of Pixar at it’s absolute finest, but there’s still plenty of solid moments to like here overall.  As far as sequels to Pixar films go, this one is still a notch below the Toy Story ones, but better than Monsters University; and also infinitely better than the off-road wreckage that is Cars 2.  Even if the movie is a B+ effort from Pixar, it still makes it way better than 90% of the other animated movies released this year (Zootopia being the year’s only other great animated film).  Pixar’s track record remains strong with this sequel, and it shows that little is lost even after 13 years of waiting.  Here’s hoping this proves the be the truth when Finding Dory’s staggeringly long wait record is broken by the 14-15 year gap between Incredibles movies.  In the meantime, there should be nothing to stop you from just keeping swimming over to the local theater to see the delightful animated sequel.

Rating: 8.5/10