Off the Page – The Road

April 18, 2015 James Humphreys

There are few if any American authors today who are as influential as Cormac McCarthy. And even fewer are as popular with Hollywood filmmakers at this moment. The now octogenarian writer has been actively writing since the 1960’s and has published a series of highly acclaimed novels over the years. A few of these have especially drawn the attention of some high profile film producers, who are drawn to McCarthy’s very unique sense of storytelling. Working mostly in the Western and Southern Gothic genres, McCarthy’s novels often deal with the loss of the American frontier and the plights of the isolated rugged individual dealing with the growing modern world. His novels are often bleak and are not usually known for having a happy ending. In fact, another characteristic of McCarthy’s writing is the lack of traditional beginnings and endings, as if the story just plops the reader into the middle of an already unravelling plot. But, what really makes McCarthy a favorite amongst readers are his vivid characterizations. McCarthy says more about his characters in just a few short words than more authors do in an entire chapter, and he has created some of the most interesting character dynamics we’ve seen in modern literature. While his stories are grim, they are nevertheless captivating, and they have rightly helped underline the definition of the modern Western narrative. And of course, when your novels are popular in print, they are almost certainly destined for a trip to the big screen, whether or not that’s a good thing.

Luckily for Mr. McCarthay, his novels have largely been treated respectfully when adapted for the cinema. Actor and director Billy Bob Thornton was the first to take a chance on a McCarthay novel, with his movie version All the Pretty Horses (2000), which tackled the first in what has been dubbed McCarthay’s “Border Trilogy.” Unfortunately, despite critical acclaim, the movie didn’t do well enough at the box office to justify completing the rest of the trilogy, and the remaining novels, The Crossing (1994) and Cities of the Plain (1998) have yet to be adapted. But in a few short years, Cormac McCarthy would explode onto the Hollywood landscape in a big way when the Coen Brothers decided to bring his 2005 five novel No Country for Old Men to the big screen. The end result was a huge success, performing well at the box office and winning all sorts of awards, including the Oscar for Best Picture of 2007. Suddenly the author was in high demand, and the rights to his next novel was quickly scooped up. Surprisingly, McCarthay’s follow up was a complete departure in terms of genre. Instead of staying true to his Western roots, McCarthay decided to tackle a post-apocalyptic world with his 2006 novel, The Road. But even despite this change in genre, McCarthay’s writing style remained true to form and The Road became the author’s most successful book to date, winning even the prestigious Pulitzer Prize. To bring the novel to life, rights holders The Weinstein Company tapped Australian filmmaker John Hillcoat, whose 2005 film The Proposition became an instant modern Western classic for many filmgoers, and a perfect indication to what was needed to bring The Road to life. While hype was strong for the movie, the end result was sadly mixed, and in this Off the Page article, I will explain how even well intentioned and faithful book adaptations can go astray.

“God never spoke.”

One of the biggest challenges in adapting a novel is to decide what needs to make it into the film, and what can be left out. This is not as difficult as you would think. Oftentimes, it’s just about finding the central element and focusing on it to drive the story along, whether it be a character or a McGuffin device. Other things like subplots and character details can often be minimalized without damaging the effectiveness of the story. McCarthay’s The Road is especially challenging in this sense, because of the way McCarthay writes. His novel is told entirely from the perspective of two characters, a father referred to only as The Man (played in the movie by Viggo Mortensen) and his son known only as The Boy (Kodi Smit-McPhee). And telling the story only from their point of view limits an element that helps to make translations to the big screen easier for the filmmaker which is the perspective. In The Road, we witness an account of a cataclysmic event on Earth, but without the why and the where. McCarthay never states what caused the sudden destruction of the planet’s environment (some readers theorize an asteroid strike or a supervolcano eruption), and his narrative is far more focused on the aftermath. But even still, McCarthay is scarce on details, with his writing style instead focused on the thoughts and actions of the present in these character’s lives. This works amazingly well on the page, giving the reader a very “in the moment” reaction to the horrors that the characters encounter, but it also makes the transition all the more difficult. A filmmaker needs to have a sense of place from the page in order to make it come alive for audiences. When you have a writer who is purposefully vague in his descriptions, it tends to leave the filmmaker in an awkward position of trying to figure out what’s being seen and if that lives up to the author’s intent.

Now thankfully for John Hillcoat, the author is still present and has been helpful in the past consulting on adaptations of his work. No doubt the visualization of The Road meets the author’s standards, but even still, McCarthay is not the only one who holds up high standards over the look of his settings. The enormous popularity of The Road has also made its readers especially judgmental about how the film should appear. The unfortunate by product of McCarthay’s intentionally vague sense of place is that it has opened up infinite possibilities in people’s minds about what the settings should look like. The only consistencies throughout are images of vast expanses of fire-ravaged woodlands, open fields devoid of vegetation now covered in ash, ghost towns devoid of activity, and the final destination being a rocky, coastal beach against a tumultuous ocean. McCarthay makes all these places memorably haunting, but they could also be located anywhere in the world. I think the only certainty is that it’s set in the Western United States, or what’s left of it after the cataclysm. When I read the novel for myself, I had the image in my mind that the characters were making their way across my home state of Oregon, because most of what McCarthay describes coincides with a lot of the rural scenery that I’ve benergy familiar with growing up there, at least in a pristine and alive state (especially the coastline). This was further reinforced by the movie, which indeed shot significant parts of the film on location in Oregon. But, I’m sure other readers from other parts of the country imagined something entirely different, and probably closer to home, and this is the dilemma that director Hillcoat had to face.

“I told the boy when you dream about bad things happening, it means you’re still fighting and you’re still alive.”

I think the most mixed result of Hillcoat’s adaptation of the novel is with it’s visuals. For the most part, the movie does a commendable job of bringing the novel to life, particularly in imagining the desolate wastelands that the characters must cross. But, it’s also here that the movie has some of its shortcomings, and that’s a result of its adherence to the source material. Cormac McCarthay only allows for certain details in his account of the settings, which limits what Hillcoat is able to visualize and it opens up the risky challenge of trying to expand upon the text. Director Hillcoat works at his best with smaller settings that come vividly out of the book, like the macabre horror house of ranging cannibal hunters or the clean and sterile safe haven of the storm shelter bunker. But other moments feel out of place, or not quite up to the scale that was presented on the page. Whether it was due to budget constraints or not, some of the larger set pieces feel surprisingly small in the movie. A search through a shipwreck from the novel is almost non-existent in the film. But most of this is the result of the risks you take when adapting a novel to the big screen. Hillcoat may have had to lose some of the novel’s most memorable set pieces in service of the story, but it was in order to make the ones that matter most stand out all the more prominently. Hillcoat also ran the risk of going too far with the visuals, making the world he was depicting feel too visually striking, which would have looked artificial as a result. Thankfully, his gritty style was perfectly suited, as the movie feels very true to the overwhelmingly bleak landscape of the novel, with grey and brown tones dominating every frame. Some of it is quite oppressive, giving the viewer a very realistic sense of what a dying world would look like.

“Do you ever wish you would die?”

“No. It’s foolish to ask for luxuries in times like these.”

I think where John Hillcoat succeeded the most, and may have even bettered the novel, was in his depictions of the main characters. Translating Cormac McCarthay characters can be a daunting task, because they are entirely of their own world, and are so defined by the way McCarthay writes them. For an actor to make these characters work, they must have a good sense of Cormac McCarthay’s intentions for the characterizations are and make it feel natural. These characters often have to live by their own code and exist outside of the what society has set out for them. This is made even trickier by the thinly detailed characters we get in The Road, who exist without names or backstories. Given these limitations, it’s incredible that the characters work as well as they do in the film. The pain of everyday life that McCarthay describes in his book is read completely on the faces of the actors, and they manage to believably live in this gritty, dangerous world. Viggo Mortensen feels especially right at place in this movie, given the method actor’s proclivity for delving completely into character. He pulls off the disheveled look much better than most actor’s would have. Same with Kodi Smit-McPhee, whose character may have been even harder to believably portray based on how he is in the book. But what the movie does best is to bring the minor characters to life. John Hilcoat manages to make these briefly seen characters work as highlights in the movie by casting them perfectly. The likes of great character actors such as Guy Pearce, Garret Dillahunt, and Michael K. Williams lend great support, while at the same time disappearing into the fabric of the film. But, even they are overshadowed by an unrecognizable Robert Duvall in a very memorable role as the Old Man. The already blessed cast is made even better by the presence of the legendary actor, who makes this minor character in the novel shine bright, and exceed what was on written on the page.

But, if there was a place where the translation suffered the most between the novel and the movie, it would be in the story itself. And it’s primarily in how John Hillcoat tries to force the elegance and simplicity of McCarthay’s writing into the film’s screenplay. The movie does fine with the script for the most part, but because McCarthay’s novel is defined by long dialogues between the Man and the Boy, it unfortunately leads to long talky exhanges in the movie, which kind of gets distracting after a while. Thankfully, most of the things said are interesting, but you also get the sense that the less said between the two might carry more impact. Silence is the best asset of the story, given the empiness of the setting, so trying to include a lot of dialogue works against the movie ultimately. What also becomes problematic is Hillcoat’s attempts to depict the internal struggles going on in the character’s psyche, which is presented in the film through voice-over narration. This is always one of the big cliches in movie adaptations of famous books, as the filmmakers try to spell out everything from the text that can’t be explained in the dialogue. The unfortunate side effect is that it exposes the film’s literary roots and takes the viewer out of the immediacy of the setting. I for one think the movie would have been better off trying to leave the McCarthay prose out, and instead let the story drive itself along. There’s still enough said by the characters and events that take place that still bears the mark of the author’s style. Sometimes it just becomes a product of a director trying to be faithful to a fault with the source material. The movie isn’t spoiled by such decisions, but it does encumber what could have been a real game-changing film, and instead just makes it about average as film adaptations go.

“You have to keep carrying the fire.”

While far from perfect, John Hillcoat’s film adaptation of The Road is still a commendable effort. It’s perhaps that the reputation of the novel may have overwhelmed any possibility of this movie ever becoming just as popular. Hillcoat is risk taker as a filmmaker, but perhaps he played things too safely with Cormac McCarthay’s masterpiece and made a movie that was passable but unremarkable. Maybe separated from its place in time, the movie will eventually find an audience. Hell, if something cataclysmic like this does happen, Hillcoat’s bleak vision of the apocalypse could even become more prophetic then the book. But even still, I’d say that if you want to see a perfect cinematic translation of McCarthay’s writing, you’re better off with No Country for Old Men. The Road, in the end, is a perfect example of taking a well intentioned approach to cinematic adaptation and coming up with something just ordinary. It’s not a bad film, but it won’t replace the novel in anyone’s eyes either. Most literary adaptations usually fall under this category, especially the ones that try to take on an acclaimed source. Its the result of just giving enough thought into the adaptation of the material, while at the same time avoiding any risks. Hillcoat took enough risks to avoid failure, but the movie just feels too encumbered by avenues not taken. At least it did show the value of Cormac McCarthay’s status as a writer. His library of work is still untapped for the most part, and is just waiting for capable filmmakers to bring them to life. The best thing that can be said about the movie The Road is that it took probably the riskiest of McCarthay novels and did something respectful with it, which hopefully sets a good standard for any other adaptations in the future.

Editorials

The Hills Are Alive – The Sound of Music at 50 and Movie Musicals Today

April 11, 2015 James Humphreys

Sound of Music

Tastes in movies and music can often interconnect, but at other times they very much diverge. For many people, like myself, a love of music can even stem from a love of movies. And though there are many films that put the music front and center in a musical format, most of my favorite pieces of music actually originate from non-musical films, as evidenced in my recent top ten list. But, there are some commendable movie musicals out there as well, and one that particularly stands out in my mind is the 1965 Best Picture winner, The Sound of Music. Though it originated on the stage, I’m sure that for most people the first thing they think about when hear that title wI’ll be this film, and the image above is probably what pops into their minds immediately. When it first released into theaters, it became an instant phenomenon at the box office, and is still one of the highest grossing movies of all time when adjusted for inflation. It helped to save the troubled 20th Century Fox studio after the financial ruin brought on by the Cleopatra (1963) production, and it has gone to perform well for many decades thereafter. Now in 2015, it has hit a major milestone by celebrating its 50th anniversary and once again the movie has been given a new focus, highlighting it for a new generation of film goers. And all this lavish attention is justly deserved. Though there could be an argument made for the brilliance of 1952’s Singin’ in the Rain or 1961’s West Side Story (both great on their own), in my opinion The Sound of Music is the greatest movie musical of all time. For one thing, there is no other musical that uses the film medium to its highest advantage and what it also does is highlight what’s wrong with most movie musicals made today.

What makes The Sound of Music stand out so much from other musicals is in it’s grandiosity. When director Robert Wise set out to adapt this story from the stage to the screen, he made sure to remove all connections to the theater and bring the production outdoors. This was an unusual move at the time, because most productions of musicals stayed indoors within the studio soundstages, where all the elements such as lighting could be tightly controlled. In fact, some of the most famous musicals at the time like 1964’s My Fair Lady and Mary Poppins were both filmed entirely indoors on soundstages in Hollywood, despite their turn of the century English setting. Wise, however, chose instead to film The Sound of Music on location in Salzburg, Austria; the authentic setting of the real life story of the Von Trapp family. By doing so, he made this movie look and feel bigger than any other musical adaptation up to that point. The movie has a free and open feel to it, and any notion that this story originated on the stage is quickly forgotten. Indeed this was a story that needed the epic treatment. It just makes sense for actress Julie Andrews to be out in the backdrop of the majestic Alps when she sings the song “The Hills are Alive with the Sound of Music.” Robert Wise probably saw the value in shooting on location when he shot the opening number for West Side Story on the streets of New York City. Though it was just for that opening sequence, I’m sure that Wise realized then that to make a movie musical stand out, you need to shoot it like an epic and less like a stage production, which is a lesson put into brilliant practice in Sound of Music. Because of this, Music is both groundbreaking as well as entertaining, and is a benchmark in the whole history of movie musicals.

Musicals have been a part of cinema ever since the introduction of sound to the medium. In fact, it could be said that the very first “talkie,” 1927’s The Jazz Singer, is a musical, considering all the sound parts are the musical numbers sung by star Al Jolson. When talking pictures became the norm, musicals were often the most popular genre for audiences. No other genre showed off the new technology better, so it was just natural for the studios to exploit it as much as possible. The musical was such a popular medium at the time that even the Oscars took notice, naming 1929’s The Broadway Melody as their second ever choice for Best Picture. During the Depression years, the musicals became an escape for a disenfranciesed populace, with stars like Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers, and Shirley Temple as the highlights of the period. The war years saw a downturn of the movie musical, as the medium became more a propaganda tool, with movies like Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942). The Golden Age of the epics in 50’s and 60’s helped to lay the groundwork for the grand reemergence of the movie musical in this era and it reached its zenith with The Sound of Music, though many other widescreen productions like Oklahoma (1957), The King and I (1956) and of course My Fair Lady were also standouts. That era, however, came to an end after high profile flops like Doctor Dolittle (1967) and Hello Dolly (1969) crashed hard due to changing tastes in the market. The 70’s brought us more revisionist takes on the musical format with movies like Cabaret (1972) and Grease (1978). And then came a twenty year period in the 80’s and 90’s when the movie musical all but disappeared, being relegated mostly to animated films.

It wasn’t until 2001’s Moulin Rouge, directed by Baz Luhrrman, that the movie musical came back in a big way. Now, it’s not only common to see musicals on the big screen today, but most of them actually are profitable. The downside of this however is that even though the genre has seen a resurgence, most of the newer adaptations are not quite up to the standards of their predecessors. There have been a couple standouts, but their success usually is bookended by a lot of copycats and wannabes. Case in point, the success of 2002’s Chicago. The movie adaptation of the long running Broadway musical cemented the return of the musical genre to the big screen and became the first musical since 1968’s Oliver to win the Oscar for Best Picture. But, the success of that movie led to the start of many other likeminded productions that aspire to be like Chicago, but fall well short. This is most evident in splashy productions of Broadway musicals that try to recapture Chicago’s disjointed and gritty atmosphere in contrast to what the musical actually requires in order to shine on the screen and fails; seen clearly in awful adaptations like 2005’s Rent or 2009’s Nine. Although it is nice to see the technique of location shooting take hold in the musical genre since The Sound of Music, it has not matched the grandiosity and visual flair that that classic managed to capture. Stylistically, something has been lost over the years, and the foundation we have right now is built less around the wow factor that the big screen can give and more around how well the movie plays on the TV screen in the confines of home entertainment, of which Chicago managed to fulfill well enough.

Though some musicals do alright with a smaller scale, I do think that there is something lost in this new trend when translating a musical to the cinema. In particular, I think that some of the epic grandeur has been lost over the years, and that’s particularly evident in musical adaptations that call for epic visuals. For example, the big screen adaptation of the hit Broadway show Les Miserables (2012). Adapted from the Victor Hugo novel, Les Miz (as it is most often called) is widely considered to be the grandest, and most epic musical ever put on the stage, becoming one of the most popular stage musicals since its 1987 premiere. Given that reputation, you would expect this musical to be given the lavish Sound of Music treatment, shot on location in France with grand, sweeping widescreen visuals. But, when Universal Stuidos put the movie into production, they chose to give it to director Tom Hooper, a man who is capable at directing period films ( like his Oscar-winning The King’s Speech) but on a much smaller scale. This unfortunately led to the exact opposite approach to visualizing the musical than what it should have been. Instead of using epic scale shots in eye-catching locations, Hooper instead shot the film mostly in tight and constrained close-ups of the actors without drawing attention to the period details which are important to the story. It in turn minimaizes a story that should have otherwise have been grand in scale. While not entirely a disaster, I do see Les Miz as a missed opportunity, where the visual presentation is a letdown and one where it was the director who was ultimately miscast. It makes me wonder what would have happened if the production was given over to a more visual director on the level of say Ridley Scott. At least he would’ve gotten a more interesting performance out of Russell Crowe in the film.

But aside from diminishing returns in the visual department, there is also the change in how movie musicals are staged that unfortunately has distanced itself from some of the cinematic magic from the Sound of Music days. In particular, the influence of MTV and its music videos has produced a negative impact on the genre. While most musical numbers flowed naturally as part of the storyline in the past, today those same numbers contrast sharply with the rest of the film because they are staged and edited in the music video fashion. It might be as a result of how the filmmakers have been influenced by this era of music videos we’ve seen in recent years, and indeed many filmmakers today got their start directing music videos. But, most of them should understand that what works in a 7 minute video format won’t translate as well into a two hour long narrative. This is most jarring in what has become known as the “jukebox” musical, where pop songs are forced into a narrative in place of original content. With pop songs combined with music video filmmaking, you get movie musicals that don’t stand well enough on their own as a narrative, and more or less just become prententious exercises in editing to music; like with 2007’s Across the Universe or 2008’s Mamma Mia. But what can be even worse is when a production takes an already established musical and completely changes the purpose and meaning while only cherry-picking the songs they want to appeal to what they think modern audiences like. This happened last year with the disastrous remake of Annie, where most of the songs and original book were jettisoned in favor of a “modern” rewrite that just reuses only the popular songs without the context. Essentially, they turned what was an already well-established musical, and turned it into a “jukebox” musical for their own underwhelming narrative. This is a particularly negative aspect of this new, music video infused era of movie musicals.

That’s not to say that the genre is devoid of any good examples from recent years. Sometimes it just all comes down to having the right team and vision in place. I for one saw the 2007 adaptation of Sweeny Todd to be a great success. For a film adaptation of a musical based around the Demon Barber of Fleet Street, you needed a filmmaker who could capture the Gothic nature of that story perfectly while still maintaining the musical’s macabre sense of humor; and no one was better suited for the job than Tim Burton. Burton not only gave the film the Gothic look that it needed, but he also did a good job of restraining himself in the production as well. It doesn’t go too over the top, but still feels cinematic enough to help lift the material to work on the big screen. Another great film adaptation of a Broadway musical in recent years was 2006’s Dreamgirls. While the musical is very pop music infused, it’s meant to be that way by design, chronicling the rise of Motown style music in American culture during the 60’s and 70’s. In adapting the musical for the big screen, director Bill Condon took the exact right approach, shooting the musical in the same way you would make a biopic; an approach that compliments the story and the music perfectly and doesn’t feel unnatural. In addition, both of these musicals also benefited from casting actors who could actually hold a tune, with Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter doing justice to Sondheim’s complicated melodies, and Beyoncé and Jamie Foxx bringing a lot of Motown soul into their selective songs. A well matched vision and a capable cast makes all the difference in the end. Other times you’ll just end up with movies like The Phantom of the Opera (2004) which has the right director, but the wrong cast, or Into the Woods (2014) with the right cast but wrong director. Or Les Miserables, where everything is wrong.

Despite all the problems that have plagued movie musicals in recent years, it has thankfully not diminished the power that The Sound of Music still holds. And amazingly, 50 years later the movie still remains timeless. Julie Andrews singing voice is still out-of-this-world and her performance is perfectly balanced with Christopher Plummer’s exceptionally grounded work as Captain Von Trapp. But the real star is Robert Wise’s direction, which takes most of the production out into the real world and shows off the stunning Salzburg locations in all its widescreen glory. I may not be a musical fan, but I am a fan of epic movies, and The Sound of Music fits the definition of the word “epic” in every single frame. My hope is that this movie continues to remain influential in the musical genre. For one thing, I’d like to see a return to this kind of epic filmmaking in musicals and a departure away from the MTV influence that we see mostly used today. The phrase “they don’t make them like they used to,” could easily apply to the musicals of The Sound of Music’s era, and I think it’s about time that the movie musical could use a refresher. A lot can be improved upon, but when the musical genre works on the big screen, it can become the highest form of cinematic art, and The Sound of Music will always continue to stand as one of its absolute masterpieces.

Movie Reviews

Furious 7 – Review

April 4, 2015 James Humphreys

There has been a long history of movies centered around fast and powerful cars. Going back to the Rebel Without a Cause (1955) days, and following through to the heyday of the 1970’s with great vehicle chases in The French Connection (1971) and Bullitt (1968), audiences have always loved seeing big stars having fun in big cars. Specifically, cars have had a long association with depictions of masculinity on film, having the vehicles themselves work as an extension of the male characters strength and confidence, or perhaps an indicator of their insecurity depending on how much you read into it. This has been especially true with many action film s in recent years, which has usually come to feature a car chase or two at some point in their running times. The resulting trend has been commonly referred to as the “dick flick,” which is a twist on the phrase associated with films that cater to the female demographic. While “chick flicks” are mostly sweet natured and romantic, “dick flicks” tend to be aggressive and unsubtle, and like most other film types that cater to a specific audience, you get a few good entries as well as a whole lot of trash. Just as “chick flicks” has its Bride Wars (2009), the “dick flick” has its Transformers (2007). But, even with all the garbage out there, some audience pandering films do hit their mark and can even lift the genre as a whole for the better. That has been true, for the most part, for the Fast and the Furious franchise, which has performed consistently well since its debut fourteen years ago in 2001. Though by no means one of the greatest franchises in history, the series has built momentum in recent installments which is unheard of for a long running franchise. And this year, it again reasserts its dominance as a franchise with its seventh entry, Furious 7.

The Fast and the Furious is not the kind of movie that you could see turning into a long lasting franchise. It was entertaining alright, but not particularly groundbreaking. Still, it spawned a sequel, which underperformed and should of killed the franchise off but didn’t. A spinoff/sequel followed and then a reboot with the original cast came shortly after. It wasn’t until the fifth entry, Fast Five (2011) that the franchise started to find it’s mojo and become a megahit. That has continued through Fast & Furious 6 (2013) and now again with Furious 7, which I’m certain wil go on to huge box office numbers. It’s stamina for a franchise that is unheard of. Usually by the time a franchise is seven films in, it’s run out of fuel (pun intended). But, Fast and the Furious is thriving right now and that’s largely due to a reimagining of its basic premise and embracing the absurdity of the genre. The first couple films stuck mostly to genre norms and were about as basic as you could expect. The last three films have dropped all logical expectations and have become increasingly over the top. Probably taking a cue from the James Bond franchise, which ironically itself is becoming more grounded, Fast and the Furious is embracing the absurdity of its premise and exploiting it for all its worth. And as a result, it’s made the franchise a lot more fun and less generic. The car chases are no longer the run of the mill kind of stuff; now they included machine guns, explosions and martial art smack downs. But, even with all the extra bits added to the mix these last few entries, does this particular movie still work on it’s own.

The story pretty much picks up where the last one left off. Hot rod driving mercenaries Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and Brian O’Connor (the late Paul Walker) are settling back into a normal existence after their ordeal in London from the sixth movie. O’Connor is trying to live a normal family life with his wife (Jordana Brewster) and son, while Dominic is helping his girlfriend Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) readjust to normal life after loosing her memory. Unfortunately, the problems of London have come home as they brother of Fast & Furious 6 villain Owen Shaw (Luke Evans), Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham), seeks revenge against Dominic and his crew. Government contact and Dominic’s ally Agent Hobbs (Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson) becomes the first victim, showing that Deckard is a menace that they need to take seriously. Meanwhile, Dominic and his team are recruited by high level CIA commander Mr. Nobody (Kurt Russell) to help rescue an expert hacker held hostage by Aftican warlord Jakande (Djimon Hounsou) who seeks to retrieve a highly prized hacking software called God’s Eye. What follows is a globe-trotting mission that of course involves the use of some amazing cars. Along for the ride are the rest of Dominic’s team which includes tech expert Tej (Chris “Ludacris” Bridges), wisecracking Roman (Tyrese Gibson) as well as Letty, who slowly remembers her life with the team the further into the mission they go.

Truth be told, I have not seen every film in the franchise, so I don’t know exactly how to place this new film within the context of the series as a whole. I can only judge it based on it’s strengths as a standalone movie. I will say this, it was a vast improvement over the last Fast and the Furious movie I saw, which was the 2009 reboot Fast & Furious. Sadly, I have not seen the last two movies, which I’ve heard are the best, though I’ve seen bits of those two which indicate to me the over-the-top direction that the franchise has taken. This film, however, was mostly a mixed bag. Was it bad? Absolutely not. But, it didn’t grab a hold of me either. For me, it was a lot of stop and go while watching the flick. Whenever it was in an action sequence, which are pretty spectacular, the movie was very enjoyable. But all the plot and dialogue scenes in between dragged for me. It’s something that I still don’t think the franchise has managed to figure out, but then again, I’m only working with an incomplete knowledge of the franchise as a whole. For this movie at least, the slow parts still felt really slow, and I was just left waiting for the action to start up again. Now, I know that this isn’t Shakespeare and that more of the focus is meant to be on the benchmark action sequences. But at the same time, I want to be invested in the characters story, and here it’s just filler until the next action scene starts. There are way too many scenes of the characters all sitting around discussing what they are going to do and not enough character development that matters. Seriously, half of the movie is made up of the cast just sitting around in meetings. Character moments are brief and well appreciated, but when the movie allows for too much of its runtime dedicated to planning out each action scene, then it seriously drags down what could have otherwise have been a wall to wall great thriller.

But, I credit that more to a problem with the script than with the direction itself. The Fast and the Furious franchise has long been shepparded by film director Justin Lin, who is credited for having reimagined the series as the over-the-top, spy caper behemoth that it is now. But, Lin sits this one out possibly due to conflicting projects (he’s been tapped as J.J. Abrams replacement for the Star Trek franchise), and directorial duties have been given to horror filmmaker James Wan. Wan is best known as the creator of the Saw franchise and has recently garnered critical praise for his horror hit The Conjuring (2013). Furious 7 marks his first foray into action movies and for the most part, he makes the transition well. There’s a lot of flashy direction in the action sequences, as well as in the few party sequences throughout the film, which feels right at place in this franchise. I’m especially impressed with his sense of scale, because many of the sequences show a great sense of awe-inspiring visuals that you don’t normally get from a first time action director. One particular sequence involves Diesel and Walker’s characters escaping a high rise building by speeding their car out the window and jumping it into the next building. It’s a spectacular sequence that really displays Wan’s abilities to keep the grandioseness and absurdity of the franchise in tact. I also like the fact that Wan holds the camera still when he needs to, and doesn’t try to show off his direction in some of the quieter scenes; something that a lot of young shaky camera-loving filmmakers unfortunately don’t often do. Even though the story falters, the direction still stays strong and I give parent studio Universal for handing the reins over to a director who could still deliver a solid film without shattering the foundations that the franchise was built on.

Another bright spot of the film is the cast. While most of their acting abilities are a mixed bag (because some are better actors than others), they all still remain likable and are worth following along. Vin Diesel once again proves to be a valuable presence, and it’s understandable because this franchise is his bread and butter. Other returning cast members also offer some solid support, even if the script leaves them with some rather clunky dialogue. Dwayne Johnson is especially entertaining as Agent Hobbs, and he manages to go from being chill inducing intimidating one moment to enormously charming in the next with great ease. Also, wait until you see how he takes out a predator drone in this movie single handedly. Newcomers are also welcome as well, especially action movie icons Jason Statham and Kurt Russell. While Russell doesn’t have much to do in the movie, it still is a treat to see the one-time Snake Plissken pull out his gun and start taking shots at bad guys again. Even better is Statham, who makes a very effective villain here, even if he pops out of nowhere sometimes. His showdown with Diesel at the very end is especially worth the wait and is probably a fight that action movie fans have long waited for. I also give the movie credit for making the cars characters themselves. There’s a special bit of nostalgia in the movie when you see Diesel take his original “muscle car” out of the garage for “one last drive” in the film’s climatic scene. Even more spectacular is what he ends up doing with the car in final showdown. While there’s lots to like about the action sequences on their own, the cast involved does their best to make the human element work as well as it can and indeed a veteran crew like this does deliver in the end.

But, what ultimately is going to set this movie apart from the rest of the franchise, and what is ultimately the movie’s greatest triumph was the way that it dealt with the passing of one of its key cast members. The tragic death of actor Paul Walker in a car accident happened in the middle of this movie’s production, leaving what would end up being his final film performance incomplete. But instead of cutting him out of the movie altogether, the filmmakers worked around the issue and actually gave Walker a respectful send off that’s worthy of his memory. Amazingly, they managed to include Walker in every sequence of the film with the help of body doubles (Walker’s own real-life brothers) as well as some pretty seamless CGI facial replacement. Honestly, I couldn’t tell which scenes included the real Paul Walker or his stand-ins; its that good. And while this helps to complete the work that Walker started, the movie also does it in a respectful way, letting the character be an active contributor to the plot rather than be sidelined in a rewrite. The finale, however, is where the filmmakers should be absolutely praised. They send off the character as well as honor the actor in a beautifully done memorial scene. I won’t spoil it for you, but the last five minutes of this movie didn’t leave a dry eye in the theater. Something you never thought you’d see a Fast and the Furious ever do, but it absolutely happened. Sometimes it’s tricky to work around an actor’s performance after they’ve died during production, but this is one example of how to do it respectfully and with a lot of grace. And as a result, it is by far the best thing about this movie.

So, is Furious 7 something I’d recommend. Only if you’re a fan of the franchise itself, of which there seems to be increasingly more of. I for one thought it was just okay. Though I do admire the work put into the spectacular action sequences, the overall plot was just too inconsistent for me to really love this film. That being said, as a representation of the “dick flick” genre, it certainly could have been a whole lot worse. I do like the goofiness that the franchise has seemed to embrace and the fact that the filmmakers actually made an effort to make the action scenes comprehendable. Yes, there’s some sequences that have a very music video flashiness to them, but it’s supported by well executed and visually stable action and dialogue sequences as well. The movie also does a commendable job of honoring a fallen comrade with a touching tribute, which could have been clumsily handled in the wrong hands. Overall, this won’t be a stumbling block for the increasingly popular Fast and the Furious franchise. In fact, it could even be their biggest hit yet. But, I’ll have to watch all the movies together in order to see where it places in the franchise as a whole. As a standalone flick, it was amusing but unspectacular. If you love these movies, then I’m sure you’ll love this one too. In the end, it’s harmless entertainment that leaves audiences happy instead of assaulted with crude imagery and gratuitous action. And that’s a good a good mark to leave behind in this genre.

Rating: 6.5/10

Film Exhibit Reviews

TCM Classic Film Festival 2015 – Film Exhibition Report

March 28, 2015 James Humphreys

So here we go again, only this time, you’re not hearing my past experiences but rather what I’m seeing right here and now. I am once again at the Turner Classic Movies Classic Film Festival in the heart of Hollywood, California. And as I am righting this, I am currently waiting in line for my first film of the day. The weather of course is ideal. And so far Hollywood Boulevard is relatively quiet. The festival itself has been going on for two days now, but because of work, I could only attend this Saturday. Unfortunately that mean missing out on some exciting events earlier in the festival. This year’s festival opened on a high point this year as Hollywood celebrated the 50th anniversary of the classic musical The Sound of Music (1965), with stars Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer in attendance. Other screenings that I would have loved to have seen were a screening of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) with a discussion with Keith Carridine and also a screening of Chaplin’s Limelight (1952) with 100 year old Norman Lloyd in attendance and Apollo 13 (1995) with Captain Jim Lovell.

As for today, I am choosing to open my day with a screening of John Huston’s The Man Who Would Be King (1975), with a discussion with Christopher Plummer. It’s a film that I have yet to see, so I’m looking forward to it, especially since it gives me another opportunity to see Mr. Plummer, a legendary actor in person. I will continue to update the rest of the day with my personal accounts, including pictures. Hope you all enjoy reading this. And now, showtime.

12:55pm

First show complete and already I’m glad I made it. The Egyptian Theater was packed this morning, but even waiting in the standby line I still managed to get a seat. The show was preceded by a short introduction by film critic and historian Leonard Maltin, who of course was there to discuss the film with the special guest, Christopher Plummer. Mr. Plummer arrived to thunderous applause as he walked up towards the screen and once seated, the interview began. Maltin of course touched upon some of Plummer’s extensive career, but the discussion quickly moved on to the film in question. Plummer discussed briefly how he prepared for the role of Rudyard Kipling, the author of the story on which the film is based, detailing how he formed the look as well as his vocal performance.

The conversation then turned to Plummer’s experience working with John Huston. Plummer of course found his experience working with the legendary director to be very rewarding, though Huston was also quite intimidating as he recalled. He offered a funny anecdote about a particular shot in the movie where a camel in the background was being a particular nuisance. But instead of accommodating Plummer’s concerns about the shot, Huston instead argued for the camel’s sake, saying that he had just as much a right to be in the picture as anyone else. Plummer also detailed his experiences with the film’s two leads, Michael Caine and Sean Connery, which was basically an account of a lot of off-set drinking.

Overall, the presentation was excellent, and Christopher Plummer was as great as you would expect. I can definitely tell you after seeing him in person that he looks great for someone with as many years behind him. Still very sharp and with a lot of energy, and he brings with him a fantastic set of life experiences that have in turn become some legendary stories. What I especially liked from his interview in fact were his impersonations of the people he worked with, specifically Connery and Huston. His John Huston impression was especially spot on. The movie itself was also a delight. Presented with an original 35mm print, I’m glad that I waited until now to watch this movie on the big screen. Connery and Caine are wonderful in the film, and Plummer adds some great scenes in his brief role. Well, the first movie is in the books. Now I’m headed across the famed Walk of Fame to my next show at the legendary Chinese Theater.

6:05 pm

Over at the Chinese Theater, I managed to catch a whole different type of show from the first. In this case, a musical. The show in question was the 1972 film adaptation of the hit Broadway musical 1776. It’s a film that I have seen before in parts, but never from beginning to end, so this was a perfect place to finally catch the entire thing. The film has recently received a full 4K digital scan and the Chinese Theater’s IMAX projectors perfectly represented the glowing restoration that’s been put into the film. Though I believe the number of audience members was roughly the same as my first movie, the theater wasn’t quite as packed this time and I attribute that more to just the sheer size of the venue. Luckily, I was there early enough to get a good seat; about halfway down in the auditorium.

Like the first film, 1776 had a discussion beforehand with people involved in its making. Hosted by TCM’s own resident host Ben Mankiewicz, the special guests were the film’s director Peter Hunt as well as the actors who played the lead roles of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson; William Daniels and Ken Howard respectively. The three men recounted their experience working on both the film and the stage musical from which they were all carried over. Peter Hunt talked extensively about having to deal with edits to the movie that were ordered by the producer Jack Warner after then President Richard Nixon expressed displeasure at some of the film’s more political undertones. Thankfully, years later, the edits made it back into the film, which was the version we saw this afternoon. With Daniels and Howard, they detailed their experiences on the set as well as how this movie helped to launch their film careers. Mankiewicz even noted that Daniels has since had a long history with John Adams, even being a teacher on the show Boy Meets Worlds named after the founding father.

The whole show was excellent and the movie looks beautiful and holds up very well. Though I’m not a particularly strong fan of movie musicals, I do consider myself a history buff and this movie does an excellent job of presenting a historical event in an entertaining way. And also watching a movie made for the big screen, in all its Panavision glory, is a delight. So, two movies down and now it’s off to the next one. I tried to go from this screening into another one in the Chinese Theater, but the line was too long for me to get a standby seat. That show in case you’re wondering was a screening of The Apartment (1960) with special guest Shirley MacLaine. So, instead I’m watching a film in one of the smaller Chinese Cineplex behind the Dolby Theater (home of the Oscars). That movie is a lesser known film starring Marlon Brando and Anthony Quinn called Viva Zapata (1952). Show’s starting soon, so I’ll be back.

9:10 pm

The screening of Viva Zapata began with an introduction by actress Ileana Douglas who invited the special guest present for the film, Anthony Quinn’s widow Kathrine Quinn. Mrs. Quinn talked extensively about her life with Anthony and what he was like as a husband and a father to their children, proving to be a ball of energy even into his late 70’s and early 80’s. Her stories were especially entertaining and gave us a great picture of the man that Anthony Quinn was. The best stories however were the ones that related to the movie itself. According to Kathrine, Anthony and Marlon did not get along well on set, and that tension was something that director Elia Kazan milked for the benefit of each other’s performances. This kind of knowledge helped to give the audience a nice little insight into the methods of both actors, and it was kind of an extra delight to see both men messing around onscreen, knowing how much they hated each other.

The movie itself was one I haven’t seen and overall I thought it was okay. Brando’s attempt at a Mexican accent was a little distracting and it is far from his best work. Quinn on the other hand felt very natural in this film, and it’s easy to see why he won an Oscar for his work. For one thing, I can see why TCM chose this movie as part of this festival, given that it fits within the overall theme of “History On Film.” Still, the movie felt a little stale after the highly entertaining 1776 and The Man Who Would Be King. But it was still worthy of catching at this festival. So, now I have one last opportunity to watch a film tonight and right now I am in line to enter the Chinese Theater once again, this time for a screening of 1971’s The French Connection with director William Friedkin in attendance.

12:45 am

Well, it’s been a long day, but the night has come to an end. The French Connection is a film that I have seen before, but never on the big screen. The presentation in the Chinese Theater was still a great experience and it was almost like watching it anew. It holds up very well, especially with Gene Hackman’s Oscar-winning performance and that legendary train sequence. After the film, actor Alec Baldwin was brought out to conduct the interview with director William Friedkin. Now while everything Mr. Friedkin said was fascinating, he could also go off on many tangents. The Q&A went for nearly an hour after the movie ended and it touched upon everything about the movie, Friedkin’s filmography, and his method of direction. It was easily the longest interview I witnessed today, but it was still enlightening nonetheless.

The end of the show concluded with audience questions and one question was even asked by Boyz in the Hood director John Singleton. His question was regarding the film’s unique sound design, which is naturally the kind of question one acclaimed filmmaker would ask of another filmmaker. Overall, a nice high point to end the night. I hope all of you enjoyed reading this live blog of mine. Pretty remarkable that this worked considering that I’ve had to write this thing on the fly and on my smart phone this entire time. I hope in the years to come I can do more than one day at this festival. There are so many other good movies to see and so little time. If any of my readers are in the Los Angeles area, this is a festival that I strongly recommend catching. There are still some shows playing tomorrow, which closes out the festival. Anyway, this has been a good day for a classic film fan like me.

Collecting Criterion

Collecting Criterion – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)

March 21, 2015 James Humphreys

The films and career of filmmaker Terry Gilliam are unlike anything else seen in Hollywood. Starting off as the animator and sixth member of the legendary comedy troupe Monty Python, Gilliam soon made the transition to acclaimed filmmaker, bringing along his strange and whimsical sensibilities with him in the process. Though his films are practically produced, it’s the content and stories that often set his work apart. Gilliam has a fondess for fantasy and science fiction; really, anything that delves away from the ordinary. Couple that with an absurdist and anti-authoritarian point of view, and you can easily see the common current of Gilliam’s filmography. That stong artistic style that has shaped Terry Gilliam’s film career has also made him a favorite from the Criterion company, earning some of his movies a coveted place in their collection. Although Gilliam’s filmography isn’t as extensively included in the collection as some other filmmakers, the ones that are present are certainly worthy of their placement. They also give you a sense of the director’s versatility, showcasing his ability to create modern social commentaries (Brazil, Spine #51) as well as pure fantasy adventures (Time Bandits, #37). For this article, I will be taking a look at one of Terry Gilliam’s later pieces of work; one that actually marks a departure for the director in some ways, while at the same time being an ideal presentation of his unique style. It’s his 1998 cult hit, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (Spine #175). And if there were one title that has benefitted greatly from the Criterion treatment, this oddball masterpiece would certainly be it.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was adapted from the book of the same name by Hunter S. Thompson, one of the counter-culture movement’s most notorious and influential writers. The creator of what would in time be called “Gonzo Journalism,” Hunter Thompson’s style of writing has achieved legendary status. He was known for injecting his own bizarre experiences into his press pieces and for documenting the social, political, and cultural upheavals of the 60’s and 70’s with a sharp critical perspective. And one of his favorite subjects to write about was the rising drug culture in America, one in which he had very personal knowledge of. While not what you would call the most natural journalist, Thompson’s writings are fascinating nonetheless, and offer a very unique voice to an era in our history that represented significant change. That, and the fact that Thomspon was such a bizarre character have also contributed to his status as one of the great writers of the last half century. Certainly, his writings have garnered many fans over the years, including Terry Gilliam. The pairing of these two only seems natural, because Gilliam is really the only kind of filmmaker who could capture the hallucinatory nature of Thompson’s writing effectively. But, even with the way out there style of Thompson’s writing, Fear and Loathing is also strangely accessible and grounded, which is probably a result of Gilliam’s assured direction, which retains a very knowing sense of humor throughout. Strange how two oddball minds can come together and make a piece of art that is strangely coherent, but that’s what we end up with here.

The plot itself is more or less a series of vignettes showing Hunter Thompson stand-in, Raoul Duke (an almost unrecognizable Johnny Depp) taking a trip to Las Vegas to cover a cross-country motorcycle race in the deserts outside of Sin City. With his companion and agent, Dr. Gonzo (Benicio del Toro) by his side, Duke takes in the Vegas experience while doing pretty much every drug known to man. And the different experiences are altogether trippy and hilarious in their absurdity, such as Duke envisioning the people in a casino bar as literal “lounge lizards” or both Duke and Gonzo getting high off of ether and having difficulty making their way through a Circus themed casino. Though not every moment is played for laughs, as the movie does address the downside of drug use as well. One scene involves Duke trying to talk Gonzo down from a bad trip as the dangerous addict lies in stupor in a full bathtub. Another heavily dramatic and tense scene also involves Gonzo threatening a diner waitress (played by Ellen Barkin) during a heavy late night romp. The purpose of all these stories was mainly for Hunter Thompson to document the slow burn that followed the idealism of the hippy generation, as America was slowly slipping into a post Vietnam and Watergate malaise that involved many more people turning to drug use to forget the pain of their lives. As Hunter Thompson put it, this was America’s “season of hell,” and he saw that brought out most clearly in the decadent and flashy city of Las Vegas. Though not an easy kind of story to put into a narrative, Gilliam still managed to make it work, and Fear and Loathing ends up being both an engaging set of scenes as well as an eye-opening social commentary.

The film itself had been in the works for many years, even long before Terry Gilliam was involved. The rights to Thompson’s book floated around Hollywood for two decades, with british director Alex Cox (of Sid and Nancy fame) attached to write and direct at one point. Parts of Cox’s script treatment still exist in the final version, but it is clear that the project was entirely crafted towards Gilliam’s own tastes. Though a long time in coming, the end result is a perfect display of Gilliam’s talents. Filmed in the wide 2.35:1 aspect ratio(a rarity for a Gilliam film), the movie is a beautiful trip into the bizarre mind of Hunter Thompson, capturing all the hallucinatory sights with perfect and often hilarious excess. It’s a great showcase for all of the tricks of the trade that Gilliam has at his disposal, like the consistent use of wide angle lenses to highlight his characters heightened states, or having the hallucinations come to life through puppetry and visual effects. Not only that, but the amazing cinematography by the DP, Nicola Pecorini, and the production design by Alex McDowell does a great job of capturing the sleaziness of Las Vegas in the 1970’s. You can just smell the booze and cigarette smoke that permeates every frame, and the movie makes a point to highlight the garishness of the casino and hotel rooms that these characters inhabit. Overall, Terry Gilliam proved to be the ideal person to bring Hunter Thompson’s writings to life, because only he could have the vision to make the bizarre feel so real.

In addition to Gilliam’s amazing visuals, we also are treated to great performances by the two leads. Johnny Depp showcases his abilities to disappear into a role perfectly here as Raoul Duke. Depp considers himself to this day an avid fan of Thompson’s work and the two men became well acquainted during the making of this film. Even though the character is named differently, there’s absolutely no doubt that Depp crafted his performance into an imitation of Thompson. His character work here is so spot on and is hilarious without ever being too cartoonish. I especially like the way that Depp never removes the cigarette holder in his mouth while he speaks, which becomes an indelible part of the character’s voice overall. This performance left such a mark on Johnny Depp that it wouldn’t surprise me if there are shades of Hunter Thompson in some of his later performances; I can even see just a tiny bit of it in Captain Jack Sparrow. Benicio del Toro also holds his own as Dr. Gonzo, a character that becomes a roller coaster of emotion throughout the entire film. Del Toro’s work here is especially engrossing because he shifts between being hilariously inept (like his inability to jump off a moving carousel in one scene) to being frighteningly menacing in other moments (the already mentioned diner scene). The movie works wonders when both actors share the spotlight because their chemistry is so strong. While Gilliam’s visuals take frequent flights of fancy, it’s these two that really help to ground the movie as a whole. Both of course would go on to bigger roles in the future, but even here they’re both at the top of their game. The movie also fills the cast with some great cameo appearances from many well known actors, like Tobey Maquire playing a hitchhiker or Gary Busey playing an intimidating state trooper, rounding out a strong cast of odd characters.

Criterion usually has to put a lot of work into their restorations, but in this case, the film already was given to them in a mostly printine state. Such is the case with movies made in the last several decades that make it into the Criterion Collection. That’s not to say that Criterion transferred the edition with a lazy effort. The movie was given the best possible visual treatment on blu-ray as always, capturing all the visual flourishes of Gilliam’s film the way they were intended to be seen. Gilliam’s movies in particular are defined by their distinctive color schemes, and Criterion thankfully makes those colors pop in high definition. In particular, the brownish hues of the nearly washed out desert scenes really retain a consistent quality to them, and they contrast perfectly with the darkly lit and almost sickly hued hotel scenes. The audio presentation is also strong, capturing the sometimes hallucinatory nature of the soundscape in this movie. Though not a sensory overload experience in the audio department, there is nevertheless a lot of creativity in the sound mix, which the blu-ray presentation perfectly presents. It helps when the filmmaker is readily available to approve the quality of these presentation, and of course the edition is marked with Terry Gilliam’s seal of approval. Again, not a revelatory audio and visual presentation by Criterion, given that the edition had to work with some already well preserved elements, but it does represent the solid efforts that they put into every title, whether old or new.

The supplements are pretty healthy as well for this edition. First of all, the artwork used on both the outer cover as well as in the insert booklet help to give this edition a lot of character on its own. Provided by artist Ralph Steadman, the artwork perfectly stylized the movie with often bizarre illustrations that perfectly compliment the film you are about to watch. The features themselves include no less than three commentary tracks; one from Terry Gilliam, another with Johnny Depp and Benicio del Toro, and even one from Hunter Thompson himself. Deleted scenes are also included with commentary from Gilliam. Most are fascinating to watch, especially since they show different elements of the actor’s performances, but it’s clear why many of them were cut, which is explained well enough by Gilliam. Another fascinating feature is a collection of correspondence written by Thompson over the course of the film’s making, all read aloud by Johnny Depp. It’s a treat to listen to Depp add more to his performance as the character, but it also offers an interesting insight into Thompson’s own experience during the the making of the film. A couple of short documentaries are also included, called Hunter Goes to Hollywood and Fear and Loathing on the Road to Hollywood, which delve deeper into the long development of this movie. Another documentary also comments on the controversy surrounding the final script, when it changed hands between Alex Cox and Gilliam. Other materials include an excerpt from Fear and Loathing’s audio CD, trailers, production stills, and rare materials about Oscar Zeta Acosta, the real life inspiration for Dr. Gonzo. Overall, a very packed edition for a movie deserving of such a treatment.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a great oddball film experience and I’m glad Criterion saw it worthy of their film library. It didn’t take long for the film to make it into the Collection (just five short years after its premiere) which goes to show just how strong an impact the movie has left on audiences. Though not a box office success when first released, the movie has amassed a strong cult following, one in which this Criterion edition is clearly aimed at pleasing. I for one enjoy this film immensely, mostly as a showcase for Terry Gilliam’s style and for the stand out performances of Johnny Depp and Benicio del Toro. As far as Hunter Thompson goes, I don’t prescribe to his sense of nostalgia over the drug culture of 60’s and 70’s, but I do admire his unique style as a writer. He was a one of a kind character and a unique voice in American pop culture. After his unfortunate suicide in 2005, his legend has continued to grow and this film marked a great entry point for anyone looking to see what made him stand out so much. But, even apart from it’s connection to the legendary author, the movie still stands as a unique cinematic experience. Terry Gilliam is a welcome visionary in the Criterion Collection and it’s surprising that his work is not more widely represented; something that is going to be partially remedied when Criterion adds The Fisher King (1991, #764) later this year. But if you’re looking for a unique film that showcases the director’s talents well, then give this Criterion edition a look. But don’t stay too long. This is bat country.

Movie Reviews

Cinderella (2015) – Review

March 14, 2015 James Humphreys

If there’s one thing that Disney has managed to perfect over it’s long history, it’s being able to bring classic fairy tales to the big screen. Starting with their beloved first film, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (1937) all the way up to their recent megahit Frozen (2013), Disney Animation has proven time and again to be the go to people for traditional fairy tale entertainment. And it’s easy to see why. Fairy tales lend themselves perfectly to the animated medium, which perfectly renders all the flights of fantasy to its fullest potential without having to live by the rules of the real world. But, given the success of some of Disney’s films over the years, there also comes the pressure of having to top that success with something better. Walt Disney was strongly resistant to creating sequels to his movies, instead choosing to look ahead to the next project, which meant that most of Disney’s animated output was made up of one and done story lines, and not all of them were huge successes right away. It’s been a practice that Disney Animation has mostly stuck to long after Walt’s time, which has been beneficial for them since it’s allowed them to grow their stable of characters every year, instead of just rehashing the same ones to the point of irrelevance. But, in order to keep some of their old classics still fresh in people’s minds, Disney has also taken the sometimes controversial step of remaking their films, but in the live action medium. This has developed mostly in recent years, and unfortunately the end results have been mixed. Though the movies have done well at the box office, the quality of the storytelling is usually subpar, at least compared to the originals. Some are merely just okay, like 1996’s slapsticky 101 Dalmatians, or misguidedly dark and unappealing like 2010’s Alice in Wonderland or 2014’s Maleficent. Because these movies have done well despite the negative reviews, it has convinced Disney to look to even more of it’s classics to be given over to the live action medium regardless of the outcome. And this year’s newest entry to the field is a remake of their 1950 classic Cinderella.

Now, if you’ve read my review of last year’s Maleficent, you’ll know that I’m not too happy with these recent remakes of Disney classics. In particular, I hate the way that they’re taking the original stories and try to force some kind of “edginess” into it. While this was a nuisance in Tim Burton’s Alice remake, it can be seen as understandable given Burton’s style. Maleficent on the other hand made the big mistake of trying to force an action adventure narrative into a traditional fairy tale, and try the not-so-clever spin of reversing the roles of the heroes and villains. That plan backfired with the new takes on the characters never quite carrying the film and leaving the whole picture a disgraceful shell of what had come before. Mainly the problem with these movies is that they do what is commonly seen as the cliched trope of making the heroines in these stories edgier by putting a sword in their hands. This is an unfortunate by product of the success of movie series like The Lord of the Rings and Narnia, which has led to the mistaken belief in Hollywood that every fantasy film needs to have an epic battle scene in it, whether it’s there in the original story of not. And Disney is not alone having fallen into this trap; Universal made the same assumption when they released their own “edgy” fairy tale Snow White and the Huntsman (2013). So, it actually comes as a blessing when watching Disney’s new film Cinderella, because it avoids that cliche completely, and ends up making the story work well on its own merits.

The story should be familiar to anyone who has heard the original fairy tale, or has seen Disney’s original animated version. Young Ella (Lily James) grows up in a happy upper middle class household in a fictional, unnamed European kingdom. When her mother suddenly is taken ill and passes away, she and her father try to cope with the loss in the best way possible. In time, Ella’s father decides to remarry, bringing in the vain and greedy Lady Tremaine (Cate Blanchett) into the household, along with her two ugly daughters Anastasia and Drisella (Sophie McShera and Holliday Grainger). Not long after, Ella’s father also dies unexpectedly, and Lady Tremaine begins to take charge of the home, forcing Ella into servitude in her own home. In order to keep warm at night, Ella sleeps by the fire and ends up with cinder soot all over her skin, leading the stepsisters to jokingly call her Cinderella. Soon, all Cinderella has for company are her animal companions, whom she carries on one-way conversations with. But, that changes all maidens in the land are invited to attend a ball at the palace, as a means to help the Prince (Richard Madden) choose a bride. Lady Tremaine forbids Cinderella from going, but with the help of Cinderella’s Fairy Godmother (Helena Bonham Carter), she manages to go anyway. The rest of the story is wha you’d expect, including the significance of Cinderella’s iconic glass slippers.

This new version of Cinderella on the surface doesn’t look like anything special. And on paper, I’m sure that’s how it would appear as well. It doesn’t do anything groundbreaking or original with the story. It just follows the blueprint without deviation. And surprisingly, that’s what makes it work in the end. This movie is a wonderful retelling of the classic fairy tale, with all the familiar pieces in tact with no needless and distracting additions. It’s almost so ordinary that it’s revolutionary. After the boring and needlessly complicated plots of Alice in Wonderland and Maleficent, it’s nice to see Disney actually deliver a worthy remake this time around. I believe that a big part of why this movie works so well is the combination of a smart and witty script by Chris Weitz (American Pie and About a Boy) and imaginative direction by Kenneth Branagh. Weitz in particular had the daunting task of trying to bring new life into an already too familiar storyline, and he managed to pull it off by not trying to make it too complicated. It’s a simple retelling that’s avoids the pitfalls of adding too much plot detail, and instead leaves more room for the things that matter in a script, like character development as well as a healthy helping of wit and charm. Kenneth Branagh also feels right at home with this material. Famously known for his lavish Shakespearean productions, Branagh brings a strong sense of visual splendor to his film, while never losing track of the characters or the story either. Together, the director and the writer make familiarity a great asset with this story and present Cinderella with all the grace it deserves.

Probably the biggest reason why the movie works so well, beyond how well it is written, is its visual extravagance. This movie is a stunning visual treat. It’s not surprising given that Kenneth Branagh is behind this film, since he brings almost operatic grandeur to every production he does, whether it’s his four hour long staging of Hamlet (1996), or his venture into the Marvel cinematic universe with Thor (2011). Cinderella continues that stellar track record with colorful cinematography and eye-catching production design. The ball scene alone is an unrivaled visual feast. But, even with the incredible work put into the production, it doesn’t overwhelm either. The film manages to keep itself firmly grounded and doesn’t try to distract you with its visuals either. Really, some of the best parts of the movie actually take place in some of the darker settings, like a late confrontation between Cinderella and her step-mother in the attic, which has a nice gloomy atmosphere to it. But, when the film calls for it, the epic grandeur delivers beautifully. It also takes its cues from the classic Disney version as well, trying to match some of its most standout visual moments in th same way. There’s a scene when Cinderella arrives at the ball which calls to mind the same moment from the animated film. It’s not trying to copy it shot for shot, but rather invoke the same sense of wonder, and it manages to do it very well. The production design and costumes were done by multi award winning veterans Dante Ferretti and Sandy Powell, and Cinderella represents the two working at their highest level.

Anoter thing that helps to make the movie work especially well is the performances. One of the saving graces for most of Disney’s live action remakes has been their castings, especially in the villain roles. Glenn Close delivered a delightfully over-the-top performance as Cruella de Vil in 101 Dalmatians, while Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent was that movie’s only redeemable feature. In Cinderella, the cast is top to bottom exceptionally well-rounded, especially with the two leads. Lily James (who’s been recently seen on Downton Abbey) manages to bring a lot of depth to a character that’s notoriously hard to get right in a performance. How do you make such a subservient character relatable and complex? In this film, Cinderella is instilled with the lesson of having strength through kindness, and it’s a character trait that Ms. James perfectly brings out in the character. She remains kind and noble, even against overwhelming hatred, and that’s where her strength as a character comes alive. But, even she is overshadowed in the movie by a knockout performance by Cate Blanchett as the villainous Lady Tremaine. Blanchett shows once again why she is one of our greatest living actresses by taking on the role of the wicked stepmother that we all know, but also finding the depth behind that villainy as well. She chews up the scenery like nobody’s business and commands every moment. Naturally, she’s a big name that Disney always tries to go for with these important character roles, and it’s nice to see she’s not wasted here. The rest of the cast also is very strong. The two step sisters are hilariously over-the-top, and Helena Bonham Carter manages to deliver a nice subdued turn as the charming Fairy Godmother. And speaking of charming, Richard Madden (of Game of Thornes fame) is able to make the most of a character who has very often been underwritten in most retellings of the story, including the animated version. His Prince character actually is given a worthy arc to go along with the story that compliments Cinderella’s story very nicely.

If the film has a flaw at all, it might be with some of the visual effects. The grounded visuals of the film, which relies heavily on practical sets, are so well done, that it actually becomes distracting when you see an out-of-place CGI effect put into place. Not all the visual effects are terrible though. Some of the set extensions are stunning to look at, and there is a jaw-droppingly gorgeous moment when Cinderella’s dress is transformed by the Fairy Godmother into the ball gown. But what doesn’t work so well is the animation used on the animal characters, particularly the mice. I know the mice where important characters in the original film, and their presence her is a nice nod to the classic. But, the film here chooses to portray them as realistic looking mice, animated through CGI. Unfortunately, as hard as they tried, the animators could not pull off the trick. The CGI mice still just look too fake, and unfortunately lack personality. The animation looks even more distracting later in the film when the animals are transformed into Cinderella’s coach horses and footmen. The end result just comes off as a bit too rubbery. Still, I don’t fault the filmmakers so much as just the overwhelming reliance that the industry puts on CGI tinkering. For a film that does so well with practically built visuals, it’s somewhat unnecessary to include so much computer enhanced imagery. It doesn’t spoil it too much; it just becomes something of a distraction over the course of an otherwise tightly controlled production.

Overall, I am very pleased to see Disney finally get the formula right for a change. After coming up short so many times before, it’s great to see a remake from the House of Mouse that is actually worthy and respectful to it’s source rather than exploitive. A lot of credit should go to director Kenneth Branagh, who brought his usual visual flair to a story that was perfectly suited for it, as well as to writer Chris Weitz who managed to bring a great deal of depth and wit to this retelling; something that the other fairy tale remakes have been lacking. As someone who grew up with the classic Disney versions of these fairy tales, and one who has been incredibly disappointed with the remakes so far, it pleases me enormously to see that Cinderella was given a worthy treatment. The story itself is simple and uncomplicated and it’s a pleasurable experience for all audiences. Clearly it’s targetted towards the young girl demographic, and it hits that target with sniper like accuracy, but audiences of all kinds will still find a lot to enjoy in this movie. Of course, this won’t be Disney’s last live action adaptation of one of their animated classics. Some of the adaptations do look promising (like Jon Favreau’s Jungle Book in 2016) while others are not so much (Tim Burton’s recently announced Dumbo remake). At least now we have an example of how to do it right. So, if your nostalgic for some classic Disney storytelling, or just want to see a lavishly put together big screen fairy tale, then you should defiantly check out this new version of Cinderella. It’s further proof that assured direction and thoughtful storytelling can indeed deliver something magical.

Rating: 8.5/10

Top Ten Lists

Top Ten Favorite Epic Musical Themes

March 7, 2015 James Humphreys

For such a collaborative process, the quality of a movie usually boils down to the quality of the different people who make it. It’s not just the director that makes the movie worthwhile; his job is mainly to serve as the coach pushing his team across the finish line. A final product must also rely on an inventive cinematographer, creative production designers, fearless and professional actors, as well as an editor with a lot of patience. But, sometimes the person who may end up having the biggest impact on the final film is the person who puts on the finishing touches; the composer. It’s remarkable how much influence music can have on narrative. Done well, it can punctuate a moment and instantly make it memorable. If done poorly, such as an out-of-place music cue, and the emotion of the moment is spoiled. Sometimes filmmakers can even mold their films around a particular piece of music if it stands out well enough. Think of Rocky’s training montage without Bill Conti’s rousing theme or Jaws without the rising tension of John Williams’ two note beat. Music is the corner stone of great cinema, and is the marker of a completed production. What ends up happening with any particular film’s popularity is that it reflects back on the music too, and a film’s soundtrack has the extra benefit of being an extra source of revenue for the film studios that make them. Film composers as a result end up becoming some of the more recognizable crew members in the industry, and that’s a distinction that I believe is well earned.

I for one love the music of the movies. In particular, I am a big fan of rousing, epic musical themes. Epic music usually is big and bombastic and it often has it’s basis in the classical style, which I also love. If it’s backed by a full orchestra and is able to give my body goosebumps, than it’ll definitely end up on my favorite playlists. And given Hollywood’s great love for epic-scale cinema, there hasn’t been any shortage of great musical themes written over the years. The 1980’s and 90’s was a particularly strong Golden Age for film scores, with great composers like John Williams, Danny Elfman, Hans Zimmer, and James Horner among others coming into their own. My favorite pieces usually fall within this time period, but that’s also because these were the decades that I grew up in, so my choices are more or less tied to my childhood preferences. Even still, I do admire all the great music that Hollywood it’s entire history. Sometimes, even mediocre films can contribute a memorable tune that stays fresh in my memory for years to come. What follows is a top 10 list of my personal favorite epic musical themes from movies. I have also included audio/video tracks of each piece, to let you hear exactly what I’m referring to with each. Keep in mind, this list is made up of entirely orchestral themes from non-Musical films. Popular songs are left for another list entirely, and these picks are of one particular track of music, and not the whole score itself. For the most part, these represent the rousing, epic theme music that I continually listen to time and time again.

10.

“ESCAPING THE SMOKERS” from WATERWORLD (1995)

Composed by James Newton Howard

Waterworld, to be frank, is a pretty big mess of a movie. With a confused script that touches on larger environmental and societal issues but never fully commits and actors not quite knowing what they’re doing (except the great Dennis Hopper, who’s a blast to watch in his hammy performance as the villain), the movie is all ambition but no heart. Couple that with a bloated production that nearly sank the careers of all involved, and you’ve got one of Hollywood’s most notorious flops. But the one saving grace for this Kevin Costner-headlined movie is it’s musical score. Composed by James Newton Howard (one of the many composers of this Golden Age era), the music of Waterworld is effectively epic and no more so than this particular theme. This is probably the most recognizable piece from the whole movie and with good reason. Underscoring the climatic battle scene of the film’s finale, Escaping the Smokers is a perfect example of the music themes typical of the era. Bombastic, fast-paced and instantly memorable, this piece like many others of the 80’s and 90’s was meant to give it’s film an identity. The rousing repeated beat easily grabs a hold of you and helps you to identify this as uniquely a part of the Waterworld experience. The same holds true for many of the others on this list, but Escaping the Smokers makes it onto mine purely because I just like listening to it. It’s got an energy to it and it’s a great example where even a flawed and mediocre film can indeed be home to some great music.

“PARADE OF THE CHARIOTEERS” from BEN-HUR (1959)

Composed by Miklos Rozsa

Another remarkable era for film orchestration was in the 1950’s, when Hollywood was bingeing on elaborate historical and biblical epics. Though most of the scores of this period usually all sounded the same, there was no denying that the trend of this period leaned more in the big and grand direction. There were standouts, like young Elmer Bernstein’s breakthrough work in The Ten Commandments (1956), or Alex North’s contemporary influenced Spartacus (1960). But if there was an epic score that really defined the era, it would be the music of Ben-Hur, composed by Hollywood veteran Miklos Rozsa. Rozsa had built a stellar career in Hollywood, contributing scores to nearly 100 films for over four decades. Ben-Hur was by far his biggest project, and his exceptional and spiritually moving score easily won him a well deserved Oscar. There are plenty of tracks that are noteworthy in the movie, but the one that really stands out for me is this piece, the Parade of the Charioteers; used as the lead up music to the film’s iconic chariot race. There’s no way to know how processional music of the Roman Empire might’ve sounded in real life, but Rozsa’s melody sounds authentic enough to feel just right for this movie. I love the way that the marching beat keeps building in this, along with the trumpets that really helps to boost the grandness behind the march. In the movie, this music is played as the charioteers make their way around the arena before their race, and it’s a scene played almost dialogue free. It’s a beautiful example in the movie where the music helps to guide the moment, allowing it to take the spotlight. As far as classic Hollywood music goes, they don’t get more grand than this.

“PROMONTORY” from THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS (1992)

Composed by Randy Edelman & Trevor Jones

Now a decidedly more modern sounding musical theme. Promontory is one of the more unusual themes to find it’s way into a historical epic, but that’s what makes it such a great piece of music as well. Befitting the tastes of director Michael Mann (not the most likely of names to be associated with a period drama), this piece of music has a very modern beat to it, with electronically enhanced rhythms. But, even still, it does feel right for the movie that Mann created. Based on the early American classic by James Fenimore Cooper, The Last of the Mohicans is a gritty epic that delves deeply into the fractured relationship between English colonialists and the Native Americans with whom they are clashing. The piece of music itself actually compliments this dichotomy perfectly, with the Native American drumbeat mixed beautifully with the English strings. And the pulsing melody builds to an exhilarating conclusion; which in the movie plays out during the memorable and dialogue-free finale. The Daniel Day-Lewis headlined film marked a stark contrast with other epics of the time. While many of the epics of this period were more rousing and upbeat, with music that supported that style, The Last of the Mohicans was considerably darker and less glamorous. Promontory is a perfect representation of that melancholy mood. Michael Mann called upon two composers for his film, but the end result doesn’t feel disjointed. In fact, it’s a rare case where two minds managed to make the entire piece feel like a cohesive whole. Though the whole score of the movie is strong, Promontory is by far the standout, and probably the most haunting piece on this list. It’s also a good movie theme to have on your workout playlist, given the steady buildup of the score’s beat. It’s the kind of music that really helps to reve yourself up.

“OVERTURE” from ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES (1991)

Composed by Michael Kamen

Say what you will about Kevin Costner, but his movies seem to always deliver in the music department. And no more so than this beautiful piece by the late, great Michael Kamen. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is not exactly beloved by everyone. Some find it corny with an unsubtle screenplay and some fairly laughable performances (especially when Costner tries to feign an English accent). But the one thing that people can’t complain about with this movie is the musical score, and indeed the whole soundtrack may in fact be composer Kamen’s best work. The Overture is exactly what the name entails, which is the opening theme over the titles, shown over images of the famed Bayeaux Tapestry; a fitting mix of sound and visuals to open an epic adventure. It’s also a nice example of a contemporary composer writing something with a classical sound. This theme could have played perfectly well in any era of Hollywood epics, but it’s also not too out of place in our own time either. To be honest, I’m actually an unapologetic fan of this entire movie. I acknowledge that it’s cheesy, but that’s part of the charm for me. And a big reason why I love Prince of Thieves so much is because of how good the musical score is. Really the whole soundtrack is worth listening to. The rousing melody here perfectly invokes the meaning of the word “epic” and the Overture, which gives us the main recurring theme of the film, is easily the most recognizable and beloved part of the movie. It’s a piece of music that was widely reused in a lot of film trailers for many years, especially immediately after it’s premiere. And when other movie studios like you music so much they use it for their own marketing, that’s when you know you’ve got something great.

“BATMAN THEME” from BATMAN (1989)

Composed by Danny Elfman

Probably the best source for epic theme music today comes from super hero genre, given the recent boom in the market. And while many of them are stirring and sometimes memorable, there’s also the danger of having them sound too much alike as well, with composers playing more with what works rather than getting creative. John Williams definitely set the bar high when he created his iconic Superman theme for the 1978 Richard Donner film. But, if there was ever a piece of music that broke the rules of the Super Hero genre and did something so far removed from John Williams’ theme, it would be this equally iconic piece of music from Danny Elfman. Elfman is one of those rare film composers who has a distinctive sound that is all his own. A Danny Elfman tune is easily recognizable and it seems he always saves his best bits for his long time collaborator Tim Burton. I’m sure that both Burton and Elfman were seen as odd choices to bring the Caped Crusader to the big screen, but it turns out they were exactly the right men for the job. Much like the movie itself, Elfman’s music perfectly encapsulates what Batman is; dark, Gothic, menacing, with just a hint of melancholy and a tiny bit of weirdness. It’s a perfect melody to announce to the world that Batman has arrived. Hans Zimmer also wrote a memorable theme for Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy, but even that doesn’t have the same kind of imprint on the character that this theme does. Nobody brought out the best in the Dark Knight more than Danny Elfman, and this is easily my favorite musical theme ever for a super hero.

“RIDERS OF DOOM” from CONAN THE BARBARIAN (1982)

Composed by Basil Poledouris

Going from something moody to something just plain “BIG,” this piece of music is the very definition of the word epic. It’s a textbook example of how to pump up a cinematic moment with music. The relentless drum beat, the soaring strings, and the overwhelming vocal choir. Composer Basil Poledouris almost seems like he wants this to be the epic theme to end all other epic themes. Surprisingly in the movie, which was Arnold Schwarzenegger’s first starring role, the music isn’t used for any epic moment though. You would think that it belongs with a huge battle scene or a climatic showdown between hero and villain. But, that actually isn’t the case. Instead it’s used to introduce the titular “riders” into the movie as they lay waste to a small village. Either director John Milius didn’t realize the gold that he had with this music, or Poledouris went above and beyond what he was called upon to do. Either way, this is an exceptional piece of music. It probably stands better to listen to this piece separated from the movie itself. Nintendo famously used this music to promote an upcoming release of their beloved Legend of Zelda series in a pre-lease trailer, which is befitting given the game’s medieval battle motif. Other film companies also have used the music for their movie trailers too, which shows once again how a popular piece of music can have a life of it’s own outside of the movie. I for one just love the energy of this piece. It’s the kind of music that gives the listener goosebumps, knowing that they are listening to something with power to it; something which all the best pieces of music can do.

“THE THRONE ROOM” from STAR WARS EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE (1977)

Composed by John Williams

Yeah, you knew Star Wars was going to end up on this list at some point. Widely considered the greatest film score of all time (and certified as such by the American Film Institute), Star Wars is a tour de force of cinematic music. John Williams, who became an instant legend with his work on this film, broke from the standard of 1970’s theme music (which favored quieter and more intimate orchestrations) and delivered a musical score steeped very much in the classical style. Inspired very heavily by the works of Igor Stravinsky, John Williams’ Star Wars score is big and assertive, and it perfectly matched the bold vision of George Lucas’ groundbreaking space opera. But, with a film score this iconic, which one of it’s melodies stands out as the best? It’s a tough choice because there is so many to choose from. The unforgettable Opening Theme, the dreamy Force theme, the oppressive Imperial March, or heck even the cheesy Cantina Theme. If I had to choose the best one, it would be the final piece at the end called The Throne Room. It’s a triumphant orchestration that really cements the score as a whole, leaving the audience with a strong reminder of the glorious thing they have just witnessed. The sound of the trumpets over the rest of the orchestra is what really sells the grandness of the piece. Seen as part of the movie, where it plays over the scene where Luke Skywalker and Han Solo are given medals for their service, the music perfectly establishes the epic feel of the moment. Had George Lucas not called upon John Williams to score his film, I don’t think the movie would have developed the following that it has today. His contribution is what ultimately helped to send this adventure beyond the stars.

“ARRIVAL AT AUDA’S CAMP” from LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)

Composed by Maurice Jarre

I’ve said it before, but again Lawrence of Arabia is my all time favorite film and the music is a big part of why I love it so, naturally it also earns a place on this list as well. The entire score, brilliantly composed by Maurice Jarre, is both epic and intimate. At some points it will blow you away with it’s grandiosity, and then in other moments it will slow down into a moody, contemplative tune. And it all perfectly matches the setting and the narrative of the story, showing the life of an English officer who helped to lead an Arab revolt against the Turks in WWI. It’s equal parts classical and modern, which underlies the theme of a changing world that’s entering the 20th Century. But, while I do like the moody, and very Arabic inspired melodies during the film’s quieter moments, my favorite parts are still when the score really hits it’s big moments. And the score’s high point would be this almost biblical scale piece called Arrival at Auda’s Camp. In the movie, Lawrence and his companions are invited by Sheik Auda abu Tayi (brilliantly played by Anthony Quinn) to come to his camp in the valley of Wadi Rum, which he jokingly refers to as a “poor place.” Of course, Wadi Rum is anything but poor, and the music perfectly underlines just how majestic the valley really is. Maurice Jarre’s music really celebrates the scale of the scene, giving the moment grandiosity but also establishing a jovial beat as well. Seen with the unbelievable visuals, the music is almost transcendent; very much underlining the epic scale of the whole production. Jarre deservedly won an Oscar for his work on the film, and no doubt this particular piece helped to earn the film it’s widespread acclaim.

“THE LIGHTING OF THE BEACONS” from THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING (2003)

Composed by Howard Shore

Peter Jackson’s groundbreaking epic trilogy is still fondly remembered today for it’s grandiose music just as much as for it’s out-of-this-world visuals. What was surprising to some was the fact that the entire trilogy’s musical scores were composed by someone like Howard Shore. Shore came from the world of scoring zany comedies and oddball action thrillers. He even got his start in the business as a music director for Saturday Night Live. Not the kind of resume you would expect for someone tasked with bringing the music of Middle Earth to life. But not only did Howard Shore deliver the goods in this trilogy, he ran away with them as well, taking home three Oscars in the process. The whole trilogy is full of instantly recognizable themes, from the iconic “Fellowship” theme of the first movie to the haunting Rohan theme of the second. But Howard Shore saved his best for the finale as The Return of the King features two of probably the grandest musical arrangements ever brought to film. One is the glorious Charge of the Rohirrim, which is one of the greatest battle themes ever written. But even that amazing piece is overshadowed by what I think is the trilogy’s highest point. That of course is a piece called The Lighting of the Beacons. This arrangement is the epitome of “epic,” starting slow and then building up to a mighty crescendo that easily will raise anyone’s goosebumps. Peter Jackson clearly wanted to showcase Howard’s music in the movie, as this musical theme plays over a montage of epic visuals that perfectly matches the rising momentum of the melody; those visuals being flyovers of the landscape of Middle Earth as beacons are lit on the high mountaintops between the nations of Gondor and Rohan. Even with all the amazing work done up to that point in the trilogy, Shore still managed to deliver a knockout in the third film, and it clearly showed why he was the right person in the end to bring the music of Middle Earth to life.

“PARADE OF THE SLAVE CHILDREN” from INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM (1984)

Composed by John Williams

Of course John Williams takes the top spot, but many of you may find this an odd choice for #1. Why this piece, out of all the amazing scores that Mr. Williams has written. Well it just comes down to personal preference. I’m a huge fan of Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom is my favorite film in the series, thanks in no small part to Williams’ score. But, beyond that, I also just believe that Temple of Doom is top to bottom John Williams’ strongest score in his entire career; even more so than Star Wars Episode IV. It is the master composer at his most epic and the whole score is filled with unbelievably rousing orchestral themes. Chief among them though is this piece titled Parade of the Slave Children. The music underscores the scene where Indiana Jones (a pitch perfect Harrison Ford) helps the enslaved children held captive by the Temple’s leaders escape. While the scene doesn’t call for anything truly epic or memorable, John Williams somehow saw potential in this moment and delivers what is probably his grandest theme yet; at least in my opinion. I love everything about this piece of music; the rising, slightly metallic downbeat, the big orchestral sweeps, and just the fact that it easily conjures up the feeling of adventure. While I do like the Indiana Jones March a lot too, this is still the melody that embodies the Indiana Jones movies the most for me. It’s Dr. Jones at his most epic. I always have this piece at the top of my playlists and it’s a great tune to reve myself up for anything, whether it’s working out or writing. It’s also the musical piece that best represents the idea of “epic” for me. While many of the others on this list are quintessentially epic as well, none manage to grab my attention more than Williams’ work in Temple of Doom, and that’s why I give it the highest spot on my list.

So, that’s my list of my favorite Epic musical themes from movies. While I’m sure that some of you can think of other musical pieces that stick with you more than these, my hope is that I still made a list that best represents the value of epic scale orchestrations in movies. Indeed, sometimes it’s the music that ultimately makes or breaks a final film. It all depends on how much effort the composer puts into his work. If he’s just cashing in a pay check, then it’s likely that the movie’s score will sound generic and uninspiring. But, if inspiration hits that same composer in unlikely ways, than something special can come out in their music. Usually it’s the composer who tries to experiment with new things that ends up leaving the biggest impact. And great trend setters like John Williams, Danny Elfman, and Hans Zimmer have easily earned their place as icons of the industry by continually pushing their limits and the movies they work on are the better for it. Hopefully, my list helps to highlight some really great pieces of music and has helped a few of you choose some new melodies to put on your playlists. Whether it’s big and bombastic or small and intimate, music is one of the most powerful tools in film-making and one that I hope continues to be used in creative and interesting new ways.

Tinseltown Throwdown

Tinseltown Throwdown – Pacific Rim vs. Transformers

February 28, 2015 James Humphreys

Finding a franchise that not only hits the jackpot once but many times is usually hard to find in Hollywood, let alone sustain. The subjects on which you can build these franchises can also be just as unpredictable. I’m sure Hollywood never believed that movies centered around giant robots would ever become a multi-billion dollar juggernaut in the worldwide box-office, but that’s what they found out when Michael Bay’s Transformers (2007) made it to the big screen. Transformers, for better or worse (mostly worse), has become one of the most successful franchises in recent memory, with three of the entries from the series making it past the billion dollar mark in worldwide grosses. But, even with all the success it has achieved, it has it’s fair share of detractors, who certainly have justifiable complaints about the bloated and insipid movies in the series. Though Transformers has it’s many faults, there’s no denying that they’ve made an impact on the industry, including opening the door for many other like minded action films. Most of them have been even more ridiculous knockoffs like Hasbro Studios Battleship (2012), which was nothing more than a $200 million game commercial. But among all the bad movies in Transformers wake, one that did stand out was Guillermo del Toro’s Pacific Rim (2013). Like Transformers, Pacific Rim involves great battle set pieces set in our real world with giant robots. But, there was one thing that del Toro’s movie got that Bay’s film didn’t; critical praise. On the surface, these two films should be received almost exactly the same. So why is one more highly regarded than the other. In this article, I’m going to look at how the two movies shape up against one another, and see where this disparagement comes from.

To understand these movies, one also has to look at their influences, and how well they are used to back up both the action in each movie as well as the story. For the most part, the most obvious influences for both franchises comes from Japanese pop culture; particularly with regards to the embodiment of the samurai warrior and the mythologies around giant kaiju monsters. The Transformers we know now started off as a toy line in the early to mid eighties, which spawned a popular Saturday morning cartoon series which ran from 1984 to 1987 and culminated in a theatrical animated film. Though conceived and developed in America, most of the animation was completed in Japan and South Korea, and was always meant to appeal to audiences from both sides of the Pacific. Much of the Japanese influence comes out of the sense of duty from the Transformers themselves, not unlike the warriors code of the samurai, as well as with the aesthetic look of the characters themselves. One look at characters like Optimus Prime and Megatron, and you can see the influence of feudal Japanese armor in their design. This is coupled with the gigantic size of the characters and how their constant skirmishes wreck havoc in our world. That’s where the Kaiju influence comes about in the series, which is the same kind of inspiration that Guillermo del Toro draws from. Kaiju monsters have long been a part of Japanese literature and cinema; including the highly influential Godzilla series. With Pacific Rim, del Toro put his own fresh spin on the material, delivering a mash-up of all these different influences, but with a narrative that stands well enough on it’s own. And like Transformers, it takes these very culturally distinct aspects and makes them work towards a worldwide sensibility. In that sense, both do an equally fine job of presenting their influences well in their selective stories.

“Autobots, roll out.”

Where the two movies ultimately part ways, at least in the effectiveness of the story-telling, is in their executions. Primarily, it all has to do with the intents of their selective filmmakers. Michael Bay is very style oriented, choosing to highlight the camera work and visual effects of his movies above the plot and character development. Guillermo del Toro concerns himself with the opposite, devoting much of his movie to character interactions as well as building the world in which they live in. That’s not to say that del Toro’s movies are not without style either; it’s just that sometimes the plot moves along so briskly that you hardly even notice the creative designs that del Toro has added. But, if you look at the movies separated from their respective filmmakers, you would almost think that they were crafted by the same people. So, what makes Transformers so loathsome and Pacific Rim so enriching? The difference comes from the self-awareness that is found in each film. Guillermo fills his movie with cheesy dialogue and flat characterizations, but he did that by design. These are staples of many often unintentionally funny and campy sci-fi thrillers, and Guillermo is celebrating that aspect by making it an essential part of his own movie. Michael Bay’s film on the other hand uses the same kind of cheesy dialogue and stale characterizations, but it seems to be the result of neglect rather than intent. Because Bay spends so much time building the look of his movies, the things that matter most like plot and characters seem to be forgotten. Instead, plot convenience and character archetypes are in place instead of real, meaningful development. Not to mention a lot of pointless filler, like most of the stuff with the insufferable Witwicky parents.

The lack of development is one of the things that I have found most problematic with the Transformers franchise. The series seems to have no thrust behind it, because Michael Bay never tries to explore something new in each entry. Watching them all together (which I don’t recommend) it is astonishing how very little differences there are with the the plots. It’s just the same movie done over and over again. What’s even more infuriating is the fact that with every rehashed plot, they introduce brand new characters and then never address them ever again in the follow-up. Hence, why so many of the characters are superfluous in the Transformers series. But, to compare this aspect of the movies with Pacific Rim is a little unfair, mainly because Transformers has seen four releases in the franchise, compared to Pacific Rim’s one (though a sequel is on the way in 2017). So, let’s just compare how the story holds up in it’s initial outing; the original 2007 movie, which is by default the best one as well. What Michael Bay got right in his first film easily was the look of the movie; making a surprisingly gritty take on a Saturday morning cartoon work out beautifully. For a movie based around such a simple premise, he managed to set the world up effectively, making it believable that giant robots from space could find themselves at war on our planet. But, by minimizing the emotional development of the characters and the complexity of the plot, Transformers also feels remarkably minor in the grand scheme of things, and no amount of visual scale and scope can hide that. Pacific Rim on the other hand, presents the global ramifications of it’s world much more effectively. We see the destruction of the Kaiju and the toll it puts on our heroes; the ones who pilot the giant robot suits called Jaegers.

“Now we have a choice here; we either sit and wait, or we take these flare guns and do something really stupid.”

For the most part, Pacific Rim stands ahead of Transformers purely because it treats it audience intelligently, rather than pandering to them. Guillermo del Toro knows that if he puts conviction behind the silliness of his movie, the audience will feel rewarded for having witnessed a creative experience. Michael Bay just takes moves from his own playbook, and transplants that into anything he desires. Michael Bay is a talented director, but directing skills alone doesn’t make a movie watchable. Anyone can get good at shooting during “magic hour” or capturing different angles of a controlled explosion; but in the end that means little unless it elevates the story. Michael Bay seems to think that his style can carry any story along, regardless if it’s good or not. Now, to be fair to the man, it is a plan that has indeed paid off for him over the years. His movies are huge money-makers and that’s primarily because they are easy to digest action thrillers; simplistic and not challenging to follow. The casual viewer doesn’t mind what’s lacking in story, and indeed they’re the one’s who drive Bay’s films to huge box-office numbers. And, even though it’s a rough pill to swallow, Pacific Rim would not exist today if it weren’t for Transformers. That movie’s success is what got del Toro’s movie green-lit, so really it stands on the foundation that Bay cemented first. But, after seeing something that delivers the same kind of action, but with a degree of clever creativity behind it like Pacific Rim, we can clearly see that Guillermo del Toro is trying to cook us up a gourmet dinner while Michael Bay is serving us just more Happy Meals. Bay could honestly do better and has done so too. When given a better script to work with, he can actually deliver a worthwhile film, like 1996’s The Rock, 2005’s The Island, or even 2013’s Pain and Gain. Why he can’t put that kind of focus into what is arguably his biggest claim to fame is beyond me.

“At the end of this day, one shall stand, one shall fall.”

Focus is primarily what is lacking all the Transformers movies, even in the less problematic first film. What is most infuriating is the way that the movies actually push aside the characters that matter most, namely the Transformers themselves, in favor of characters that nobody likes. This should be problematic for any fans of the original cartoon series, seeing as how their beloved characters have been reduced to supporting characters. Michael Bay does deserve credit for preserving actor Peter Cullen as the voice of Optimus Prime (something which he’s done from the very beginning), but the fact that he’s sidelined so that we can have more scenes of douchebaggery from the series’ very unlikable protagonist Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is a big mark against the franchise. If Sam were a more likable and interesting character, there would be no issue, but given that his presence is so pervasive and in place of character development for the ACTUAL TRANSFORMERS, it’s just another sign of Michael Bay’s lack of focus and concern for what’s best for the series. Compare that to the characters in Pacific Rim. They are cliched and simplistic, but are given enough screen time to become sympathetic as well. Guillermo del Toro doesn’t try to force his characters into slap-sticky situations or have them deliver cocky, one-liners. Letting the characters breathe allows for those things to come through naturally. That’s why we cheer when Idris Elba’s Stacker Pentacost delivers his rousing speech, even though on paper it sounds ridiculous, as with the intentionally campy scientist characters played by Charlie Day and Burn Gorman. Devote attention to the characters in the end, and the audience will warm to them. Try to force characterizations like Transformers‘ Sam’s unwarranted cockiness, and you’ve got characters worthy of scorn.

Even the lack of focus on the visuals can hurt a movie, and with all the visual flair that Michael Bay can cook up, he still manages to undermine his movie with too much style. The first film in the Transformers series is a bit more focused than the others, but what I found to be problematic is the frenetic nature of the editing and camera work. Michael Bay loves to move the camera around, which is fine for a kinetically charged action scene, but problematic for everything else. The animation of the Transformers, in particular, is indeed impressive, with hundreds of individually moving parts. Unfortunately, any time the movie gets close to showing us all the intricacies of the CG artists hard work, Michael Bay chooses to hide it with some of his stylish film-making. I don’t understand why he keeps distracting the viewer when it’s not needed. Did he really not have the confidence in the visual effects team to give them the showcase they were calling for? It becomes more annoying in the later films, that remarkably feel even less focused despite their longer running times. Pacific Rim by contrast not only gives the visuals the screen time they deserve, but at times almost indulges us in how impressive they are. I especially like the way that Guillermo del Toro presents us with scenes devoted entirely to showing off the mighty Jaeger robots. Early on in the film, we get an almost step-by-step demonstration of the Jaegers in action, which even details how the pilots are able to make the giant contraptions move; grinding gears and all. It may seem indulgent, but plot wise it’s very worthwhile, because it presents us visually with all we need to know about how this whole world works. Del Toro also holds the camera still, allowing the audience to understand what is going on even in the big action sequences. That is ultimately why it’s important to have a focus on your visuals in any given movie.

“Fortune favors the brave, dude.”

Overall, it’s unusual to see two movies that follow many of the same visual cues and same cultural influences end up with such different outcomes. Transformers is a box office phenomenon that at the same time has been blasted by critics and audiences alike. With Pacific Rim, you have a critical darling that surprisingly had to fight to get barely above $100 million domestic. And yet, by looking at the two together, you can clearly see how intent and execution really comes to play with each of the different films. It’s clear that Guillermo del Toro crafted Pacific Rim out of love for the things that he’s parodying. By contrast, Michael Bay is just exploiting an already established franchise for his own gain. Not that Michael Bay doesn’t value what he’s creating for the series; he wouldn’t have stuck with it for so long if he wasn’t enjoying the end result. But, he’s the kind of filmmaker who would take that approach to any other established intellectual property, without regard for what has come before it. Transformers just so happened to be the franchise that caught his eye at the moment. And I’m sure it won’t be the last to get the Michael Bay make-over either. We already saw Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles become the next victim. It’s a financial situation that has worked out for Bay, but I think the lack of empathy for the direction of the series has unfortunately left a black mark on both the filmmaker and the Transformers brand. I’m sure the original creator of Optimus Prime and Megatron never expected to have their brand associated with racially insensitive stereotypes and up-skirt shots of the movie’s female leads. Transformers is a franchise in desperate need of a new vision, while Pacific Rim is one of infinite potential. Luckily del Toro’s movie has developed enough of a following to warrant a sequel, which I too am anticipating. In the end, even when it’s about giant monster fighting robots, substance still triumphs over style.

“Today we are cancelling the apocalypse!!”

Movie Previews

The 2015 Oscars – Picks and Thoughts

February 21, 2015 James Humphreys

It’s the Oscars once again, marking the high point of the cinematic year that was 2014. And once again, it’s a unique year that had a lot of people talking; in particular about who wasn’t nominated. A lot of complaints rose up this year about the racial make-up of the Oscar nominated field, and just how little to no nominations went to minority talent. While this led to cries of racism from some in the media, I honestly don’t believe that it was a decision made by design on the Academy’s part. It unfortunately end up as a result of poor Oscar-campaigning on behalf of actors and filmmakers of different races, as was the case with Paramount Pictures late start on campaigning for their Dr. Martin Luther King biopic, Selma. While Selma did manage to achieve a Best Picture nomination, it was all but forgotten in all other categories, including what would have been a historic nomination for it’s director, Ava Duvernay. But, even as this left many upset with the final field of nominees, it doesn’t mean that movies like Selma will be forgotten overall. The Oscars are a competition based around buzz and publicity. The movies that make the biggest splash in the marketplace or have the most publicity surrounding it will almost always be the ones that prevail. But, as I’ve stated before, this is just a yearly acknowledgement of what Hollywood values at the moment. Great movies will always be great, and a little golden statue is not always the greatest indicator of longevity, although there have been exceptions. But, even still, an Oscar win carries a lot of weight with it and this year’s field is full of many worthy, and maybe one not so worthy films up for the little golden man. What follows are my picks for the top Oscar categories, and who I think will win and who should win.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Nominees: American Sniper (Jason Hall), The Imitation Game (Graham Moore), Inherent Vice (Paul Thomas Anderson), The Theory of Everything (Anthony McCarten), and Whiplash (Damien Chazelle)

I’m going to state this right away here because it will be a running theme throughout this article; The Theory of Everything is a horrible movie and I hope that it comes up empty handed at this year’s Oscar ceremony. Now, with that said, this is thankfully one category that it has no chance of succeeding in. As of right now, Writer’s Guild award winner The Imitation Game seems to be going into the race as the favorite. And despite some of the conventionality of the movie itself, I actually think that Imitation Game‘s script is still worthy enough of the award. Writer Graham Moore filled his screenplay with enough intrigue and witty dialogue to keep us engaged, and he managed to present a nice, complex picture of an unsung hero of the Second World War. But, is this movie also my own favorite in the category. If I had to choose, I would give this award to Whiplash‘s Director/Writer Damien Chazelle. Whiplash was one of the most exhilarating cinematic experiences of the year, and Chazelle’s fiery and explosive screenplay was a big part of that. I would award it just for J.K. Simmon’s lines alone. But, unfortunately for Chazelle, this was his first feature film, and that lack of a long body of work may end up costing him in the end. But, I dare you to find a debut screenplay as expertly crafted as Whiplash. A potential spoiler here could also be Jason Hall’s script for the controversial by expertly crafted American Sniper, which would also be a deserving choice. But, in the end, expect to see Imitation Game the winner.

WHO WILL WIN: Graham Moore, The Imitation Game

WHO SHOULD WIN: Damien Chazelle, Whiplash

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Nominees: Boyhood (Richard Linklater), Nightcrawler (Dan Gilroy), Foxcatcher (Dan Futterman and E. Max Frye), Birdman (Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Nicolas Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris Jr., and Armando Bo), and The Grand Budapest Hotel (Wes Anderson and Hugo Guinness)

Another running theme you will find in this article is my love for the movie Birdman. It was my pick for the best of the year and I want it to win pretty much everything that it is nominated for. Now of course that won’t happen, but Birdman is still a strong contender in the race, and this is one category that it’s still very much a favorite it. Even despite having been worked on by a team of writers as opposed to one singular vision, Birdman‘s script is still one of the most emotionally moving and creative of the year. The film’s screenplay did earn a well deserved Golden Globe, but it’s loss at the WGA awards has shown that it’s not a lock either. The WGA winner The Grand Budapest Hotel seems to be the movie with the momentum right now. Giving the award to Wes Anderson here would probably be the consolation prize for his movie, which doesn’t look like a strong contender in any of the other races. And Anderson has had a strong body of work for many years, so he’s long overdue for recognition from the Academy. Though, that being said, The Grand Budapest Hotel didn’t quite grab me in the same way that Birdman did. I liked it well enough, but I also think that it’s not among my favorite Anderson films (that would be something like Fantastic Mr. Fox or Rushmore). But, if he wins it here, he’s not undeserving. I just wish that it wasn’t in competition with my favorite movie. With all that said, I would expect this to be Wes Anderson’s year, but this could also go to Birdman if the movie has a big night.

WHO WILL WIN: Wes Anderson and Hugo Guinness, The Grand Budapest Hotel

WHO SHOULD WIN: Alejandro G. Inarritu, Nicolas Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, and Armando Bo, Birdman

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Nominees: Mark Ruffalo (Foxcatcher), Edward Norton (Birdman), J. K. Simmons (Whiplash), Robert Duvall (The Judge), Ethan Hawke (Boyhood)

This is by far the easiest race to call. It’s J.K. Simmons, unquestionably. He was the favorite going into this race pretty much from the moment his performance in Whiplash was first seen by audiences. Thereafter, he has won every award there is. If he doesn’t walk away a winner at this year’s Oscar ceremony, then it will be the biggest upset in the history of the awards, which I highly doubt will happen. He is absolutely deserving of the honor as well. Not only did he deliver what I think is the performance of the year, as the music teacher from hell in Whiplash, but he also is one of the most highly regarded character actors in the business. He’s been a presence in Hollywood for many years, never quite headlining any particular film but still enriching any project with his workman-like approach to every role, making him one of the most reliable actors around. His performance in Whiplash would be more than just a legacy award however, because he is indeed the standout in this category. The only other competition he might have would be Edward Norton’s delightfully quirky turn in Birdman, but even that is a very distant second place. The others nominated are purely riding the coattails of the selected films, while Robert Duvall is nominated here purely because he’s Robert Duvall. This is an even money category, and I don’t expect anyone but J. K. Simmons to be up there on Oscar night. It might be the first award given out too, given that there’s no suspense behind it.

WHO WILL WIN: J.K. Simmons, Whiplash

WHO SHOULD WIN: J.K. Simmons, Whiplash

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Nominees: Patricia Arquette (Boyhood), Meryl Streep (Into the Woods), Keira Knightley (The Imitation Game), Laura Dern (Wild), Emma Stone (Birdman)

The strange thing about the last few weeks of this race has been the deflation of Richard Linklater’s Boyhood as the awards front-runner. It came into the race looking like the clear favorite, until it began to fall in the Guild races to Birdman. Now, it looks to be the runner up in many of the categories that it once appeared to be running away with. The only race that Boyhood has remained strong in throughout the whole race has been this one. Patricia Arquette has held onto her front-runner status this whole time, and still looks to be unchallenged going into the final stretch. And she’s not undeserving either. Considering the nearly 12 year stretch that the movie was in production and that she was able to maintain her focus on her character throughout that whole run (better than the rest of the cast I might add) is really quite an achievement, and is worthy of recognition. Arquette also has a solid body of work behind her, both on film and TV, so her win here is also a way of awarding her for a solid body of work in the industry. The remainder of the category is also strong, apart from the obligatory nomination for Meryl Streep in the mediocre Into the Woods. Emma Stone delivers the best performance of her still young career, and Keira Knightley did valiantly well with a character who could have easily been weak if not performed in the right way. Laura Dern was the surprise here, and I think her nomination is about as far as the accolades for her performance will go. But like J.K. Simmons in the Supporting Actor category, this is another race with a clear favorite, and one that I think deserves her place in the spotlight.

WHO WILL WIN: Patricia Arquette, Boyhood

WHO SHOULD WIN: Patricia Arquette, Boyhood

BEST ACTOR

Nominees: Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything), Benedict Cumberbatch (The Imitation Game), Michael Keaton (Birdman), Bradley Cooper (American Sniper), Steve Carell (Foxcatcher)

Now we come to what is probably the most contentious race this year, at least with the acting categories. It is also the race that pits my favorite movie of the year against one of my most hated. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that I want Michael Keaton to win this award so badly. And yes, a part of that is because I’m a big fan of Batman, and Michael Keaton’s performance as the caped crusader is a big part of my fandom. It’s also part of the basis of his character in Birdman, which is another reason why I love that film so much. But, after looking at all the nominees here, I can’t help but think that Keaton’s performance was also the strongest as well. His performance as washed-up actor Riggan Thompson is captivating and heartfelt, and also hilarious. You also have to admire an actor who can hold his own in a film made up of long takes. Unfortunately, as the movie’s stock has gone up in the Oscar race, Keaton’s front-runner status has fallen. The one taking the lead now is Eddie Redmayne, for his portrayal of crippled Astro-physicist Dr. Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything. Now, let me state that while I hate the movie itself, Redmayne’s performance is easily the best thing in it. I just wish his performance was placed in a better, less pandering film. What upsets me is that once again Hollywood is falling into the cliche of honoring an able bodied actor for playing a person with a disabilty (and a historical one as well) which is one of the most overused plays in the Oscar-bait textbook. Redmayne tries, but I still didn’t see his work as groundbreaking either. Unfortunately, it looks like it’s going to fool enough people to rob a veteran actor of his long overdue recognition.

WHO WILL WIN: Eddie Redmayne, The Theory of Everything

WHO SHOULD WIN: Michael Keaton, Birdman

BEST ACTRESS

Nominees: Marion Cotillard (Two Days, One Night), Felicity Jones (The Theory of Everything), Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl), Reese Witherspoon (Wild), Julianne Moore (Still Alice)

This has been one of the more surprising categories of the year. Despite having appeared in a film that has generated little to no buzz this awards season, Julianne Moore has entered this race as the clear front-runner. Her performance in Still Alice is good, which is not surprising from the usually reliable actress, but is it really that noteworthy. Something about this race tells me that it didn’t matter what movie Julianne Moore appeared in last year, it just seems like it’s finally her time. This honor is more of a legacy award and less of an acknowledgement of her actual work in Still Alice, given that Julianne Moore has been a runner-up in so many other races leading up to this. Hollywood wants to make her a part of the club of Oscar-winners, and she’s not undeserving of that either. However, if I had to make a choice among the nominees in this category, it wouldn’t be Julianne Moore. Instead, I would pick Rosamund Pike for her outstanding, and gutsy performance in Gone Girl, a movie that was surprisingly overlooked in most other categories this year. Pike’s performance was a knockout, playing one of the most psychotic and devious characters I’ve seen on the big screen in a while. Pike has usually played supporting roles up to now, but she wowed in her first lead role and pretty much ran away with the movie, seeing as how she’s the only one involved who got a nomination. Perhaps the fact that Rosamund’s character is a little too dark for some audiences might be part of why she’s not gaining traction in this race, but even still, I wouldn’t mind seeing her spoil Julianne Moore’s seemingly unstoppable train to the top award.

WHO WILL WIN: Julianne Moore, Still Alice

WHO SHOULD WIN: Rosamund Pike, Gone Girl

BEST DIRECTOR

Nominees: Richard Linklater (Boyhood), Morten Tyldum (The Imitation Game), Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel), Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (Birdman), and Bennett Miller (Foxcatcher)

Here is another too close to call race. It’s down to two visionary, independent filmmakers who delivered us movies based around very different cinematic gimmicks. One the one hand you have Richard Linklater, who devoted 12 years of his life to crafting Boyhood, which follows the life of a young boy as he grows up in real time over the progression of the movie. And on the other hand, you have Alejandro Inarritu who crafted a movie made up of long takes all stitched together to make the movie look like it was all done in one long shot. Both directors did a commendable job with these complex projects, but in the end, only one can take home the award. For a while, it looked like Linklater was going to be the runaway favorite, having picked up numerous critics awards, and the Golden Globe. But, when the Director’s Guild made their choice (one that usually almost always coincides with the eventual Oscar winner), the award went to Inarritu. Now, Inarritu is the one carrying the momentum into the Oscar race, which again makes me very pleased. Linklater is a talented filmmaker, but I quite frankly have never really gotten into his body of work. I don’t dislike his movies; most of them are actually really good, including Boyhood. But at the same time, his style has never wowed me as a viewer the same way Inarritu did with Birdman. Still, Linklater’s labor of love for over a decade is still hard to ignore. Although I see Inarritu deservedly winning out in the end, it wouldn’t upset me if Linklater came out on top either.

WHO WILL WIN: Alejandro G. Inarritu, Birdman

WHO SHOULD WIN: Alejandro G. Inarritu, Birdman

BEST PICTURE

Nominees: Boyhood, The Theory of Everything, Selma, The Imitation Game, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Birdman, American Sniper, and Whiplash

Of course we now come to the big award of the night, and once again, it has become a race that’s too close to call. Conventional wisdom would have you believe that the sprawling, 3 hour long Boyhood would be the clear front-runner, and indeed it is still selected as a favorite in most of the polling. But, Birdman has been coming on strong in recent weeks, and I think that it has enough to topple Boyhood. Certainly it’s wins at the Guild awards have helped. But even with that momentum, Boyhood is still looking like the movie to beat, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Academy splits the top awards again like they did the year prior when 12 Years a Slave won Best Picture and Alfonso Cuaron winning Director. Overall, it basically comes down to these two competitors. The only potential spoilers could be either the quirky The Grand Budapest Hotel or the controversial American Sniper, and I highly doubt either has the weight behind them to match up to the top two. I, of course, want Birdman to win it all. It would be the first time since 2006 that my favorite movie of the year takes home the top award (that being Martin Scorsese’s The Departed). But, with a race this close it’s hard to say how it will turn out. If I had to make a guess right now, on the eve of the awards, I would say that Inarritu’s Birdman carries the entire night, picking up the most awards on it’s way to a Best Picture win, leaving Linklater and his film as the runners up. It’s hard to put down a movie that took 12 years to complete, but unfortunately, I felt that Boyhood was more interesting as a gimmick than it was as a movie. Birdman was everything I wanted it to be and more, and that’s why I’m rooting for it at the Oscars this year.

WHO WILL WIN: Birdman

WHO SHOULD WIN: Birdman

So, I’ve shared my thoughts on the big categories, but I think I’ll also quickly run through who I think will win all the other awards as well (of note, these are my picks and not necessarily my favorites, as I have yet to see each and every film nominated):

Animated Feature: How to Train Your Dragon 2; Cinematography: Birdman; Costume Design: The Grand Budapest Hotel; Documentary Feature: CitizenFour; Documentary Short: Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1; Film Editing: Boyhood; Foreign Language Film: Leviathan; Makeup and Hairstyling: Guardians of the Galaxy; Original Score: The Grand Budapest Hotel; Song: “Everything is Awesome” from The Lego Movie; Production Design: The Grand Budapest Hotel; Animated Short: The Bigger Picture; Live Action Short: Butter Lamp; Sound Editing: American Sniper; Sound Mixing: Birdman; Visual Effects: Guardians of the Galaxy

It should end up being an interesting ceremony in the end. Of course, in the grand scheme of things, none of this will really matter. The Oscars are more of a reminder of how we viewed movies in the previous year, and not about how they will age in the years to come. Sometimes it is worthwhile to bestow an award to a movie that deserves the spotlight, especially when it’s a small movie that’s demanding to be seen, like Whiplash. But, great movies find their audiences no matter what and some of last year’s best films were not even spotlighted in this year’s show (The Lego Movie, Gone Girl, Snowpiercer just to name a couple). But even if it infuriates us every year, we still come back again and again and watch the Oscars religiously. It’s a part of our culture to celebrate the movies and the Oscars are a big part of that experience. If there’s one thing that the Academy has done right it’s to make us think that their Award matters, and in the short term it indeed can. Small movies get that much needed boost after the awards, and most films that come away from the ceremony a winner wear that as a badge of honor. Hopefully, this year, the awards go to the most deserving people and that the whole affair ends up being an entertaining show overall. And once it’s all done, it will again be time to start this cycle all over again. In the end, it gets us talking about movies and that’s what we love the most about Oscar season.

Evolution of Character

Evolution of Character – Romeo & Juliet

February 14, 2015 James Humphreys

Love stories can be found in even the unlikeliest of genres. Oftentimes, some of the best romances are remembered from movies that aren’t even classified as romances. Take Casablanca (1943) for example. It has one of the most famous and passionate love stories at it’s center, and yet today it is classified more as a war drama and less of a romance. It’s also a love story that leaves the two key players apart at the end, and it’s viewed as a noble sacrifice. Indeed, a great love story comes about as a by product of a great story, and whether or not the characters are left happily ever after is determined by what’s best for the story and not by what the audience desires. This often means that tragic love stories are the ones that stick with us the most. There’s a reason why Titanic (1997) became as big of a hit as it did, and it’s not because it’s two leads got a happy ending. Lost love leaves the biggest impact on an audience because it makes finding it all the more precious. A character’s strength can often hinge on how well they are able to overcome loosing the one they love; either they rise above it and are grateful for their brief time together, or they succumb to their grief and become lost as well. Perhaps the most famous of all the tragic romances came from legendary English playwright William Shakespeare when he crafted his own tragic romance titled The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet.

First published and performed in Elizabethan England in 1597, the tale of Romeo and Juliet has gone on to become perhaps Shakespeare’s most popular piece of work; or at least the most often re-adapted. Depicting the doomed romance between Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet, the youngest children of two warring families in the fictional Italian city-state of Verona, Romeo and Juliet touches on many themes that have not only redefined the meaning of romance, but has also gone on to set the modern standard for all love stories to follow. Romeo and Juliet’s story involved themes about prejudice, generational differences, youthful rebellion, and even sacrifice. It’s a tale that speaks to many people who fall in love despite social expectations, whether it be someone from another race, religion, culture or sexual orientation. Basically, Shakespeare’s story is about unbound love, and pointing an accusatory finger at those who prevent it from happening; a theme that still remains relevant today. Because Shakespeare’s play continues to resonate with audiences, it’s only natural that there should be plenty of film adaptations to compare and contrast with one another. Since it’s Valentine’s Day, I will be looking at some of the most notable adaptations of Shakespeare’s classic romance, and see how well they defined the characters of both Romeo and Juliet, as well as how well they stuck close to the key themes of the play. And so with that all said, where for art thou Romeo?

LESLIE HOWARD AND NORMA SHEARER in ROMEO AND JULIET (1936)

There were many attempts to adapt the works of Shakespeare for the big screen ever since the inception of cinema. But once the era of talkies came around, it was finally possible to hear the unique Shakespearean iambic pentameter on the big screen. And the great thing about cinema is that it brought classics to the masses, allowing even the common man to experience the works of Shakespeare and others. Romeo and Juliet was one such play that was easily adapted for the screen many times, mostly in the silent era. However, it wasn’t until this lavish 1936 production that we finally got a major Hollywood adaptation of the play. Starring British actor Leslie Howard (of Gone With the Wind fame) and Oscar-winning actress Norma Shearer as the titular couple, this production does it’s best to be true to the original source material. The Shakespearean language is still there, albeit truncated to fit a cinematic run time, and the sets and costuming are all exquisitely crafted. There’s only one problematic thing with this version of the story, and that’s the miscasting of the two leads. The two actors are not at all convincing as Romeo and Juliet, mainly because they are far too old to play the teenage lovers. Norma Shearer was 34 during the making of this film, and Leslie Howard was 43. That is too much of an age difference to make their performances convincing. Truth be told, Howard fares a little better because of his classical training in London theater, but unfortunately Shearer is too Hollywood in her acting style to rise above this. Even still, the movie does try to capture some of the essence of Shakespeare’s play, with production values worthy of the material.

RICHARD BEYMER and NATALIE WOOD in WEST SIDE STORY (1961)

Other modest big screen adaptations came and went over the decades since Hollywood’s first attempt, but in the early sixties, the story made it’s way into our modern pop culture through a grand re-imagining. Dispensing of the Shakespearean text and transporting the story into a modern day setting (in this case the slums of New York City) and adding musical numbers, we were given a fresh new look to the classic story. While West Side Story may not have any of the classic Shakespearean touches, the themes and the emotion of the story remain intact. In fact, I don’t think there has ever been a better representation of the underlying themes of the play better than this musical version. Certainly, the themes of forbidden love and the prejudices that separate our tragic couple are presented vividly here, having the stand-ins of Tony and Maria separated by the street gang rivalries that exist within their lives. By presenting this in a modern day context, this version of the story helps to make these themes resonate even more for the casual viewer. The musical was a smash hit on Broadway, but it’s the movie version that really makes the story soar. Given the grand vision of director Robert Wise and the iconic choreography of Jerome Robbins (both of whom shared the Oscar for Directing that year), West Side Story is both intimate and epic, making it one of the most unforgettable love stories ever put on screen. Richard Beymer and Natalie Wood give very passionate performances as well as the tragic couple, and Wood’s final scene at the end is memorably heartbreaking. All together it is a grand scale retelling of a familiar story that I think would have been given the Bard’s seal of approval.

LEONARD WHITING and OLIVIA HUSSEY in ROMEO AND JULIET (1968)

Probably the greatest straightforward adaptation of Shakespeare’s original play, Italian director Franco Zeffirelli’s version presents the text as it is written with almost reverential treatment. Given lavish production values and a cast full of classically trained British actors, this version is by far the closest Hollywood has actually come to making a true, unedited version of the play. The best bit of casting though belongs to the main characters themselves, mainly because Zeffirelli actually cast teenage actors. Albeit, the actors playing Romeo and Juliet are just a tiny bit older than they are in the text; they had to be at a legal age in order for Zeffirelli to include brief moments of nudity in his film. But, even still, we buy the fact that these two characters are young and deeply in love. Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey are certainly the least experienced members of a veteran, stage bred cast, but they still manage to hold their own and carry the picture. Sometimes the lack of experience on their part does show up unfortunately, particularly at the climatic death scene, but the two of them do make it up with the earnestness of their performances. In particular, the two do manage to nail the pivotal balcony scene. Whatever shortcomings the actors may have, they are served well by Zeffirelli’s lavish direction. It wasn’t the director’s first adaptation of Shakespeare (he had made The Taming of the Shrew the year prior with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton) nor was it his last (his 1991 adaptation of Hamlet, with Mel Gibson), but this version of Romeo and Juliet was perhaps his greatest work, and certainly the most authentic retelling the big screen has ever seen.

LEONARDO DICAPRIO and CLAIRE DANES in WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE’S ROMEO+JULIET (1996)

Probably the most notorious retelling of Shakespeare’s play, Australian director Baz Luhrmann’s version is a hyper-stylized take on the original text. Luhrmann keeps the Elizabethan language intact, but he sets the story in the modern day with the warring Montague and Capulet families depicted as street gangs terrorizing the fictional beachfront city of Verona, California. Trust me, West Side Story this is not. While Luhrmann’s style is unique and beautiful to look at, I am unfortunately of the opinion that it’s a bad fit for the material. All the eye candy and sporadic editing is just too distracting and takes away from some of the power of the text. Seeing all these modern clad actors spouting Shakespearean dialogue with editing and cinematography more at home in a music video makes the whole project feel more like style over substance. What ultimately saves this movie, however, is the cast and in particular, the two leads. This was a turning point film for the careers of both Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes; he would go on to super stardom the following year with the release of Titanic, and she would go on to become a multi-Emmy winner in groundbreaking TV shows like Homeland. Here, they deliver outstanding performances as the doomed lovers that feel more natural and assured than any version before, or really after. Again, they are older here than in the text (both in their 20’s) but the acting is so good, it really doesn’t matter in the end. Their performances are emotional and captivating, indicative of how talented they had become as performers. While the movie itself is jarring, the performances help to save it in the end, delivering probably the most heartrendingly raw and intimate versions of the characters we’ve ever seen.

JET LI and AALIYAH in ROMEO MUST DIE (2000)

Just to show the universality of awareness that Shakespeare’s play has on the culture at large, this thriller starring acrobatic and martial arts trained Chinese actor Jet Li and singer/actress Aaliyah shows how you can even implant the story into an action movie. The story is what you would expect from a film like this; Jet Li is an undercover cop investigating the murder of his brother, and while on the job, he ends up falling for the daughter of the very mob boss he’s trying to take down, leading to a forbidden romance that leaves all of them in danger. Now if you’re looking for an authentic retelling of Shakespeare’s play, this is not it. It’s just a silly action thriller with a love story at it’s center. It also has a happy ending, which is definitely not true to Shakespeare’s original intent. But even still, it is interesting to see how pervasive the story has become, where it can even appear as the basis for an action thriller. Certainly the filmmakers want to invoke the Shakespearean connection with a title like Romeo Must Die. But, that’s where the connection ends. Basically, the only link it has apart from that is the theme of forbidden love; although in this case, it is a love that prevails in the end. Jet Li is in fine form here, especially during the well-choreographed fight scenes, and Aaliyah (who’s short-lived career was tragically cut short the following year in a plane crash) is likable as well. In fact, the best thing you can say about the romance in this movie is that the two of them do indeed have chemistry, and you want to see them together in the end. That’s something that most other romantic movies wished they had. So, in the end, not a great adaptation of Shakespeare but a more than passable homage.

ANIMATED SEALS in ROMEO & JULIET: SEALED WITH A KISS (2006)

No joke people, this is a real thing. There is actually an animated, musical retelling of the story of Romeo and Juliet, with seals and other sea creatures starring in the roles. And if there was an adaptation that would rile up Shakespearean purists the most, it would be this one. It does everything cliched thing that sub-par animated movies do; replacing wit with slapstick and pop-culture references and taking short-cuts in storytelling in order to pander to a younger, G-rating audience. But, even with all these faults, the story still does keep many of the traits of the original story intact, like the iconic balcony scene (here depicted as a cliff-side overhang) and even Juliet poisoning herself in order to appeal to the warring factions to stop fighting and let her be with Romeo. Unfortunately, the end result feels more exploitative of the material rather than respectful. The film is actually more interesting as an example of independent film-making than as a movie itself. It was made by former Disney animator and director Phil Nibbelink (The Great Mouse Detective, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and An American Tail: Fivel Goes West to name a few credits), who crafted the film entirely by himself in his own home studio, using Flash animation software on his computer. With the knowledge that this movie was made by hand entirely by one person, you can’t help but be impressed with the final product. Even though it is far from Disney quality, the final film does have a very polished look, and you can tell that Nibbelink put his heart into it. The final result is admirable, but not a great representation of Shakespeare’s classic. The characters of Romeo and Juliet are especially not served well, as they are merely one-dimensional caricatures. A neat independent oddity, but no where near worthy of the legacy.

DOUGLAS BOOTH and HAILEE STEINFELD in ROMEO & JULIET (2013)

This marks the most recent iteration of the play, and it’s one that goes back to the basics. Set in it’s appropriate time period and with a lavish production and elite cast behind it, this one looks on the surface like a very commendable retelling of Shakespeare’s work. It even has a screenplay adaptation done by Downton Abbey creator Julian Fellowes. Unfortunately, this retelling has none of the passion found in Shakespeare’s writing, nor the wit of most of Fellowes’ scripts. Part of the problem with this production is the performances. Everyone in this production is either over-acting or under-acting, and the latter is especially true for the titular lovers. Douglas Booth is as vanilla a Romeo as we have ever seen, and Hailee Steinfeld shows none of the charisma here as Juliet that she showed so well in her Oscar-nominated performance in the Coen Brothers’ True Grit (2010). It’s clear that the movie is trying too hard to feel epic and grandiose, but in the end it just underwhelms Shakespeare’s text and like Baz Luhrmann’s version, favors style over substance. It’s pretty, but bland. Here, we get Shakespeare by way of Hollywood, and it’s clear by both the direction as well as the marketing behind this movie that the producers were trying to aim this movie version towards the Twilight fan base. Overall, it’s a waste of good talent and a shameless exploitation of a classic story that adds nothing to the overall text and merely just exists to pander to a niche audience.

So, even though Romeo and Juliet the play has had an up and down history on the big screen, it is clear that the characters have been well served by Hollywood, as they have risen to icon status over the years and continue to influence love connections in romances to this day. And it is amazing how even 400 years after it was first written, that it still remains a relevant story today. As long as there are struggles between warring classes across the world, there will always be those who choose to break from their tribes and build bridges through love. It’s an idea that probably was best brought to the screen in West Side Story, which is rightly regarded as an all time great film. But as far as adaptations of the original text go, you’ll probably find Zeffirelli’s to be the most faithful and engaging, although the best versions of the characters themselves may actually be the ones found in Baz Luhrmann’s erratic adaptation; and that’s solely because of the strength of the actors’ performances. But, these are only examples that stick closely to the original source itself. You can find shades of Romeo and Juliet in almost any modern love story; in particular, the ones involving couples who come from different walks of life. As long as forbidden love remains a relevant thing in our culture, the power behind Shakespeare’s original classic will live on. Interestingly enough, it’s not even considered Shakespeare’s greatest work by some of the Bard’s most dedicated fans, which could go to either Hamlet or King Lear, depending on who you talk to. The fact that Romeo and Juliet continues to be Shakespeare’s most widely popular and most-often adapted play is really a big testament to the power of love.

CINERAMBLE