Moneyball

It seems as though every one of my blog posts starts out with a blubbering apology pertaining to inactivity or the abhorrent amount of time that has passed since my last submission, and this post is unfortunately no exception.  Between working in the RPO box office, interning in the marketing department at Geva Theatre, applying to grad schools and all the essay writing/paperwork that goes into that, and trying to find fleeting moments throughout the day to sleep, eat, and pass bowel movements, the blog in which I enjoy writing for so dearly has unfortunately been moved to the back burner. No one is more ashamed than I that my eager and enthusiastic fellow cinema buffs have been neglected since mid-July; but rest assured, this post is guaranteed to wet your artistic whistle and leave you shouting to the silver screen gods “Just HOW does Colin do it?!”

Though busy I have been during the recent months since my last post, I have still managed to wrestle away some free time to do what I love more than almost anything (save for maybe bare-knuckle boxing, knitting cat sweaters, and watching Judge Mathis)- enjoying great movies. Some are the classics that I am slowly trying to check off my list, some are Oscar hopefuls, and others fall somewhere in-between. For this piece, I am going to discuss Moneyball, the most recent Brad Pitt-featured sports drama.

I’ve always had something of a love-hate relationship with sports movies.  Not to say that the “love” side of that equation doesn’t get equal attention; Rudy, Field of Dreams, and Remember the Titans are, in my opinion, some of the more fantastic movies ever made. When done well, they can inspire and tell a great story, and are often chalked full of fine acting performances (I say with pride that I’ve always been a sucker for Emilio Estevez’s Coach Bombay). Field of Dreams in particular will always hold special meaning for me, it also being one of my Dads favorite movies. Watching it with him is a treat, as he is a wealth of knowledge on the subject of baseball history, hitting the pause button frequently to tell stories of the 1920’s White Sox and how Shoeless Joe Jackson got his nickname.  That all being said, for every good sports flick that gets made it seems as though they tower upon a mountain of 100 disastrous ones.  Too often they try, in vain, to tug at the heartstrings of the viewer or beat you over the head with the proverbial stick of sentimentality, sacrificing the artistry or integrity of the film in attempts to draw a tear from the viewer as Samuel L. Jackson unites the inner-city high school basketball team with his preachings of tough-love.

I am happy to report that Moneyball is guilty of none of the aforementioned crimes.  Veering away from the typical underdog story- model that most sports movies adhere to, Moneyball is a voyeur into the business of baseball and the world of scouting, centering on Billy Beane and the story behind the 2002 Oakland Athletics. The film is based on a true story (like most sports movies are), and tells the story of how Billy (Brad Pitt) and assistant GM Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) pioneered the practice of scouting and assembling a baseball team based not on typical methods, but on sabermetrics and analysis of complex mathematical formula, a system that was, at the time, highly risky and equally unpopular among clubhouses and baseball management.

The movie begins with an introduction to Billy Beane, the once-promising MLB rookie turned baseball scout turned General Manager of the Oakland Athletics; a team that, at the time, wasn’t on the radar as a promising baseball franchise, nor was it sporting the fattest wallet in the business. While other ballclubs like the New York Yankees had never-ending oceans of money in which to scout the top players and assemble an unstoppable force of athletes, the A’s had a fraction of the budget to work with, making the task of assembling a championship team a seemingly impossible one. Recognizing this, Bean begins to think outside the box, and a new and untapped option presents itself when he meets Peter Brand, a recent Yale graduate of Economics, working as a lowly researcher for the Cleveland Indians. Brand presents Bean with an alternative approach to baseball scouting: instead of dumping your entire budget on one or two top-hitting, steroids-riddled big shots (as most clubs were doing at the time), gather a larger group of players who have seemingly lower value, but who have excellent On Base Percentage (OBP), something that usually isn’t given as much attention as features like batting averages and career home runs when scouting new players. Predictably, the idea is met with enormous hostility from the owner and the rest of the A’s scouting staff. Forging ahead with the plan in despite of them, Beane recruits a team of washed up, under-valued, B-list athletes who, after overcoming a rocky beginning to the season, lead the A’s to 20 consecutive wins, a landmark record for Major League Baseball.

What makes this movie so unique is what it offers: a look behind the scenes. Baseball is as American as apple pie, country music, and Denny’s Grand Slam breakfast, thus the game itself is no longer much of a mystery to most of us. However, the business side of the sport is a side that most of us are unfamiliar with. How do ballclubs put together a team? How is it decided what new players have potential and exactly how much they are worth? Though this may initially not seem as glitzy and exciting a story as one featured on the game itself, it will captivate you. This is the direct result of superb acting and an even more superbly-written screenplay.  Brad Pitt delivers his highest caliber performance since Inglorious Bastards, and even more surprising is the reserved, articulate character crafted by Jonah Hill, who has become synonymous with Judd Apatow-esque features and perhaps not taken seriously up to this point as a talented actor.  The screenplay is one of the best in the history of sports dramas; the pace of the film is slow enough so the viewer can be absorbed into the story and really latch on, but fast enough to avoid becoming dull, a pit that seems like it would be easy to fall in to when making a movie about baseball statistics. Great acting, great script, great cinematography. It will surely be getting Oscar nods come February, but don’t wait that long to see Moneyball. If you do, well, you’re just un-American.

Spike Lee

Greetings my few, valued, and devilishly good-looking readers and cinema enthusiasts. For this post I thought I'd deviate a bit from my typical review of a specific film or the works of a specific actor/actress. This piece will be on a director, Spike Lee. As a big fan of Spike and his work, I've wanted to do a piece on him for awhile, but have never been quite sure on how to approach it; after all, it is quite a different venture than analyzing a specific film or performer. It's easy to say what you like or dislike about a certain movie; it's also easy to analyze and critique acting performances, visual elements, or technical fundamentals. What directors do, however, isn't as blatant, quantifiable, or in-your-face. They shape a film, mold it, and make decisions that ultimately lead to how it will be perceived by the viewer.This function, though crucial, has always proved more difficult for me to examine, so I've decided the best way to do so would be to watch 3 completely different Spike Lee "Joints" (see how hip I am?), and explore his directing style using those films as the medium. The films I chose were Do the Right thing, The 25th Hour, and Miracle at St. Anna.

I chose these three films specifically because they are exceptionally different in terms of release date, content, thematic material, and critical reception. In other words, Do the Right Thing was released in the late 80's, deals with racism and community, received mass critical acclaim (earning it a spot on AFI's 100 Years, 100 Movies list), and is widely considered to be Lee's greatest work to date. The 25th hour is from 2002, deals with violence, hate, love, regret, and transformation. It is relatively unknown, even to Spike Lee fans, and garnered no significant critical acclaim either way. Miracle at St. Anna was released in 2008, is a WWII epic, deals with a specific event in history as seen through the eyes of four soldiers, and received widely negative criticism, widely considered to be one of Lee's worst films to date.

I also realize the caution and delicacy that is required in doing an objective analysis of Spike Lee. As most know, he is a highly controversial director whom most people have a polarized view of; he's one of those "ya' love him or ya' hate him" directors. His films often deal with racism and social issues, and Spike himself has garnered himself a lot of media spotlight over the years due to political stances and various controversial statements. Personally, I admire Lee as a film maker and a person, but I will do my best to make this piece about his films, and not about his personal life.

  

25TH HOUR

One of his lesser- known films, but certainly not one to be overlooked, 25^th Hour is a powerful story of love, hate, regret, and transformation.  It centers on Monty (Edward Norton), a convicted drug dealer and how he spends his last 24 hours before beginning a 7 year prison sentence. Starring as his friends are Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Barry Pepper, with Rosario Dawson playing his girlfriend Naturel. The whole film takes place over the course of one day. We follow Monty as he visits associates, eats dinner with his father, goes out to a nightclub with his friends, and ends with an emotional, thought-provoking car ride to the prison with his father. As is typical with Spike Lee Joints, the timeline is shuffled, constantly showing flashes into Monty’s past and the events that lead him to his current troubles.  Also quintessential Spike Lee characteristics are ones that evoke the senses; his use of music, color, movement, and cinematography. Most notable in this film is the music, which some criticized as being too present and even overwhelming. While this may be true in some scenes, I think Spike did it on purpose. His musical selections act as a catalyst for tension building and release, and often emulate the emotional state of the characters. One particular scene comes to mind, when Monty asks his friend Frank (Barry Pepper) to beat him up and rough up his face, in hopes of appearing more tough and dangerous when he first enters prison. Though the scene is particularly violent, the element that really puts the viewer on-edge is the music, which is loud, unnerving, and encompasses the senses.

Ultimately, the movie begins showing an angry Monty who blames the world and everyone in it for his troubles, and ends with a regretful Monty who realizes that he has no one to blame but himself. Like many of Lee’s films, it has received criticism for the ways in which it addresses racism, portrays social issues, and depicts New York City. I personally think that Lee was successful at remaining unbiased in the making of this film, and painted a fair and accurate picture of the transformation and self-realization that many people go through.

DO THE RIGHT THING

His most well know film and arguably his best, Do the Right Thing is a story of how racism, bigotry, and violence effect a community and the people living in it. Starring in the film is Spike Lee himself playing Mookie, a delivery boy for Sal's Pizzeria, who for most of the film seems to be neutral in the race war that has consumed his neighborhood. Like The 25th Hour, Do the Right Thing takes place over the span of one day. Through the eyes of Mookie, Sal (Danny Aiello), Pino (John Turturro), Mister Senor Love Daddy (Samuel L. Jackson), and others, we are shown what a typical day in this Brooklyn neighborhood usually consists of. Composed of virtually every ethnic background, the people have no reason to hate each other, and yet they do based on almost nothing but principle. The film climaxes at a violent outbreak that leaves the viewer wondering "did these people actually do the right thing?" Viewers of this film tend to be quite divided; some think that it is blatantly slanted, portraying blacks as victims of intolerance and racism; others think it is a fair depiction that simply illustrates the destructive power of racism without drawing a line in the sand. Though I think the film is a masterpiece, Lee (in my eyes) failed to stay as impartial towards the end as he did throughout the main part of movie. That being said, it is a magnificent film that is as important culturally as it is thematically.  


I also have a deep appreciation for the stylistic elements of this film. Though they are dated and albeit a bit cheesy in certain parts, Lee’s use of color, sound, and cinematography is astounding throughout the film. Admittedly the flat tops, brightly colored clothes, and boom-boxes left me wondering when Uncle Carl and the Fresh Prince were gunna show up, but that's simply a tragedy of the 80's, not of Lee's film making. Several of Spike's trademark camera maneuvers are featured in the film as well, namely the "Floating Effect", where the camera is centered on an actor who appears to be floating through the air like a ghost.

MIRACLE AT ST. ANNA

Miracle at St. Anna is Lee's 2008 historical war-drama about circumstances surrounding the Sant'Anna di Stazzema atrocity in Tuscany during World War II, as seen through the eyes of four members of the 92nd Infantry Division, or "Buffalo Soldiers." The film follows these four men, who are the only survivors of their unit, as they become trapped in a small Tuscan Village during the aftermath of the St. Anna massacre, which involved the slaughtering of several hundred innocent Italian civilians by the Nazi's, who were searching for a band of renegade Italians.

The film received almost exclusively negative reviews, and though I don't think the movie was a total disaster, I can understand why it didn't fare well with critics.  The plot was dense, confusing, and contained multiple layers and characters that seemed irrelevant to the main storyline. The depiction of several African-American soldiers was cliche', almost borderline offensive, which is ironic as Lee typically tries so hard to reverse those stereotypes in his films. At almost three hours long, the film wasn't captivating enough to engage the viewer for that long, unlike other WWII films like Saving Private Ryan that are equally long, but captivate the viewer the whole time. The other main piece of criticism that the film received was due to its apparent historical inaccuracy. Many Italians and survivors of the massacre claim that the films depiction of the event are far from accurate and even exaggerated at parts. I honestly can't comment either way on that front, as I am no historian and admittedly hadn't even heard of the massacre before seeing the film. The biggest disappointment of the film in my eyes was it's lack of Spike Lee-ness. In all his other films, his style is so ingrained. Everything from the colors to the music to the costumes and cinematography are so quintessential Spike that even if you don't care for the movie, you know it's a Spike Lee Joint. I got no sense of that from this movie. The visual effects weren't noteworthy, the camera angles and editing weren't spectacular, and nothing was overly eye-grabbing. Though not a terrible film, it just didn't feel like Spike.

That all being said, the film did have some saving graces, especially in relation to it's thematic content. Like most of Spike's Joints, racism was one of the central themes, but it was approached differently in this film. It showed the Italian villagers accepting the men and not treating them differently because of their race, showing that racism isn't universal. Stamps, the commander of the men (played by Derek Luke), even noted at one point "I don't get treated differently here because I'm black; I shouldn't feel more accepted here then I do in my own country." I was also quite moved by the bond that was struck between Train (Omar Miller) and Angelo, the young Italian boy who he cares for and watches after throughout most of the movie. All in all, though the film certainly has its flaws, a movie about African-American involvement in WWII was long overdue, and Lee's efforts, though imperfect, were certainly in the right place.

You Don't Know Jack

“Permanence, perseverance and persistence in spite of all obstacles, discouragement, and impossibilities: It is this that in all things distinguishes the strong soul from the weak” –Thomas Carlyle

You Don’t Know Jack is a multi-faceted, intricate examination of numerous subjects. While Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are the main issues at hand, the film delves into philosophy, medicine, religion, and the overwhelmingly frightening notion that our lives may ultimately not be in our own hands.  While the gravity of these issues is what initially captivate the viewer, ultimately the success of the film must be attributed to an excellent screenplay and remarkable acting performances, most notably by Susan Sarandon and of course, the great Al Pacino.

Doing an analysis of this film proves to be a challenge for me as a novice writer, for while the main purpose of this forum is to discuss and examine film and all the elements that make them great, it is nearly impossible to avoid delving into the world of political and moral ideal when doing such an examination of a film that is so politically charged. While this piece will surely spark a debate amongst some of my more right-leaning, fundamentally religious family members and friends, I will try and stay as unbiased as possible during the specific assessment of the film itself; be warned though, I may inject some personal beliefs during the conclusion, so prepare yourself to be viciously roundhouse-kicked with the inner workings of my psyche.

You don’t know Jack is a 2010 made-for-TV film starring Al Pacino, John Goodman, and Susan Sarandon, about the life and career of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the well known practitioner of and advocate for euthanasia, an issue thrust into the public light beginning in the early 90’s, largely due to Kevorkian’s high-profile court cases regarding the matter. If some of you are puzzled as to how you never heard of a film starring such high profile actors and portraying such a well-known figure (as I hadn’t until recently), it’s because the film never had a theatrical release; it was made for and released by HBO. The film was directed by Barry Levinson (Rain Main, Good Morning Vietnam, Wag the Dog), and garnered much recognition in the cinematic community, most notably an Emmy and SAG award for Al Pacino’s outstanding performance as Kevorkian.

The movie wastes no time with prelude or establishing context for Jack and his early career, a smart move on Levinson's part, as doing so surely would have made the early part of the movie slow and overly-dull. Instead, we are introduced to an aging, unemployed physician who takes an interest in the notion of euthanasia, or the practice of physician-assisted suicide. Jack isn't a stuffy, academic doctor who uses ambiguous language from inside the comfort of a tweed jacket, but is eccentric, ball-busting, but most importantly, honest, even fiercely so. Jack begins his practice with almost laughably modest means, using a homemade chemical-releasing apparatus on his patients from the back of his VW van.  These early incidents begin to put him in the media spotlight, earning him headlines like "Dr.Death", which did nothing to tarnish his perseverance or spirit as he continued to perform the medical service to those that needed them the most.  As the movie progressed, he was faced with five more indictments with no convictions, largely due to his talented attorney played by Danny Huston, one of the finer (and more underrated) portrayals in the film.  

As his career continues, Jack rises above the status of mere local celebrity in Detroit or the medical community to a household name across America, gracing the cover of Time Magazine and being interviewed by Barbra Walters, all the while being faced with continuous legal onslaught, the death of his sister, and his close friend and colleague Janet being diagnosed with terminal cancer (and later becoming one of his patients). Janet is played by Susan Sarandon, who also delivered one of the more magnificent performances of her career. Jack eventually becomes unsatisfied with being able to treat his patients by simply using a legal loophole; he wants to take the issue of euthanasia to the Supreme Court, enacting legislation that allows physicians to relieve the terminally-ill of their suffering. This determination to legalize physician-assisted suicide drives him to push the envelope and nationally televise administration of the lethal injection to one of his patients himself (before, he had the patients physically pull the plug on their own, a technicality that exonerated him of murder charges). Because of this, he was charged with and found guilty of first degree murder after unsuccessfully trying to defend himself in the case, wanting his own voice to be heard by the jury, but neglecting to familiarize himself with legal process and courtroom proceedings. The film ends with Kevorkian being taken to a federal prison, where he served eight and a half years of a 10-25 year sentence.

Perhaps it is fate that I saw this film for the first time mere days after Dr. Kevorkian passed away. Though I was very young (and much more interested in The Animaniacs) during the time that Kevorkian was a media sensation, I've always been familiar with his name and why it is significant. While it would certainly be naive of me to think that I'm more acquainted with the man and what he stood for by simply watching a movie about his life, I'd like to believe that the heart of Pacino's portrayal is accurate; Kevorkian's unflinching persistence towards an ideal in which he so strongly believed. Rather you're a liberal, conservative, Christian, atheist, black, white, or one of those weird red-headed folk, devoting your life's work to a cause without a second thought of doing otherwise is a quality that is highly-admirable. Rather you agree with the idea of Euthanasia or not, Dr. Kevorkian was not a monster. He was not a murderer. Unconventional? Yes. A breaker of the law, criminal even? Yes. Those things aside, he was a physician who dedicated his life to relieving the suffering of the terminally ill. Call it "playing god" if you will, but as Pacino's character suggested several times throughout the movie, isn't the very existence and administration of medicine and health care "playing god"? Aren't doctors interfering with "god's plan" every time they perform surgery or give a young child a flu vaccine? As the quote at the top of this post reminds us, persistence in the face of the highest obstacles is truly the mark of a strong individual.

As I said before, this is a film blog, and so shall the central focus remain.  No matter what your feelings on Euthanasia are, You Don't Know Jack is as powerfully moving as it is quirky and captivating.  Pacino, Sarandon, Huston, and Goodman all delivered performances of the highest magnitude, and Levinson built a story that can be appreciated by all.

Cold Souls

Versatility is a characteristic not found in many modern day actors of the stage and screen.  Johnny Depp will always be the one portraying a pasty-skinned eccentric, Seth Rogen will likely never stop taking bong hits or cracking wiener jokes, and Gene Hackman is forever trapped in the role of the hard-headed, by-the-book authority figure. This however, is not the fate of Paul Giamatti. Rather he's playing an Italian boxing trainer from New Jersey, a disheveled middle school English teacher, or John Adams, he plays every character with presence, believability, and unparalleled distinctiveness. When discussing the movie Doubt, I examined the importance for actors to have their own brand, especially when doing films that are focused on a central character, and praised Philip Seymour Hoffman for having the ability to make every role his own. The same can be said for Paul. Just as every band has that "certain sound" that makes them easily identifiable, and every visual artist's work has a unique aesthetic that they've developed, every role Paul Giamatti plays has his stamp of creativity on it. This truth endures for his 2009 movie Cold Souls, which examines the existence of the soul, and puts a satirical spin on the idea of trafficking the soul, as if it were any other bodily organ.

Cold Souls is a 2009 film featuring Paul Giamatti, Emily Watson, and David Strathairn (who depicted Edward R. Murrow in Good Night and Good Luck, the centerpiece of my last post). It was directed by Sophie Barthes, who's only notable film credit is attributed to this film. The movie flew largely under the radar, not generating much buzz in Hollywood and only mild buzz at film festivals and in cinematic circles; I myself had only heard of it after watching an interview with Paul Giamatti on Conan, in which he referenced it in passing.

Paul Giamatti plays himself; or rather, a slightly more unkempt, less-famous version of himself. He is an actor who has begin having difficulty separating himself from the characters he plays. His dedication to his craft has caused an entanglement that bleeds through into his real life, and this emotional disarray and confusion begins taking a serious effect on his well-being. A solution presents itself, however, when his agent tells him of a company that provides a service that physically removes your soul from your body and places it in cold storage for you. Paul decides to go ahead and have his soul removed, only later to find out that while being soulless removes some of the emotional burden and baggage that one is sometimes bogged down with, it also strips you of many of your fundamental characteristics.  He no longer feels exhausted and weighed down, but he now has trouble connecting to his characters and with his wife. After returning to the agency to discuss remedies to the solution and possibly have his soul re-instated, he learns that soul removal is a huge underground, worldwide industry that receives no regulation, and uses "mules" to transport souls over international borders, similar to how drugs and organs are transported on the black market. Paul is told that because of a mishap with one of their mules, his soul has gone missing, but he can instead be inhabited with the soul of another donor, which he eventually opts for. After being impregnated with the soul of a Russian poet, he rediscovers his connection to his craft, and also starts to feel connected to the original donor of the soul that now inhabits him.  After deciding he'll never feel right again until he has his own soul back, he travels to Russia to reacquire it, which he eventually is successful at, and after re-associating himself with it he returns to New York a happy man.

Though this abbreviated plot synopsis is surely leaving you with a raised eyebrow at the very least, know that the overall aesthetic of the movie isn't as strange as I've made it sound. Once you've become accustomed to the notion that souls are just as easily removed from your body as a kidney stone, you'll be hooked right into the story with ease. Barthes did a magnificent job of taking an unusual concept and presenting it in a way that made it seem normal, while still retaining the artistry of the presentation. It is most comparable to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or Being John Malkovich, where a believable story and accessible characters are based around a far-fetched idea. Imagine Woody Allen and Andy Kaufman had a lovechild, and that child made a movie. The movie would probably be Cold Souls.  Though the film is bizarre and satirical, it raises valid questions; what is the nature of the soul? Can we live without one? Are we really as unique as we think we are? If nothing else, watch it for all the argyle sweaters.

Good Night and Good Luck

                       We will not walk in fear, one of another

To make a movie that effectively encapsulates an icon of American history is a feat that many film makers have tried, and only a few have accomplished. While there have been several success stories (A Beautiful Mind, Malcolm X, Milk, etc.), most attempts pale in comparison to Good Night and Good Luck. As important as the story is to American history, it is equally vital to the histories of broadcasting, the Cold War, and the media in general. Good Night and Good Luck is a tremendous piece of film making both technically and artistically, and has perpetual relevance today, nearly 60 years later.

Good Night and Good Luck is the story of iconic broadcast journalist Edward R. Murrow and his battle against junior senator Joseph McCarthy's crusade of witch hunting and domestic communism investigations during the early 1950's.  Most characters depicted in the movie are based on real people of the time, including George Clooney as Fred Friendly, Robert Downey Jr. as Joseph Wershba, and Jeff Daniels as Sig Mickelson. The film was written and directed by George Clooney.  It was released in 2005, and was nominated for 6 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor in a Leading Role. 

Most everybody who has taken a high school-level history course is familiar with the political and social climate of the 1950's and the Cold War. Heightened fears of espionage and soviet infiltration in the government lead many political leaders, most notably McCarthy, to take drastic investigative measures in an effort of surfacing those who had communist affiliation.  Anyone with even remote communist sympathy was persecuted and thrown into public light.  Whether you were a legal immigrant from Russia or you subscribed to a Soviet newsletter, you were suspected of communist affiliation, often based on little or no evidence.  This climate of fear and mistrust even coined the phrase "McCarthyism", defined as "the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence." Good Night and Good Luck shows how Murrow combated this practice using the only weapons he had at his disposal- the camera and the television.  In a political climate when no one dared speak against the government and their tactics, this journalist not only spoke up, but did it through a medium that reached the eyes and ears of virtually every American.  The film followed Murrow and other top CBS reporters and executives as they conducted a series of weekly programs targeting McCarthy's terror tactics, and showed how those programs were received by the government and the American people.  In the face of corporate pressure, government threat, fury from sponsors, and eventual termination of his program, Murrow continued what no other American and certainly no other reporter had the stones to do at the time; fight back.

The element of this movie that made it a masterpiece was the meticulous attention to detail.  George Clooney wasn't satisfied with simply telling Murrow's story, he wanted to capture the mood of the era, and the detail was what made that endeavor effective.  Every aspect of the film exactly portrayed the late 1950's; the soundtrack was heavy with some of the best early jazz hits (When I Fall in Love, I've got Eyes On You, How High the Moon), the costumes were laden with fedoras and modest dresses, and the characters certainly had no adherence to the dangers of tobacco use.  The film was chalked full of real, archived footage of McCarthy and political hearings, and of course the whole film is in black and white. While the story and the screenplay provided the foundation, the commitment to accurate detail took the film to the next step in portraying and conveying a mood and time period.  The film went a step further by not only painting a picture of the social and political climate of the late 1950's, but also portraying the chaotic and never-sleeping atmosphere of a network news station. 

While today's political climate is probably tamer than it was during the Cold War era, Good Night and Good Luck reminds us that while we don't all have a camera and a newsroom, we all have a voice; power, truth-telling, and responsibility are most important for us to remember when they have been forgotten by our leaders. "We proclaim ourselves as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom wherever it still exists in the world. But we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."- Edward R. Murrow.

Casino Jack

             "My name is Jack Abramoff, and I work out every day!"

Casino Jack may have not been the most talked about movie of the year, but it is certainly one of the most bizarre. While Hollywood and the box office were more consumed with other movies based on real life events such as The Kings Speech, 127 Hours, and The Social Network, Casino Jack was quietly making its presence known amongst critics and cinematic circles. The film is the real life story of "super-lobbyist" Jack Abramoff, head of possibly the biggest Washington corruption scandal since Watergate. Abramoff, along with 2 other White House officials, a congressman, and 9 lobbyists, was convicted on an array of charges including fraud, bribery, conspiracy, and tax evasion, among others.  The film stars Kevin Spacey as Abramoff, and was directed by George Hickenlooper, a well known documentary filmmaker that has since passed away (early 2010 as a result of accidental painkiller overdose).

Essentially, the movie took you through how Abramoff got involved with lobbying for several different Native Indian tribes and their casino/gambling rights. From what I could gather, he grossly overcharged tribal leaders for retainer fees, split the earnings with his business partner under the table, and didn't report the income to the IRS. In order to effectively secure their rights, he bribed politicians and made a smorgasbord of illegal campaign contributions, most notably to congressman Bob Ney. Thrown into the mix was the SunCruz casino cruise line, which was purchased through shady business dealings by mob-connected Adam Kidan and facilitated by Abramoff.  This aspect of the scandal was not very well explained, nor were connections drawn to how it related to the Native American dealings.

The best description I can think to make of Casino Jack is something along the lines of "a satirical political documentary with a five o'clock shadow after taking an adrenaline shot and cracking a Jew joke." If that doesn't do it for you, I'm out of ideas. From my point of view, the movie is most comparable to Charlie Wilson's War, about Texas Politician Charlie Wilson's involvement in ending the Soviet War in Afghanistan, a film very similar in tone and presentation to that of Casino Jack. While Casino Jack succeeded in painting a picture of how corrupt, crooked, and engrossed in cocaine/strippers some politicians and lobbyists are, it was hard to sift out key plot points through the sea of incomprehensible political jargon. This, combined with the pace of the film made it nearly impossible to piece together, unless you're armed with a familiarity of political science, law, and the workings of Washington. What I did like about the film, however, was the comedic aspect, especially from supporting actor Jon Lovitz, who portrayed Adam Kidan, key player in the SunCruz aspect of the scandal.  If you have a tough time keeping up with the fast paced unfolding of characters and events and how the whole scandal came together (as I did), you can at least enjoy the never ending buffet of one-liners and humorous anecdotes provided by the script.

I can't say that this was one of my favorite movies of the year, but it certainly wasn't the worst; check out the theatrical trailer below and decide for yourself if it tickles your fancy.

                                                                      

4GCARMDPTSRM

Philip Seymour Hoffman

Hello! My apologies for my absence from the blogging world over the past 5 weeks or so.  Mental exhaustion brought on by an onslaught of schoolwork, combined with preparation and travel to Denver for spring break has left me with very little discretionary free time as of late. Don't think I'm neglecting just my blog though; these factors have also caused my bass to acquire a healthy amount of dust, as well as my badminton rackets and cross country skis; (Just kidding, I don't do those last 2 things).

At any rate, I've found myself with a bit a free time this evening and figured there was no more perfect way to spend it then to grace the internet and cinematic community with the inner-most workings of my brain. Kidding. Really, I just want an excuse to talk about one of my favorite actors, Phillip Seymour Hoffman.  Over the past few weeks, I've watched and re-watched a few of his films. Two of them were quite contrasting, and I thought they would make an interesting combination for a post. Enjoy, and feel free to leave feedback!

Synecdoche, New York

This first flick is one a lot of you have probably never seen or heard of.  It made its way through the art-house theaters and was a centerpiece at the Cannes Film Festival in 2008, but didn't receive much mainstream attention or recognition. The movie was the directorial debut of Charlie Kaufman, who some of you might recognize as the writer for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Adaptation, and Being John Malkovitch.

In essence, the movie is very simple. In order to really get a handle on everything Kaufman was trying to convey however, requires the viewer to put on a fairly large thinking cap. The plot, stripped free of major thematic elements and symbolism, is this- "Middle aged theatre director Caden Cottard (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) struggles with his work, and the women in his life, as he attempts to create a life-size replica of New York inside a warehouse as part of his new play". Sounds simple enough, right? Though that brief plot summary remains the centerpiece of what goes on throughout the film, the dense layers of motif and theme make it much more difficult to sift through.

Kaufman was no doubt trying to make a movie about the human experience.  The movie spans almost the entire lifetime of Caden, and addresses everything from romance, to religion, to the existence of the soul.  He struggles with the fact that his wife and child left him, he's torn between feelings for several different women, he endures increasingly poor health, and all the while he's trying to create his masterpiece and life's work. All these factors intertwine to create a man who doesn't really know who he is, and uses his play as a vehicle which allows him to try and figure that out. The play he creates is humble at first; a warehouse with a few different scenes of everyday people in everyday situations.  By the end of the film, the set of his play encapsulates almost all of New York City, and features thousands of scenes with thousands of actors.  These scenes and characters are those of Cadens life; he recreates major scenes that effect him emotionally in a theatre setting and attempts to analyze them from a directorial position and draw some kind of significance and meaning from them. Periodically throughout the film, Caden states the same phrase- "I think I know how to do this play now." The play is Caden's existence, and he is perpetually trying to figure out how to live, and in what direction his life should be going. Caden's play and all the inner-workings of it that represent scenes from his life is no doubt a representation of Shakespeare's idea that "all the world is a stage." As a man who has spent his whole life in the service of the theatre, Caden uses that to try and interpret major events in his life. The stage he is creating is quite literally the world around him, and the characters that inhabit that stage are the ones that have affected him in some way.  For a more in depth look at other major thematic interpretations of the film, check out its Wikipedia page, which does a pretty good job at analyzing everything.

It's difficult for me to say rather or not I liked this movie. One the one hand, it's a breath of fresh air for a movie to actually make you think.  All too common it is today for the viewer to be spoon-fed a story, thus resulting in a movie with little to no actual substance. Synecdoche, New York certainly isn't guilty of that crime.  The characters were intense and challenging to unravel, the plot was substantial and chalked full of nuances and themes that needed to be interrupted in order to really understand the progression of the film, and it was quite the visual masterpiece. On the other hand, the over-artistry of the story, acting, and execution gave the movie a sort of snobby, pretentious air.  Movies like this one are generally praised for being pieces of art, something that makes you ponder, reflect, and appreciate. This movie seemed to take these ideals and beat you over the head with them, constantly trying to shove in your face that this is an "artsy" movie, thus completely polarizing the audience and critics.  Viewers and critics who have an appreciation for the more artistic side of cinema seemed to love it for the pure fact that it was obviously made for them, while more mainstream movie-goers passionately hated on the basis that it was depressing and over-indulgent. I can't definitively make a "see it or don't see it statement" on this piece, so my advice would be to rent and and decide for yourself. Below is the theatrical trailer, which gives a taste for the film.

Doubt
The second Hoffman film that I've chosen to feature is one that is probably more familiar to the average movie goer, Doubt. Doubt also premiered in 2008, first at the American Film Institute festival, and then in theaters later in the year. Along with Hoffman, the movie stars Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, and Viola Davis, each one of whom was nominated for an Oscar for their performance.  The film is an adaptation of John Patrick Shanley's Pulitzer Prize winning play Doubt: A Parable. Shanley also served as director of the film. 

Doubt is the story of Father Flynn (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), the head priest at a Catholic school in the Bronx during the 1960's, as he faces accusations from the schools headmistress, Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep) of having an inappropriate relationship with the schools only black student. All the while, Sister James (Amy Adams), a younger nun who teaches history at the school, is caught in the middle of the witch hunt and is torn between who to believe.

Though Doubt initially may seem to be dealing with familiar subject matter (sexual misconduct among catholic priests), the essence of what the movie is really about lies in the title itself; doubt.  As Father Flynn discusses in his first sermon of the film, doubt can be just as unifying of a factor as belief. Unfortunately, as illustrated by the film, doubt is equally as dangerous as it is unifying.  Though Sister Aloysius had no concrete evidence of any wrongdoing by Father Flynn, she felt such conviction that it lead her to take drastic measures in an attempt to get him to admit his crime.  This conviction, however, was matched by an equal amount of doubt, as she revealed in the final line of the film "I have such doubts." Acceptance is also an ideal that is pondered throughout the movie. Following one of the more powerful scenes, Sister James accuses Sister Aloysius of disliking Father Flynn simply because he is different. "He takes 3 cups of sugar in his coffee, he smokes a pipe, he likes candy", she says. He is new, progressive, and radical, where is Sister Aloysius is old fashioned, conservative, and traditional.  Perhaps Shanley was trying to convey the idea that we fear what we don't understand. Below is a link to my favorite scene from the movie, in which Father Flynn and Sister Aloysius have their main "showdown."

What I loved the most about this movie is its simplicity.  The cast was small, the backdrop was modest, the budget was low, and yet its message was timeless and perpetually relevant. It took a quaint setting and used it as a canvas to paint a picture of gossip, mistrust, doubt, belief, love, and acceptance.  Equally impressive as the thematic material and visual elements were the acting performances, especially those of Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman, who portrayed two people of such a polar opposite disposition that you could feel the tension build and nearly explode in every scene they shared. These two seasoned actors complimented each other perfectly by simply being exactly the opposite; while Streep sent chills up your spine with nearly every word, Hoffmans warmth and likability made it nearly impossible to not empathize with him.  Doubt is equally as entertaining as it is engrossing and thematically important, and it is one that everyone should see.

Lincoln

Although I was planning on saving my next big effort for after the Oscars, I figured I would pump out a smaller post to tide all my loyal readers (all 4 of you) over for the next week or so. In any event, this year’s Oscars aren’t expected to carry any shocking upsets, so that post probably won’t require much painstaking analysis; expect something along the lines of “blah blah blah King’s Speech, blah blah Black Swan, blah blah blah The Social Network”. Unless Nicholas Cage bowls over the competition with his overwhelmingly artistic performance in Drive Angry 3-D, it’s likely to be a predictable outcome.

For this bite size post, I wanted to briefly discuss a flick-in-the-making my Dad brought to my attention that I’m really excited about- Lincoln.  As you might guess, the film is about President Abraham Lincoln, more specifically his clash with the White House cabinet as he tried to abolish slavery during the Civil War.  The movie is said to be based on the book Team of Rivals, by Doris Kearns Goodwin.

Though I’m admittedly not nearly as well versed in the history of the American Civil War or the life of Abe Lincoln as my Dad is, I have very high hopes for this movie.  It has been confirmed that the movie is being directed by Steven Spielberg and will star Daniel Day-Lewis.  Originally cast in the title role was Leam Neeson, (who last worked with Spielberg on Schindlers List in 1993), but he backed out of the role before filming began for unconfirmed reasons.  Though a Neeson-Speilberg reunion surely would have spawned a fantastic film, Daniel Day-Lewis will likely bring a different dynamic to the cast and the overall plot.  As undeniably talented as Neeson is, Day-Lewis is a much more animated, bizarre, and artistic actor, leaving a distinct branding on every movie he is a part of.  Those who saw Gangs of New York or There Will Be Blood are familiar with his acting style and method of communicating with the audience.  As long as his quirkiness doesn’t send the film down an irrelevant or historically-inaccurate path, I think he will make Lincoln a wildly successful film, adding it to the ranks of other great biographical films such as The Queen, Lawrence of Arabia, Malcolm X, and Raging Bull.

The movie has a tentative release date of early 2012, likely aiming for the 2012 Oscar season, so we’ve got a bit of a wait, but keep your eyes and ears peeled!

Rabbit Hole

"At some point, it becomes bearable. It turns into something that you can crawl out from under and... carry around like a brick in your pocket. And you... you even forget it, for a while. But then you reach in for whatever reason and - there it is."

How do you make a film about true loss? There are movies about atrocities, sadness, and grief, sure. Loss is more personal though.  Loss is something that radiates off a person, something you are struck by just looking at them. That element was the central focus of Rabbit Hole, a drama staring Aaron Eckhart and Nicole Kidman about a couple trying to cope with everyday life only months after the death of their young son. Probably the most powerful film of the year, Rabbit Hole was certainly not an easy movie to watch, but one that everyone should see at least once.  It addresses themes that are hard to digest, but that are just as real to the human condition as happiness or love.

When reviewing The Kings Speech I touched upon how rare it is for an actor or actress to convey an emotion to the audience so effectively that the viewer becomes emotionally invested in that character.  When talking about The Kings Speech, I was referring to frustration. In Rabbit Hole, both Eckhart and Kidman exuded such an overwhelming sense of grief that it was easy to forget that they were just acting, not your friends or next door neighbors that were experiencing this heartache firsthand.  The movie wasn't all sad though.  Scenes of wittiness and humor were injected perfectly throughout the story to give the film just the right amount of edge.  Snippets of laughter, hints of anger, even moments of sheer awkwardness made them seem like regular people living regular lives.  One of my favorite scenes in the movie was one where Howie (Eckharts character) is sitting in a grief counseling session with a group of other people after having smoked pot in the parking lot with another member of the group.  Someone else was telling a story about a dream that they had about their dead relative whom they were still mourning the loss of, and Howie and his friend burst into a fit of weed-induced laughter.  As obviously inappropriate as something like this would be in real life, the fact that it happens in the movie helps reinforce the idea that Howie is real.  Not in the literal sense obviously, but he is going through a tragedy that people go through every day, and he is coping with it like a real person.  It certainly isn't politically correct, but real life isn't politically correct either.  As I've said in posts before, the most essential factor of a dramatic work is its believability. A comedy can be zany and fun, an action movie or thriller can be exciting and over the top, but a good dramatic presentation can't feel like just that- a presentation. Rabbit Hole certainly wasn't a presentation. It was an example of a raw human experience, and for that it was a spectacular film. Grade: A

Oscar Nominations

As some of you may know, the nominations for the 2011 Academy Awards were announced today. Overall  I'm pleased with them, the only deserving movie that seemed to get a bit of a snuff was The Town (which still pulled in a nomination for Jeremy Renner, although he probably won't win). Here's the complete list of nominations; the following are my predictions for who will probably win in the Big 6 categories (Best Picture, Best Director, and the 4 acting categories), followed by who I think SHOULD win in each of those categories. Enjoy, and lay on the feedback!

PREDICTIONS

Best Picture- The Social Network

Best Director- David Fincher, The Social Network

Actress in a Leading Role- Natalie Portman, Black Swan

Actor in a Leading Role- Colin Firth, The Kings Speech 

Actress in a Supporting Role- Helena Bonham Carter, The Kings Speech 

Actor in a Supporting Role- Geoffrey Rush, The Kings Speech


 WHO SHOULD WIN


 Best Picture- Black Swan

This was, in my opinion, unquestionably the best movie of the year. A masterpiece of acting, directing, cinematography, and artistry. It pushed the envelope of conventional film making in almost every way imaginable.

Best Director- Darren Aronofsky, Black Swan
 This movie would never have been possible if not for Aronofsky's brilliance.  Everything down to the costumes, soundtrack, and camera angles were tailored perfectly by this director to suit the story. A great movie requires a director with great vision, and no other director this year demonstrated the perfection of his craft the way Darren Aronofsky did.

Best Actress in a Leading Role- Natalie Portman, Black Swan

Prior to this movie, I was never a big fan of Natalie Portman. I didn't think she was terrible, she just never really struck me as anything noteworthy.  This film completely changed that. Her performance demonstrated an ability to show a wide range of emotion and believability (as well as become a halfway decent ballerina in just a few months). She was real, intense, complex, twisted, and raw, and if the Oscar goes to any other Actress, it will truly be a travesty.
  
Best Actor in a Leading Role- Colin Firth, The Kings Speech

Hollywood has a very successful tradition of outstanding performances by actors and actresses portraying disabilities (Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man, Al Pacino in The Scent of a Woman, Patty Duke in The Miracle Worker, etc.), but few have been as outstanding as Colin Firths portrayal of  King George VI of Britain, who was plagued for much of his life by a stammer. His performance was unique in that his frustration with his speech condition radiated off the screen in a way that made the audience connect with him on a much more deep and emotional level, making his character so much more than just the "guy on the screen."

 Actress in a Supporting Role- Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit                                                             

Hailee brought a completely different dynamic to this whole movie.  While the rest of the characters were crusty, dirty old men on horseback, her character Maddie was quick, sharp, articulate, and witty...and she's only 15 years old! Though she definitely isn't the odds on favorite to win the Supporting Actress Oscar, she certainly deserves it.



 



Actor in a Supporting Role- Christian Bale, The Fighter

This was possibly my favorite acting performance of the year. I can't imagine that it's easy to play a once-promising boxer now nearly homeless and addicted to crack, but Bale brought a level of emotion and intensity to the role that overshadowed the rest of the cast (though Amy Adams and Mark Whalberg were also excellent) by leaps and bounds. He was equal parts eccentric, funny, fierce, and provided the key ingredient to making a boxing movie that wasn't just another Rocky or Cinderella Man, but a unique masterpiece with a truly compelling message.