As I said in my review of 'Valkyrie,' the film pairs up director Bryan Singer again with writer Christopher McQuarrie. They previously worked together on 'The Usual Suspects.'
Yahoo! has posted an article about how Singer and McQuarrie had a huge argument over the ending of the movie. Or, rather, the interpretation. The interesting thing is that they didn't even realize this until the movie was finished.
My real point, though, is this: Look at the tags for the bottom of the article. "More on:" We have: Bryan Singer, Kevin Spacey, Tom Cruise, The Usual Suspects, X2: X-Men United
Tom Cruise is vaguely mentioned because of 'Valkyrie.' Kevin Spacey's importance to this article is even more sparse. The same goes for X2.
Now let's look who is not mentioned in the tags, who also happens to be the most significant player in the whole article. Oh, yeah. It's Christopher McQuarrie, the writer. Shocking, I know.
I know on Yahoo! and sites of the like, they cater to celebrity gossip. But in an article like that, I would think the author has some interest in actual film, and would at least give the writer some credit. "Oh, but he doesn't have any other tags, so why does it matter?" You have to start some time.
This makes me mad.
12.30.2008
Another Instance of: Writers Getting Shafted
12.29.2008
Review: Valkyrie
'Valkyrie' is a movie that succeeds in every aspect that it possibly can: The only problem is that, being influenced by history, we know that our protagonist is going to fail. The rush of this film is watching our hero rise, and the delusions that overcome him until the final minutes of the film.
Say what you want about Tom Cruise's personal life--he is a gifted actor. In 'Valkyrie,' he plays Colonel Stauffenberg, a man severely wounded fighting for the Nazis, who realizes that one can either fight for the Nazis or Sacred Germany, not both. Being a part of the Nazi regime is the opposite of being patriotic for Germany. Stauffenberg joins up with a group of rebels against Hitler, and they have a plan to turn Hitler's safety net, his Operation Valkyrie (which is a reserve army that responds only in the event of his death), against him by changing their orders to take Berlin. The steps are meticulous and it is in these small details that we see how history could have been changed so drastically if the smallest event did not go through. Or did.
I dislike when people shrug off a film as 'not being historically accurate.' No film based on a real event is perfectly accurate. Even if it portrays the events on screen flawlessly, what the film leaves out still does the truth injustice. The only films that are obligated to convey all the information are documentaries--everything else is for entertainment.
Valkyrie is a first-rate thriller confined to the realm of a failed assassination attempt. There are key players in this scheme against Hitler, but Tom Cruise overshadows them all with his eye patch and seven missing fingers. He commands the film just as he commands the men around him. He is promoted at one point in the film. He must find a replacement, and the first thing he tells his tentative replacement is that the picture of Hitler in his office will be un-hung and the man himself will be hung. Any loyal Nazi would report Stauffenberg immediately. The hesitation, and ultimate loyalty the new recruit has to Stauffenberg shows both the restlessness of the German people against Hitler, as well as the psychological hold one man can have. People see that Stauffenberg has given significant parts of his well-being for Hitler, and they see that he regrets it. It is an inspiration.
The film pairs director Bryan Singer (X-Men, X2, Superman Returns) with his writer Christopher McQuarrie from 'The Usual Suspects,' which was another gripping thriller. These two certainly do know how to tell a compelling story. As I said, we know Hitler lives to fight another day, but the film is to taut that we can taste Stauffenberg's success. And it is much more bitter when he crumbles and ultimately fails.
There are some flaws to the film: the situation with Stauffenberg's family and wife are brushed over quickly. It is stuck in the middle ground, because too much of them would have slowed the pace of the film. A little less may have benefited, because as is, I felt no attachment to them. Then again, the tragedy of Stauffenberg's family is not the heart of the story. It is not about one man's struggle, but about the struggle of a nation split in two.
Rating: 6/7
12.27.2008
Harold Pinter is Dead
This post is a late tidbit of news, and the fact that I just saw it is kind of embarrassing. Harold Pinter died on Wednesday.
It seems that more and more posts on my blog are about deaths, which is a shame, because I only post about the deaths of people I admire or care about.
Pinter has a list of accomplishments longer than pretty much any writer of the last century. He won the Nobel Prize in Literature. He wrote over a couple dozen plays, as well as numerous screenplays. A lot of his work was great. I studied his play 'The Birthday Party' during college and had never been more confused, yet at the same time, desperate to conquer the material. You guys should read it so we can talk about it.
So it goes.
12.24.2008
Coming Soon: Spider-Man 2 vs. The Dark Knight
On a forum I regularly visit, someone created a topic asking which is better: 'Spider-Man 2' or 'The Dark Knight.' I seemed to be the only one defending Spidey. I mean, it's not people saying Batman is a better hero or that one movie is simply better, but it's people completely bashing all of the Spider-man movies, the Spider-man character, and saying Batman is just infinitely more cool.
This is untrue. From a technical perspective, sure, 'The Dark Knight' may be a better film, but I'm willing to argue that the second Spidey film is superior to The Dark Knight. Yeah. I said it. Watch me.
In order to prepare I'm going to watch each of them again over the next few days. Though I've seen Spidey 2 at least four times and The Dark Knight twice in theaters, I feel to judge accurately I need to refresh my memory.
Stay tuned.
Synecdoche, New York
I am going to attempt to do the impossible: Write a review of a movie I've read much about without being influenced by outsider opinions.
'Synecdoche, New York' is a new film written by Charlie Kaufman (also directing for the first time), the writer behind 'Adaptation.,' 'Being John Malkovich,' and 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.' If you've seen any of those movies, you know the plot premise is far from normal -- and even if it was 'normal,' it would be told so extraordinarily that it's near impossible to understand.
The plot to this film is basic: Caden is a playwright who is fed up of his work and aims to portray life and death and loss, but with each person in a starring role. No one will be a secondary character -- like in the 'real world.' To do that, he creates a scale replica of New York in a warehouse, and in that warehouse/play he has someone play him, and someone play his lover, and in that, those actors hire actors to play them, etc. etc. etc. But the film aims much deeper than a play about life within a play.
Caden is played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, who is truly a gifted actor. You only have to glance at his IMDb page to see how many great movies he's been in and roles he has played. Here is another one.
I can't believe this is relevant, but today I was watching Bravo and a commercial for Flipping Out came on, and Jeff Lewis was firing a man because their work environment was dysfunctional and the man being fired was too normal (or, not dysfunctional enough). Synecdoche revolves around the lives of people close to Caden and their dysfunctional behaviors. There is his (ex-)wife Adele who becomes a lesbian and leaves him to pursue an art career, his first daughter Olive, who seems to end up more disproportionate to reality than anyone else. Caden also has a slew of women in his life who mean different things to him. To explain his relations to them, or how things turn out for them, or why, would do nothing but cheapen the effect of the film and the subtlety is works with. So, I will not.
The play being developed is an experiment that, at the last given number, is 17 years in progress. By the end of the film I would guess it's about 35. Many people come and die, and we feel all of these losses through Caden, because it seems loss is the only emotion he really knows. He tries to create and to escape and to be a good father, but nothing in his whole life ever works out for him -- and he seems to accept that. It's sad.
I mentioned a person getting fired for being too functional. In this film it would be Claire (Michelle Williams), an actor from his original real-world play (a 'play' in traditional standards). She follows him to this replication, humors him, loves him, has a kid with him, but she sees everything clearly. She is the last tie between Caden and us, the real world. She gets that this whole thing is theater, while all the other actors take it as their new life. She leaves Caden to pursue acting in a traditional sense. She can't deal with Caden's obsession. When Claire gives up on Caden's project 2/3 through the film, it seems that this is the point of no return. Us, the audience, either join Claire and storm off the life-size apartment set, or we stay to see if Caden finally finds his truth. Thirty minutes into the film I would have followed Claire (two people in my theater actually did walk out), but by that point, I was drawn in. As ridiculous as all of this sounds, there is a truth in how its presentation. And is that not what great art does? It presents truths to us in new ways which we have not thought of, or in means we can learn from.
I need to see this film a second time. I know my opinion will change of the film. How much, I am not sure. What I do know, though, is that this film has an effect not immediately after you leave the theater, but when you're thinking about it a day later. And I don't remember the whole movie or it's plot or many particular scenes, but I do remember how it made me feel. I'll leave it up to you to determine how you feel, because telling you my feelings would only cheapen yours.
12.14.2008
A Thing About Actors
I was browsing the IMDb page for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and the top user comment begins like this:
When I first heard that Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett's new film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was destined to join the "sweepers" at the 2009 Oscars....
People are clueless. A film does not belong to actors. Actors are a part of the process of making a film, but if a film belongs to anyone, it would either be the Director, the Producers, or the Writer.
I understand that actors make the money. When was the last time a Will Smith movie didn't make 9 figures? Writers are behind the scenes to most of the public because most of the public doesn't care who writes the movie. Because of this, writers are replaced on whims and treated poorly in Hollywood. Which is a shame, because they, in a sense, own the movie. They conceive it and nurture it from the beginning, figure the whole mess out, make it coherent and interesting, and then sell it. Then, the director makes it look good and the actors give the material a little interpretation and the editors fix pacing issues... etc. But again, most people don't think of this.
I am reminded of two lines from two great film.
The first is from All About Eve. Tension arises in the film and Margo Channing (a top theater actress) argues with Lloyd Richards (a top theater writer). The basic argument is that Margo gives the boring play life, but Lloyd says what she does to it ruins it (at this point Eve is surfacing as a great actress). Lloyd says, "There comes a time that a piano realizes that it has not written a concerto." Ah, yes. Very true. The actors have not written their material--they are just reading someone's work. They are tools. As Hitchcock said, they should be treated like cattle.
The second, and slightly more humorous, is from Shakespeare in Love. Geoffrey Rush's character is asked who William Shakespeare is, and Geoff says something like, "Nobody, he's the writer." Hence, what I said earlier.
/end rant
12.13.2008
Nastia!
Yahoo! is my homepage, and they frequently link to their awful stories. The one on the main page today was of Nastia Liukin and one of her recent fashion decisions. Here it is:
Yikes. Yikes, yikes, yikes, yikes, yikes.
I mean, the outfit itself: bad, but could be worse. But look at her. She looks like she's 40. What the hell is up with that? She's 19. So that means, now, after I marry her, not only do I have to educate her in movies (her website says her favorites are 27 Dresses, The Holiday, and Kung Fu Panda -- gag), but dress her as well. This is starting to sound more like a parenting job, and I may need to reconsider.
Boredom
Well, right now I'm bored, but there has been a lack of updates lately because I've been busy. Sorry!
Some recent views:
Wall Street - Good movie, and it just became available on Netflix again (why was it out for a while?). Sure, it's on TV all the time, but I refuse to watch movies for the first time with commercials and edits. Artistic integrity, anyone?
March of the Penguins - I'm not one for documentaries, but this movie is fantastic and perfect. And sad. There are some really sad parts. I want a pet penguins.
I really want to see Slumdog Millionaire, Rachel Getting Married, Milk, and Frost/Nixon, but the town I'm in sucks and doesn't have any of them. Limited releases irritate me.
12.04.2008
'Equilibrium'
I will admit that before today I had not seen the movie 'Equilibrium.' I finally Netflix'd it and watched it, and have two comments:
Firstly, all the gun-ninja stuff is badass. At first glimpse of Christian Bale going into the room and killing all of the people, I noticed it was jumpy--which is the point. The explanation of how, in that world, all gunfire patterns will be predictable and can be avoided with carefully timed movements is ingenious. Mildly implausible, but creative nonetheless. I also liked the scene when Christian Bale kept getting attacked by the automatic rifle and kept hitting it to the side to avoid being shot (scene with the puppy, I believe). Very cool choreography.
Secondly, the ending: not a big fan. Since this was loosely based on '1984' (not legally, but it seems that way), and '1984' has far from a happy ending, I was expecting the same. Also, anyone who knows me knows I love a downer ending. I don't particularly 'buy' the fact Christian Bale's character can infiltrate the system and stage that whole overthrow. Wouldn't "Father" have anticipated Bale's character would come with loaded weapons? How would this be overlooked? And since he was planning on the rebels infiltrating the Clerics, wouldn't have have a countermeasure prepared as well? I know people like to see 'The Man' being overthrown, but in a movie like this, that ending came too quickly and in an unjustified manner.
The ending should have either been a small victory for Bale's character toward his cause, or a larger victory after Bale's sacrifice--trying to achieve both was aiming too high, and the last 20 minutes fell flat.
The Office = Best
Who else watched tonight's episode of The Office (The Surplus)? best episode in a long time? Sure, it didn't have as much of my beloved Kelly Kapoor as I like, but it was grand.
The ending with Jim having Pam make his copies was golden. As was the running gag of Andy stepping in manure. Even indoors. Great episode, available on NBC's site shortly.
Posts
