The Gran and The Grandeur

As is true of just about any class that deals with film studies, it is almost inevitable that some discussion of Citizen Kane will arise at some point. Earlier this semester, we looked at a few example of montage from the film, but the reading for this week hopefully gave you some insight into just why it is that Kane is hailed by so many as the greatest film ever made. I don't necessarily subscribe to that view. After all, it's rather like being asked which of your children is your favorite.

I recall the first time that I watched it, probably more than a decade ago, when I was still figuring out what made great films great. I'm still figuring that out of course, and will be for the rest of my viewing days. But at the time, still in the phase of cutting teeth on the classics, I could not appreciate what made this picture so revered. It isn't a particularly engaging story in some respects. It's dark for one. It's all about a man who is dead and seemed to have very little happiness in his life. Not exactly uplifting stuff. And it isn't a comedy. Not much action to speak of. So what gives?

Well, it wasn't until years later when a special edition DVD was released and I returned to it in order to take a closer look that I got it. I had since watched a lot of other things, which to me is the most important method for learning about film, and by that time I had a better idea of what to look for. That combined with the commentary tracks and slew of other special features pointing out all the details that normally wash over audiences during viewing, gave me new insight. If you can't afford film school, or don't have the time, this is the next best way to learn all about this art form. I should know, because my formal training in this area is quite limited.

Hopefully, the reading for this week, combined with some of the scenes we will be viewing will give you a better sense of where Kane falls for you in the film lexicon. For me it is an astounding achievement of narrative structure, cinematography and mise-en-scene. These are three things we will be talking more about in class as we look at selected scenes. But I challenge you at some point, perhaps after the semester is over, or down the road a year or more, find a copy and view it. Preferably, look for a screening a the Dryden Theater, or some other revival movie house. At the very least, rent the DVD, or better yet, buy that special edition set that I mentioned (really, I don't get a commission, but it's well worth it), and go through it a few times to experience the film and listen to the commentaries. Decide for yourself where it ranks in film history.

On to some more contemporary viewing, I made it to a movie theater for the first time in a long time this weekend for a showing of Clint Eastwood's latest, Gran Torino. There are newer things out, but I had been intrigued by this one for a while, and it was one that both my wife and I could agree on (always an important deciding factor).  I have always found Clint Eastwood to be interesting, both as an actor and as a filmmaker. As an actor, I don't think he gets enough credit for the depth and nuance that he brings to roles. He has been throughout his career, more than just a western or action star. Even in his early work, it was more what was not said at times that left an impression than the lines that he delivered. That is not easy to do.

His interest in directing has fueled some very interesting films that without his support, might never have gotten made. I always go back to the 1988 film Bird, which he directed, about the life of talented but trouble bebop saxophonist Charlie Parker. This film marked a real departure from the roles we know him for on the screen as the man without a name or Dirty Harry. It showed his range and a different sensibility than we have become used to.

So with Gran Torino, my expectations were high. I can't say that they were all fulfilled, but as usual, Eastwood provides a compelling story, in this case, from both behind and in front of the camera. I thought the screenplay at times was lacking, with dialogue feeling stilted at points, though perhaps as much due to the acting from supporting cast as the writing itself. Even Eastwood's performance at times felt a bit forced and uneven, but there were several scenes where his true grit as a veteran of the screen shined through. I couldn't help but pump my fist a bit each time that tough guy emerged to put someone in their place. And I thought the ending was a rather stunning choice, though not entirely unexpected. I think the overall message of change and acceptance, the ability to adapt, and at times stand up for an unwavering principle all rang true in the film. My main criticism lies in the casting. Clearly, aside from Eastwood and a couple of other bit players, the lion's share of the story is carried by actor's with little or no experience. That is not to say that this is not at times an effective way to achieve a greater realism. It has been done many times by both renowned and unknown filmmakers. But it's a delicate balance, and it takes the right sort of story to do it. It's not a particularly interesting film visually, so what I was left with was another opportunity to witness why Clint Eastwood is still one of today's greatest film stars. And who knows how many more opportunities we will have to witness that. 

 

Fishing the Depths for a Bit of Gore

I don't know if I have shared it at all, but I have a bit of what you might call, eclectic tastes. I love music of all kinds, from classic jazz to classic rock. I love foods of all different kinds from sushi to arroz con habichuelas. And so it shouldn't really come as a surprise that in the span of a week I could enjoy a dark romantic comedy directed by Terry Gilliam as well as a pair of Roger Corman gore flicks and throw in a politically subversive satire/mockumentary from Tim Robbins.


First, was Bob Roberts, which not only starred Tim Robbins as a right-wing, folk singing, senatorial candidate, but was written and directed by him as well. As a satire, it was fairly astute in its approach, though I think the mockumentary device has been sorely overused. Don't get me wrong, I love This Is Spinal Tap, and have enjoyed some of Christopher Guest's other work, but much of the rest has just felt like a cheap imitation. Even some of Guest's own work feels like a poor substitute for his early triumphs. Of course, Guest was not the first to attempt this mode of comedy. Albert Brooks did it before Spinal Tap with Real Life, the 1979 spoof of the PBS series An American Family, a disturbing precursor to reality TV that brought audiences inside the home of the Loud Family (yes their name really was Loud). Bob Roberts does seem to work about as well as any of these other films works, drawing out characters through interviews, public appearances and best of all, the corny, troubador style stage performances. Since the character's folk singing is part of the schtick, plenty of time is spent working up some really incendiary conservative talking points into gleeful sing alongs. Depending on your own political bent, I could imagine it being either frighteningly accurate or insultingly oversimplified, or I suppose for some, well, music to one's ears. I found the commentary embedded within the lyrics to be fairly on point, even 17 years after its release.


On to Roger Corman, which, if I have a guilty pleasure, might as well be stuff of this ilk. I got a double feature which inlcluded the rather brief, and twisted, horror flick A Bucket of Blood, and the slightly more polished Bloody Mama. I say slightly more polished, because though I would say the second has significantly better production values and acting, it's always a relative term with any Corman production. To date, he has directed 55 films and produced nearly 400, and has been quoted as saying that the most important aspect of making a film is to turn a profit, or something to that effect. That's not to say that he doesn't want to make entertaining films. He has certainly succeeded in that, producing some truly unforgettable film moments. But to Corman, there is no point in spending loads of money on effects or any other aspect of the production when these costs cannot be recouped. Nonetheless, he always manages to do something interesting with limited resources. Notable in Bloody Mama is a young Robert De Niro, a sinister Bruce Dern and the mama herself, Shelley Winters. If you haven't seen anything by Corman, you should see at least one of his films. I suggest Death Race 2000, with a post Kung Fu David Carradine and a pre Rocky Sylvester Stallone, before he was a star. He didn't direct this one, but he produced it, and it definitely has his sensibilities written all over it. Another good bet is any one of the several Edgar Allen Poe adaptations he directed, with Vincent Price as the star, including a semi-comedic stab at The Raven, complete with a fully coifed Jack Nicholson and Peter Lorre as a part-time raven.


Last, I saw The Fisher King, which was not what I would say is one of Terry Gilliam's best films, though still worth going back to check out. It's one of those films that unless you are a big fan of Gilliam's work, you might overlook. Personally, I think aside from the inimitable humor of his Monty Python days, his best work as a director is clearly the trilogy which included Time Bandits, Brazil and The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen. This film includes much of the imaginitive look and fantasy of those films, but with a more conventional storyline. Don't be fooled by the oversimplified description of a dark romantic comedy. That doesn't begin to describe it. At times, it feels more like a psychotic episode, with good reason. Robin Williams plays a character haunted by paranoid delusions and Gilliam does a phenomenal job of bringing the audience into his world. Jeff Bridges turns in an equally compelling performance, with ample support from Mercedes Rhuel, Amanda Plummer and a cadre of crazies and bums, none of which disappoint.

Pure Savagery, Pure Beauty

Just watched The Savages the other day, with local boy done good Philip Seymour Hoffman and also the very talented Laura Linney. Hoffman by the way, though a great actor, always seems to be an asshole in every interview I've heard with him, included one my wife did through a satellite uplink. And is it in his contract to be about fifty pounds overweight and dumpy looking in every role he does (with the possible exception of Capote)?

But I digress. The Savages is intriguing just by the very title, which makes you wonder immediately, is this an ironic title, or is this a film about uncivillized knuckledraggers. Fortunately, it's the former. The thing that immediately grabbed me about the film is the look that is created, first in the quasi idyllic, or more accurately, sterile environs of the Arizona retirement community where the story begins. There are the rows of identical shrubs and trees that line the streets and the manicured ranch homes painted in pastel colors, enhanced by this golden light that everything is bathed in. And of course there is the time warp culture created for the benefit of the residents to make them feel at home with the music and entertainment from their own era. One of those residents, played brilliantly by Philip Bosco, finds himself in a crisis, with no family to care for him, and a breakdown of mental faculties. Enter his two estranged offspring, played by Linney and Hoffman, who reside across the country on either side of New York State.

The filmmakers play up the contrast of the first loaction with the dreary, cold and rather melancholy surroundings of Buffalo (yes that Buffalo). Not wanting to deal with their father, or each other for that matter, the two siblings bicker over what to do, finally settling on a rather depressing, low rent nursing home. Through the experience, they end up dealing with their own relationship, and making peace with the past. But it isn't one of those easy, feel good stories about redemption, tidying up each loose end in a neat bow. It takes the approach of realism, and there is nothing tidy about that.

I appreciate that position considering the way Hollywood loves to shove artificially sweetened storylines down our throats week after week. It brings me to The Kite Runner, which I had mentioned previously, but hadn't gotten around to actually writing about. I actually enjoyed the film for the most part, and I don't want to completely detract from it. For the first hour and a half or so, it worked quite well. It was a compelling story with interesting characters and did not betray its mission of portraying culture in Afghanistan in a realistic way. But then the disease got ahold of them and they ended up turning to some Hallmark tactics to wrap that bow up neatly.

This is where so many Hollywood movies lose me. They feel like the audience needs to be spoonfed. Like we somehow cannot take a story where some things just don't work out like you would want them to and where not every story line is satisfied. Afghanistan is a pretty terrible place to be right now. There aren't too many good stories coming out of there. So why sugar coat it and try to have me believe that the human spirit can rise above these circumstances? No it can't. Not there. Not now. So when the music begins to swell and the tears are rolling down the cheeks of other movie goers, my eyes are rolling. Give me a break. Don't insult my intelligence by trying to tell me that you can negotiate with terrorists, or that they have a heart somewhere deep down, or that you can outsmart them and escape certain death with a little determination. Not only does it make me lose interest in the implausible circumstances that are unfolding, but it cheapens what was otherwise a really well made film.

I listened to the commentary, just out of curiosity about what the filmmakers had to say about it. They spent a lot of time talking about the struggle they had with deciding whether or not to have the characters speak their native tongues as opposed to English. I have heard this many times recently and it puzzles me. Do filmmakers and studio execs really believe that people are incapable or unwilling to read subtitles in order to see a great story unfold onscreen? True there are those people out there, but this film is not for them. It's for people who like to use their brains for thinking about more complex things than what to order from the value meal. It seems to be an epidemic lately. Well, this is one viewer who is standing up and saying for the love of God, just give me a good story, no matter what language it's in.

Give 'Em A Break!

It's odd the things that pop up on Google images when you do a search. The above picture is relevant for most I'm sure when thinking of spring break. But since I just typed in "break", I also got this disgusting picture of testing newly made cheese for firmness.



I felt it was important to add that disclaimer, or you might think it's something else far less savory. I know I did.

So, whether you plan on being somewhere warm and sunny, making cheese, or somewhere in between, I'm sure there is a bit of relief that you get a week away from classes, if not in mind, at least in body. I know we have covered a lot up to this point in the semester, and you're probably all a little tired of me getting on your asses about treatments and blog entries and all the rest, but now that your have your first project under your belts, I hope that you are at least starting to feel the payoff.

Making movies, no matter how long or short, now matter how big of a blockbuster, or small and simple they might be, it's hard work. I think you're finding that out. But if you put in the time to learn the fundamentals and a little bit about the history and the theories behind why films today look the way they do, you'll be better filmmakers.

I must say that I'm really pleased with the work that you guys are all putting in this semester. I know it isn't all fun and games and maybe you question some of the things we have spent time on, but there is a method to my madness. And I can see that you are all beginning to get it. Keep up the good work I think you will not be disappointed at the results. Have a great break!

Running Down the Screen

This week being what it was, I'm sure everyone was swamped with finishing their documentary projects, so you may not have gotten to look at the reading. If you didn't, you'll want to return to it this week. There will be no assigned readings, since spring break is next week, but when you get back, you'll need to have finished your screenplay and storyboards (which we will be getting more into this week), so this reading will be helpful in further getting down the screenplay format and just understanding how one is put together. As I said before, this isn't a screenwriting class, so I'm not that concerned with sticking to the specific format, but it's good to get in the habit of using some of the techniques employed in the examples we've looked at to lay out your thoughts. I think Syd Field does a good job of laying out just what the function of the screenplay is as well as a sense of the language that is used. Since you are directing your own screenplays, it will be easy for you to understand how to shoot it, but it should also be clear to someone else reading it, namely me, what is happening in the story.

I'm looking forward to seeing what you all came up with for the first project as well as the rest of the work we'll be doing this semester. I happened to catch an interesting little independent film called The Station Agent this week. It seemed to slip through the cracks a bit. I had never heard of it, but it sounded intriguing. It stars Peter Dinklage, who is a dwarf, and has many height centric plot lines to his credit, this one included. He is actually quite recognizable, and likely you have seen him in something along the way. 

The movie does deal quite a bit with his short stature and the inevitable attention that comes with it, especially in a small town, but it probes deeper than that at human relationships that are non-sexual, which is surprisingly hard to do these days it seems. It is understated in so many ways, that it often seems to be wandering, but there is a purpose in the plot line. I always find it interesting to listen to at least a little bit of the commentary on these indies, especially for the talk of production. They are always made for such little money and in such a short time, that it is rather amazing when they look as good as they do, and that they get seen at all. It's inspiring though to hear about the work that is put into making it happen from the standpoint of someone who is into making films. It gives us all hope that it can be done without the benefit of a big studio's backing or a lot of high profile stars, or even much of a crew. 

I have also been watching The Kite Runner, which I had planned to write about, but I keep getting interrupted before I can finish it, so I'll write about that one in a future post.

Films About Shoes

I just checked out an interesting little Iranian Film from the last millenium (1997), called Bacheha-Ye aseman (Children Of Heaven). I always tend to enjoy foreign films, though it can be a challenge that I find it necessary to be in the right frame of mind for. There is always the issue of reading subtitles, which is distracting from following the visual action of the film, but then there are the cultural aspects that cannot be translated easily, which require some effort on the part of the audience to understand. I have always found that film is nothing if it does not edify its audience in some way, however small. I think that the best films leave you with questions and curiosity about the subject matter, to the point where you might even get on the internet or pick up a book and research more about it. So to me, it is worth the effort.

This film contained some of these references in small ways, but really was fairly universal. It told the story of a young boy who is running errands and accidentally loses his sisters newly repaired shoes. He does not want to tell his parents, for fear of punishment, and also due to the knowledge that his father does not have the money to buy new ones. So he works out a system with  his sister whereby they share the shoes. She takes them to school in the morning and then runs to bring them to him while he waits in slippers so that he can wear them to his classes in the afternoon. This little arrangement quickly becomes untenable, leaving them both in one sort of trouble or another. And so the two spend the rest of the film trying to find a way to get her shoes back, or find a way to replace them.

It's an unusual, but very engaging film, because it takes such a basic thing that most of us take for granted, such as the shoes that are on our feet, and spins it out into an 83 minute narrative. But it could just as easily be a short film, taken up from a multitude of different points. It actually reminded me of another film that I saw years ago on POV (a must see documentary series on PBS). It was a short that, as I recall, appeared at the end of the broadcast, in which a boy missing one leg from a land mine accident is shopping for shoes with his mother. A man comes into the store, also with one leg, but missing the opposite leg. He overhears how disappointed the boy is that he cannot have the pair of shoes that he wants because his mother cannot afford them. So he offers to take the other shoe for his foot and split the cost so that the boy can have the shoe he wants. The boy happily puts the shoe on, they pay and leave the store. He thanks the man and they go their separate ways and once the boy is out of sight, the man sits down to take the shoe off, which as it is now clear, was way too small for him, and it becomes apparent in that moment that he bought the shoe not for himself, but for this boy that he did not know, but perhaps saw some of himself in. It's a great little story, which starts with a great, but very simple idea. And in that short span of time that it takes for the story to unfold, it says so much without having to take the time to develop it more fully.

This is the key to making a short film really work is to have an idea of something that can be communicated quickly, without a lot of exposition or development, but that is not predictable. It is important that everything unfolds quickly. I think that the most common mistake that can be made when just starting out. It's easy to get caught up in some elaborate plot with all kinds of characters and locations, but is it realistic to do it in 5 minutes? Remember, you're not making a full length feature, so the scope must be limited. But that does not mean that the impact of the story has to be limited. No matter how short or long a film is, it is all about the effort that you put into it at each stage of the process that will make it succeed or fail.

That is not to say that we cannot learn from a feature like Children Of Heaven, and even find ways to adapt the story to a condensed format. Take any film and break it down into scenes. There are so many great scenes that we remember from films that we have watched. Rarely do we remember all the details within the film, or even the entire plot, but there likely are certain scenes that stick out. We might even know all the lines for that scene. And so that is what you must do in developing your stories, is to find that vignette of a larger story and try to tell it in a concise, yet evocative way.