Old versus New

Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck in Roman Holiday

A while ago I had a long debate with a friend of mine on the importance of old movies. My friend, a terrific movie watcher and all-around good guy, was under the impression that old movies were virtually irrelevant at this point. Obviously special effects and graphics of today blow away the most advanced movies of 20 years ago, let alone the 1940s. My friend, lets call him Joe, went farther than that however, claiming all aspects of movie making were more sophisticated now. Screenwriting, acting, cinematography. Modern directors have learned from their predecessors and are now building on top of if. That is not to say that Joe thinks all new movies are great and all old movies are crap. He just feels that a good new movie tops a good old movie any day, and doesn't understand the fuss about all the classics. I have several other friends, movie lovers even, whose film watching repertoire is nearly complete among the new releases section, but develops giant gaps the farther back in time we go.

I hold a different view point. I love old films. Sometimes, I'll admit the label of classic can be misleading. If Roman Holiday were released today, it would star Julia Roberts or Rachel McAdams instead of Audrey Hepburn, and be rightly lambasted as pure escapism. Many Marilyn Monroe movies are downright sexist, and I even find (gasp) Casablanca to be a bit tedious. Just because they were great at the time does not mean they remain great now. I still enjoy watching these, mainly because I have some historian in me. Even though the original telephone cannot compare to an iphone in terms of utility and elegance, it would still be cool to use one. But I understand that argument does not apply to everyone. I love watching the truly great old movies for a very simple reason. They stood the test of time.

Christopher Nolan's Inception is a terrific movie. It is exciting, subversive, thoughtful, complex, event and character driven, philosophical while still being escapism. Yet as of right now, Inception has appealed to exactly one audience in time. The 2010 movie going audience. In 2040 will people still be wowed by the craftsmanship that went into Inception? I think so, but I also think Avatar, despite being a best picture nominee an the highest grossing film of all-time, will fade into history as at best, nothing more than a landmark for special effects. 

Joseph Gordon-Levitt in Inception

Then you have movies like The African Queen, Adam's Rib, or Citizen Kane. The Orson Welles' masterpiece was created in 1941. It continues to capture the hearts of cinephiles now almost 70 years after it was released. If I had to bet, I would guess that movie watchers will still be wowed by Citizen Kane in 2040 and long after that. For me at least, that is the definition of a classic.

The Seventh Seal

There are a few timeless questions that philosophers have struggled with, regardless of what period of human history they lived in. Is there a God, and why are we here, come up over and over again in the works of the great thinkers. Ingmar Bergman almost certainly falls under the category of "great thinker" and his movies and screenplays reflect that. His most famous film, and maybe his most philosophical, is the 1957 black and white movie, The Seventh Seal.

The basic plot of the movie is very existential. A knight and his squire return to Sweden from the crusades with their faith destroyed by decades of holy war. The film opens on the shoreline of Sweden where the knight learns that Death is coming for him. In a desperate ploy for more time, Antonius Block challenges Death to a literal game of chess for his life. The longer he can hold off Death in the board game, the longer he has to remain among the living. As he travels across the 14th century swedish countryside that has been ravaged by the black plague, Block meets various characters who throw in with him on his journey.

This movie is essentially about a search for God. Block cannot believe that God might not exist, or even that He is absent while humans endure so much suffering. And so, Block relentlessly searches for a sign from Him. The knight's traveling companion, the surly, cynical, squire has no use for God anymore, but Block continues to search without hope, even as Death closes in.

Antonius Block is played by Max von Sydow in a career making performance. The noble and kind knight that is tormented by the lack of a creator. The pain he injects into Block is magnificent. Gunnar Bjornstrand is excellent as the faithful squire. He also provides much of the levity that makes the tremendous austerity of The Seventh Seal bearable. The beautiful Bibi Andersson, Bergman's frequent muse, also appears as an innocent wife and mother of a family that Block meets.

The image of Death playing chess is iconic and frequently parodied, but remains powerful. This movie offers questions, but supplies no real answer. In a tremendous monologue, Block offers the basic dilemma of the both the film, and its creator.

"Is it so terribly inconceivable to comprehend God with one's senses? Why does He hide in a cloud of half-promises and unseen miracles? How can we believe in the faithful when we lack faith? What will happen to us who want to believe but can not? What about those who neither want to nor can believe? Why can't I kill God in me? Why does He live on in me in a humiliating way -- despite my wanting to evict Him from my heart? Why is He, despite all, a mocking reality I can't be rid of."

27/30 

RA Profile: Pixar

In a corner of the unsuccessful computer hardware company Steve Jobs purchased from an offshoot of a visual effects company, John Lasseter decided to render a short 3D animated film. It turned out to be pretty good. So the group made a few more, and started getting noticed a bit. After that, the fledgling studio was commissioned to make advertisements, and eventually struck a deal with Disney to create a feature film — and from there it was “to infinity and beyond!”

Pixar Animation Studios is extraordinary for many reasons, not least of which is that they revolutionized the medium of film. Next time you check what movies are playing at your local cineplex, count how many of the animated films are 2D. Now compare that to the number of 2D films being released pre-1995, the year that Pixar’s groundbreaking Toy Story was released, the first ever feature-length 3D animated film. (When I say 3D, I mean the “computer graphics using a three-dimensional representation of data” sort, not the “images poking out of the screen with silly plastic glasses” sort.) Some might complain that 3D animation led to the virtual demise of traditional animation. This is certainly unfortunate, but it is an indirect consequence of Pixar’s tremendous success. After all, a studio releasing one movie every 1-2 years could not singlehandedly replace an entire filmmaking technique. The fact of the matter is that Pixar, like all those who develop something inventive and successful, is constantly being imitated. In Toy Story’s wake, Disney, Dreamworks, and other groups soon abandoned 2D and all jumped on the 3D bandwagon, producing gems (Shrek) and flops alike (Everyone's Hero). Pixar is responsible for the advent of the all-computer generated movie, and even live-action films frequently rely on software that Pixar in its early years developed and pioneered for CGI that we now take for granted. The fact that a screenwriter can now write any incredible scene into a script knowing that it is possible to bring it to life on screen is Pixar’s legacy; the use of CGI they proved possible was a revolution in cinema to go down in history along with the transitions to sound in the 20s and to color through the 40s and 50s.

Directors, producers, and writers have often been called auteurs, but Pixar stands practically alone as a company, rather than a person, that has earned that distinction. The wildly successful animation studio is in a league of its own in this regard. Sure, other studios became associated with certain styles: MGM was known for its musicals, Universal had its monster flicks, and even Pixar’s parent company, Disney, is practically synonymous with watered-down worldwide folklore portrayed with cel-animation. But none of these studios have reached the identifiable visual style, originality, painstaking care in storytelling, and consistent financial and critical success that Pixar achieves with each film released bearing its trademark. This is why Pixar has retained its identity as a separate entity from Disney, and it is part of what makes the studio unique. The name-recognition draw that most popular movies enjoy comes from their directors or actors. But to say that 2007’s Ratatouille was a Pixar film was enough to ensure that people of all ages wanted to watch it; such is the reputation that the studio has and deserves. So far Pixar has earned twenty-four Academy Awards and six Golden Globes. It has won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature for five of the seven years since the award was introduced, and one film, Up, was nominated for Best Picture.

With its latest release, Toy Story 3, Pixar has yet again proved its ability to combine a clever, heartfelt, and entertaining story with stunning visual artistry. It takes its place next to ten earlier films, virtually all of them good, several of them great, and a few of them truly exceptional. Just a few of my favorites:

Toy Story – The film that put Pixar on the map was not only a landmark in computer graphics technology, it was also warm and original story, with a cast of characters colorful enough to inspire two excellent sequels. It was also a fond part of this writer’s childhood. Who among my generation didn’t wonder what sort of crazy hi-jinks our toys got up to when we left the room?

27/30

Monsters, Inc. – Pixar’s fourth film was reaffirming, proving that Pixar’s desire to return to an old set of characters with the preceding Toy Story 2 was just that — a desire, not a necessity. In fact I would venture to say that this is their most original movie to date. Screams are an important energy source for affable monsters that must enter through our closet doors from their parallel universe — the sheer amount of fresh ideas in this movie just make me want to burst out into applause.

24/30

Finding Nemo – It isn’t hard to see why Finding Nemo is currently Pixar’s most commercially successful film. Here again, beautiful, practically photorealistic imagery (heaving ocean waves, breaching whales, a breathtaking coral reef) is matched only by the perfect flow of the narrative. There are no surplus or lacking scenes, and all the action leads organically to a completely satisfying resolution. The lesson is present, but unforced and appears as a natural aspect of the plot. Fun fact: this was the movie that started my computer animator dream job phase.

29/30

Up – Pixar should win an award for Greatest Number of Times Outdoing Oneself. This time around, the studio pulled heartstrings in the first ten minutes, with a silent and poignant montage prologue telling a man’s entire life story, before jumping full-tilt into a rollicking and humorous tale – a sort of homage to 30s globetrotting adventure serials. Guaranteed to put a tear in your eye and then replace it with a grin.

28/30

Recommended Viewing:

Pixar Short Films DVD – In addition to compiling the deliciously witty short films that Pixar offers before the titles of each new feature, this recently released DVD also includes the studio’s earliest creations: Luxo Jr, the comical sketch that gave Pixar its desk lamp logo; Red’s Dream, a somber, emotionally driven piece; Tin Toy, the idea that eventually became the basis for Toy Story. My family discovered a VHS tape of these original shorts when I was yea high, and rented and rerented it. It’s truly been a pleasure as I grow older to watch Pixar grow older too.

Pixar shorts average rating: 26/30

The French Connection

Cop films can often be filled with cliches. It's rare to find a film that has the guts to explore what cops have to see and do on a daily basis in order to be "good" at their jobs. Most simply turn the cops into heros or villains and call it a day. William Friedkin's terse and gritty 1971 masterpiece, The French Connection, does much more (or much less depending on how you look at it) than that. 

The story is based in truth, and exceedingly simple. A French drug dealer is trying to sell a whole lot of illegal narcotics to a Brooklyn dealer. A pair of cops pick up the sent and the chase is on. On the surface level the film is fast-paced, exciting and has some terrific set-pieces. One chase scene in particular is ranked among the all-timers and makes the film worth-while all by itself. The character development is minimal thanks to the speed of the film. Only Gene Hackman's Popeye Doyle takes center stage.

Doyle and his partner, Detective Buddy Russo, played by Roy Scheider, are the two police officers who stumble across the drug deal thanks to Popeye's inability to take a night off. Popeye Doyle lives his job. His personal life is never shown because he has none. He defines himself as being a cop and because of that he needs to be a darn good one. For the most part he is a good cop. His hunches and relentless work rate get the police on the tale of what could become a huge drug bust that otherwise would have gone out without a hitch. It is so apparent that he is the driving force that even the criminals ID Doyle as their real problem without much prompting. We are also shown the flip side of that mentality though, as we see Doyle throw the law, and the safety of civilians and his fellow cops right out the window when it suits his needs.

Scheider is excellent as the partner Russo who is more of a typical "good" cop (Scheider was nominated for best supporting actor). Russo plays by the book, he thinks things through, he is loyal and capable. Yet, it is clear that Russo is along for the ride and would be nowhere without the bulldog that is Popeye Doyle.

The villain, charmingly played by Fernando Rey, is shown in many forms, including his home life where he is portrayed as a loving and kind husband. Of course he is also willing to kill if people get in his way. Yes there are cardboard cutout characters in The French Connection, but Friedkin did his best to blur the line. The collateral damage by Hackman is enough make anyone wonder by the end if it was worth it. And that brings me to the final scene of the movie. It is a frequently debated and controversial ending. I won't say much more about it, but you have to come up with your own thoughts, which I would be happy to discuss in an alternate forum.

The film took home 5 Oscars, including best picture, director, and the first best actor nod for Hackman who installs such an amoral ferocity in Doyle that he is both frightening and fascinating as the same time. Friedkin builds an amoral world around him, in which Doyle seems to move seamlessly. The French Connection tells of a reality where there are no absolutes and everything is grey. We have to decide for ourselves what kind of men we want policing that reality.

25/30

Quick Update

I know I just posted a news column, but there are some recent developments regarding The Hobbit, the new Bond film, and MGM studios which owns the rights to both. With MGM in an almost $4 billion dollar hole, The Hobbit (parts 1 and 2) is on life support, and it appears that the newest installment in the Bond series, which had Sam Mendes penciled in to direct, is officially dead. MGM has permanently stopped production on the movie. Obviously this is not the death of James Bond, but its going to be a while before we see another one, and Mendes probably won't be directing. Too bad.

Here is the link if you are interested.

All the News that's fit to type

Hello, and welcome to RA's news update. Lots of new things happening here. I'd like to extend a welcome to our newest writer, my kid brother Michael. Unlike myself, Michael is actually studying film, so instead of some random baseless opinions, you will be getting college educated baseless opinions. Much more desirable.

And now... the news.

News: Irishcentral.com has recently reported that bad boy Colin Farrell is Paramount Pictures' first choice to play rocker Ozzy Osborne in an upcoming biopic. LINK
RA's Take: As the article points out, Mr. Farrell is more than capable of passing for crazy. Portraying the bat-eating lead singer of Black Sabbath is just the next logical step. I, for one, am rooting for Farrell to get the part.


News: Collider has posted a Steve Carell press conference where he talks about voice-acting, the new animated film, Despicable Me, and his impending departure from The Office. LINK
RA's Take: The biggest news here is obviously The Office and when Carell removes Michael Scott from the equation, it's hard to imagine the show being nearly as good. I must confess however, to being within the group that thinks the show stopped being great a while ago and should take this a sign to call it quits.


News: Contrary to previous RA reports, it appears Andrew Garfield will be playing Peter Parker in the new Spider-Man reboot. Here is a rumor that Garfield will only make $500,000 dollars for the film. For comparison, Tobey Maguire made $4 million for  the 2002 version. LINK
RA's Take: While that certainly appears to be a low amount, the movie is rumored to have a fairly small budget, and Garfield is no Maguire. Garfield has appeared in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, and will be in the upcoming Facebook movie, The Social Network, but Spider-Man will make him a star if all goes to plan. Hence his acceptance of the low price tag.


News: We have here a link to an interview with Sir Ian McKellen discussing acting in the theater, and more importantly, the likelihood of playing Gandalf the Grey in The Hobbit. He is not under contract, and is not willing to wait endlessly for the film's numerous other delays to sort themselves out. He is not gone for sure, but the situation seems precarious. LINK
RA's Take: It is hard to blame McKellen for wanting to pursue other avenues for his career, but this announcement still comes at a bad time for a project that has been wracked with difficulties. I really hope that Peter Jackson can step in and sort this all out, but that appears to be increasingly less likely. I just can't picture anyone else playing Gandalf.

News: Cinematical has just published a long and in-depth review of Inception. This is probably the most anticipated film of the summer as director Christopher Nolan releases his first movie since the record-breaking, The Dark Night. LINK
RA's Take: Nolan is on a hot streak, and the rave reviews Inception is getting would seem to indicate he doesn't plan on slowing down anytime soon. I can not wait to see this movie.

A Serious Man

Watching new releases can be a disappointment. Meanwhile, there is a huge canon of cinematic classics that is within our grasp anytime we step foot in a video rental store, and the amount of great, let alone truly outstanding films that come out each year can in comparison seem very meager to we cinephiles. So it is always a real pleasure when a contemporary movie is so thoughtful, organic, and original that it can be instantly recognized as a modern classic. That's when you know what you have is a serious movie.

Joel and Ethan Coen's most recent output, A Serious Man, is a rare gem of cinema, in which these master storytellers weave together a combination of morbidly comic pathos, historical and cultural evocation, and complex religious, philosophical, and scientific ideas. There isn’t a scene that isn’t brilliant or that doesn’t work beautifully to tie in the Coens’ themes. At first glance the prologue and conclusion, which seem somewhat incongruous and abrupt respectively, give the movie a rather jarring quality, but on further reflection these scenes lend themselves very well to interpretation of the movie, for the very fact that they are so open-ended. The Coen Brothers writing and direction, is, per usual, impeccable. Michael Stuhlbarg, a relative unknown, is a solid pick for the bemused and exasperated main character, and Fred Melamed and Richard Kind both deliver hilarious supporting performances.

Someone is out to get mild-mannered physics professor Larry Gopnik (Stuhlbarg). Or at least it seems that way to him: his wife just left him for his best friend (Melamed), his children all but ignore him, his troubled brother (Kind) is living indefinitely on his couch, his neighbor is making territorial advances into his lawn, his principles are being tested by a disgruntled student's bribes, he’s been kicked out of his own house, bills for lawyers are beginning to add up, and someone is anonymously sending defamatory letters to the tenure board. And it only gets worse from there. Larry has “tried to be a serious man,” and finds himself at a loss to explain his predicament. He seeks out the advice of three rabbis to help him find answers to his questions. Why is this happening? Why to him? Is it God’s will? What is He trying to tell Larry?

If you are acquainted with the Bible, this story may look familiar to you; it is based on the Book of Job. Job, a good man, is subjected to a series of tests of his piety. Doggedly trusting in God’s righteousness despite losing his family, home, and health, Job seeks an explanation from God for his suffering. When the deity reveals himself in an incredible manner (doesn’t that enigmatic ending to the movie make much more sense now?), He proclaims his absolute sovereignty. God is unknowable and cannot be questioned.

This movie is about uncertainty. Confusing alternatives are presented and questions abound everywhere. Everything appears to be a matter of doubt, whether it be God’s will, the cryptic message on “the goy’s teeth,” or the life or death (or can it be both?) of Schrödinger’s cat. How are we to survive suffering without any answers? Is it worth struggling to be “a serious man” when we are faced with the incomprehensible, and the great Rabbi Marshak won’t even grant an audience? Fittingly, the movie never answers these questions… that’s the whole point.

“The Uncertainty Principle. It proves we can't ever really know... what's going on. So it shouldn't bother you. Not being able to figure anything out. Although you will be responsible for this on the mid-term!” —Larry Gopnik

27/30

Allow me to introduce myself

My name is Michael, and I am a man with opinions. Opinions about movies. And you lucky dogs get to hear them!

I'm Adam's brother - but don't let that give you the wrong idea, I'm actually quite sophisticated and intelligent. Seriously though, Adam and Ben have created an excellent blog which I've been following since its inception, and I'm happy to say that I'll be contributing now and then.

Although the scope of Adam's movie-watching résumé baffles even me, I know a bit about film myself, as I am currently studying it at school and hope to someday work in the medium. So I'll be posting some reviews and insights here, and I hope that you enjoy them!

12 Angry Men

So when I started this blog, I meant to have a fairly even mix of the old and the new. Recently we have been on a new release or in theater binge, so to switch things up, I thought I would review one of my all-time favorite movies... Sidney Lumet's first-ever film, the 1957 drama 12 Angry Men.

The film opens in a court house on a hot night, right before the jury deliberates on a murder trial. As you may have guessed from the title, it revolves around the twelve members of the jury. An all middle aged or older, all-male, all-white, all-middle class or up jury is about to decide on the fate of an 18 year-old boy who is clearly not white and not middle class. He is accused of stabbing his father to death and if found guilty, must be sent to the chair. After the judge reads the jury their instructions, the movie moves into the jury room and stays there for essentially the remainder of the film. Once inside, we quickly discover that the vast majority firmly believe the boy is guilty. One man, however, has his doubts.

The cast is spectacular. All twelve members of the jury are given ample dialogue and screen time to create full fledged characters, and the actors do not disappoint. None of them are cardboard cutouts. We are reminded many times over the course of the movie that these are all ordinary people with their own lives and experiences that they are bringing to bear on the evidence, and how that causes each of them to have their own unique viewpoint.

Henry Fonda as the lone dissenter, Juror #8, is terrific and brings a great deal of intelligence to the role. Lee J Cobb is equally charismatic as the "excitable" nemesis to Fonda, Juror #3. E.G. Marshall's coldly logical Juror #4 and Ed Begley's racist Juror #10 both deserve mention.

The filming of this movie would seemingly be simple. Sidney Lumet, making his first feature film, displays the ability he would show several times later on in his career as he places the viewer inside the jury room. While the film progresses, Lumet changes angles and uses close-ups to great effect, slowly constricting the room and increasing our claustrophobia. It is a masterful debut.

12 Angry Men is a simultaneously optimistic and pessimistic view of the American judicial system. It extolls all its virtues (including the idea of reasonable doubt), and it appears to be praising the ability of twelve ordinary people to come to a consensus. Unspoken however, are grave concerns. Racism is an ever present danger, and a jury is just a likely to have a Lee J Cobb as it is to have a Henry Fonda.

A must see.

27/30

Greenberg

What's that, boy?  Greenberg is playing at the Little Theater?  Let's go, quick! 

Greenberg is about a brief period in the life of Roger Greenberg, played wonderfully by Ben Stiller, a socially impaired man just about to turn 41.  Just released from a mental hospital (the reason for his stay is left tantalizingly unknown for the most part), Greenberg moves into his brother's house for a spell to set his life in order.  There he meets Florence (Greta Gerwig), a much younger personal assistant that he engages with in what can barely be called a relationship.

Greenberg's plot is dolled out slowly, but expertly, over the course of the movie.  Hints of Greenberg's past are alluded to at first, but the viewer do not fully understand the emotions driving him until well into the movie.  The immediate satisfaction derived from the film is the interactions between characters.  Far from what I expected, Greenberg is an extremely easy movie to watch.  It is filled with comedy, and cut almost like a Adam McKay film (Anchorman and Talladega Nights), with punchlines ending scenes with a bang and the audience's laughter transitioning Greenberg from one location to the next.

Stiller plays Greenberg fearlessly and unflinchingly; a nearly unlikable protagonist.  Stiller's charisma and the brilliant writing allow you to root for a main character who does everything possible to sabotage his relationship with the one woman in his life who is accommodating, sweet, and attracted to him.  Gerwig's Florence is also well played, understated and yet still bubbly and likable.  Similarly, Noah Baumbach does not draw attention to direction of the movie, allowing the characters to focus the movie behind their personal issues.

If you have the means, see Greenberg.  It is terrific.

25/30