And I am blown away. I think it's fair to say I watch a lot of movies, and I love a lot of movies. I haven't been blown away by a movie like this since...ever, maybe?
Expansively claustrophobic, epic, and stripped-down (only two actors appear on screen, and for most of the movie it's only one,) Alfonso Cuarón (who directed one of my other favorite movies, CHILDREN OF MEN) has invented a new kind of cinema. Astronauts are doing repairs on the Hubble telescope when the serenity of space is broken by word from Houston that a scuttled Russian satellite has triggered a chain reaction (this isn't said in the movie, but it's based on the theoretical Kessler effect) and debris is heading straight for them. The result is catastrophic, with only mission commander Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) and medical engineer Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) surviving. And so, they begin a perilous journey in orbit around earth to try to get to the International Space Station and take a Soyuz module home.
Cuarón never lets up, never leaves the astronauts to check in on mission control, or present flashbacks of their earlier lives. Only two actors, and space. We get a few voices through the intercom from Earth, most notably Ed Harris as mission control. But I'd also like to point out the amazing scene with the voice of Orto Ignatiussen as Aningaaq (and no, I had no idea who Orto was before.) The scene where Dr. Stone raises him on the radio is brilliant. He (and Sandra Bullock, of course) brought tears to the eyes of several in the audience just with him speaking...what language was it? Greenlandic? And his dogs barking, and baby crying...it was a rare quiet break in the action and it was positively heartbreaking.
The experience is immersive, and that's the whole point. It's also an emotional journey for rookie astronaut Dr. Stone to find the courage to survive, to press on through adversity and anguish. Kowalski, on the other hand, is cool as a cucumber. While he hasn't been in this exact situation before, he's obviously been through a lot, gathered a lot of stories in his days, and will either have another amazing story to tell or he'll die trying. The emotional arc is for Dr. Stone to get to that same state.
Can I sing the praises of Sandra Bullock for a minute? Does anyone remember when she was just the epitome of spunky-cute romantic action-comedy lead? Remember getting tired of that? (okay, maybe some people didn't, but I did.) I never saw THE BLIND SIDE in no small part because I wasn't that interested in a Sandra Bullock starring role. I apologize, profusely! She is a brilliant actress and she is put through the emotional and physical wringer here. Maybe it's early (and always pointless) to talk Oscars, but she shouldn't just be given the Oscar, she should be given one of those massive Oscar statues they display outside during the awards. That's how much more amazing her performance is than...anything. Okay, is that enough hyperbole?
Let me get back to that immersion again. That's why you'll hear so many people tell you that you have to see it in IMAX, and in 3-D, or whatever your favorite method is for cinematic immersion. And they're all right. I saw it first in IMAX 3-D. I know there are plenty of 3-D haters out there, and for the record in one scene that violates Jason's rule that 3-D should be used to put depth into the screen, not throw stuff out of it (and if you see it you'll know what scene it is.) Well, if you don't like 3-D then don't see it in 3-D. I'm confident the film itself is immersive enough that it will work in 2-D. But if you have any inkling at all that 3-D could work with the right movie, then see this in 3-D. Same goes for IMAX. The only objection I know to IMAX is paying the extra price for it. But it's absolutely worth it. Take a road trip to you nearest IMAX theater if you have to.
Then after seeing it in IMAX 3-D, and thinking about it all the next day, it struck me that I wanted to see it in a D-box seat. I know D-box is controversial, and it's anathema to cinema purists. I've only experienced D-box once and while it was fun, it wasn't something I cared to go back to. I have my way of immersing myself in a movie--sitting in the front row. My one D-box experience was 2 years ago, and I finally found a movie where I wanted to try it again. And at first, I wondered if I might regret it. Sitting so far back the screen looked small to me, at least smaller than it should have. But soon enough I was lost in the movie. And some of the best D-box effects were also the most subtle--very slight, slow floating motions during the quiet scenes. The thrill ride action scenes were also pretty cool, but D-box only move a few inches at most, it can't really throw you around as hard as the action on screen (there would be liability issues if it did.) So my take on D-box. If it's sounds like something you would just hate, avoid it. If you're at all curious, this is the movie to try it out with. If your choice is between IMAX and D-box...I'd recommend IMAX. Now if anyone knows of any theater in the world with IMAX and D-box, I'm up for a little road trip.
Running Time: 90 minutes x 2 = 180 minutes
My Total Minutes: 338,642
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Jason watches FOX AND HIS FRIENDS
The Roxie is currently running a program of Fassbinder films, and then the program continues at the YBCA. This is the only one I've made it out to so far, and I don't know if I'll make any of the others. In any case, it's a powerful emotional story of a hard-luck gay carnival worker (um,...that is he's a gay man who works in a carnival, the carnival itself isn't gay...at least no gayer than your typical carnival) played by Fassbinder himself. He loses his job in the opening scenes (as his act is broken up by the police) and he has to run a scam just to get 10 measly marks. Which he promptly uses to play the lottery. In the next seen, we see him hob-nobbing with rich folk, as he has just won half a million marks. So he runs with a new crowd, takes a new lover, and...still doesn't fit in. On the one hand, money can't buy class. On the other hand, his new friends are a bunch of elitist pricks who are just sponging off his money until they bleed him dry. Nasty work, but brilliantly executed and pretty powerful.
Plus I like the idea that the Fox News show Fox and Friends is secretly an homage to this classic of queer cinema. I don't like it enough to actually watch Fox and Friends, but still...
I saw this at the end of a day that started with INTOLERANCE and THE WICKER MAN at the Castro. That was an interesting progression. INTOLERANCE is a strongly religious, Christian film, showcasing the inhumanity of man and presenting love--particularly the love of Jesus Christ--as the answer. THE WICKER MAN is a profoundly anti-religious film, declaring God to be dead and touting pagan worship and sexuality (after all, the naked pagan ladies are what first drew me to the WICKER MAN.) And then FOX AND HIS FRIENDS starts off with (gay) sex, showcases a lot of it, and ultimately is a bitter showcase of inhumanity. Nicely closed circle, don't you think?
Running Time: 123 minutes
My Total Minutes: 338,462
Plus I like the idea that the Fox News show Fox and Friends is secretly an homage to this classic of queer cinema. I don't like it enough to actually watch Fox and Friends, but still...
I saw this at the end of a day that started with INTOLERANCE and THE WICKER MAN at the Castro. That was an interesting progression. INTOLERANCE is a strongly religious, Christian film, showcasing the inhumanity of man and presenting love--particularly the love of Jesus Christ--as the answer. THE WICKER MAN is a profoundly anti-religious film, declaring God to be dead and touting pagan worship and sexuality (after all, the naked pagan ladies are what first drew me to the WICKER MAN.) And then FOX AND HIS FRIENDS starts off with (gay) sex, showcases a lot of it, and ultimately is a bitter showcase of inhumanity. Nicely closed circle, don't you think?
Running Time: 123 minutes
My Total Minutes: 338,462
Jason watches THE WICKER MAN (1973)
I don't know why I specified the year up there. I mean, there isn't any other version of THE WICKER MAN, right? Oh sure, there were horrible rumors of a remake, but that was only a cruel hoax perpetrated by people who should be stung repeatedly by killer bees.
Anyway, since this movie is older than I am, I'm gonna go ahead and not avoid spoilers in this review. Consider yourself warned.
I've seen THE WICKER MAN several times, but never before on the glorious Castro screen, and never in this fully restored definitive cut. The thing I find every time I see it, I'm drawn into the mystery again. I know how it will end, but credit Edward Woodward's amazing performance as Sgt. Howie along with the entire cast (especially Christopher Lee) and a brilliantly written slow reveal with keeping the mystery fresh every time. No matter how many times I see it, I never lift myself into the privileged omniscient view, I always see it from Sgt. Howie's point of view, as he's discovering the mystery. No matter how much I know that Britt Ekland dancing naked with just an easily-opened door between them, I always see it as a sinister seduction (like he does) instead of as his opportunity for survival (which of course I know it is, I just never feel it at the time.)
But what I finally picked up on this time was that Lord Summerisle (Lee) doesn't actually believe in the old gods. What I used to see as a bizarre 'fuck you!' to Christianity in favor of paganism, I appreciate more as a cynical ploy to bend religion to serve political power. See, I'm pretty sure Summerisle is an atheist. He so much as admits that his grandfather was--he was a scientist who used the old pagan religion to secure favor with the locals and depose the Christian missionaries so he plant his experimental crops on their island. His father carried on the tradition "out of love" so maybe he was a believer. But the current Lord Summerisle--he's a cynical manipulator. It's not about one religion being right or wrong. It's not about the Christian losing and receiving the gift of a martyr's death. It's about twisting a religion to hold on to political power at all costs--even if it means using that religion to convince your followers to commit murder. That's why I saw something that I hadn't really picked up on before: when Sgt. Howie makes his plea at the end, he asks Lord Summerisle to consider what will happen if their crops fail again next year. They'll need another human sacrifice, and nothing short of Summerisle himself would do at that point. He immediately responds that the crops "WON'T FAIL!" but just before that I detected a strong hint of fear in Lee's face.
It's a brilliant movie that keeps rewarding multiple viewings like that.
Running Time: 102 minutes
My Total Minutes: 338,339
Anyway, since this movie is older than I am, I'm gonna go ahead and not avoid spoilers in this review. Consider yourself warned.
I've seen THE WICKER MAN several times, but never before on the glorious Castro screen, and never in this fully restored definitive cut. The thing I find every time I see it, I'm drawn into the mystery again. I know how it will end, but credit Edward Woodward's amazing performance as Sgt. Howie along with the entire cast (especially Christopher Lee) and a brilliantly written slow reveal with keeping the mystery fresh every time. No matter how many times I see it, I never lift myself into the privileged omniscient view, I always see it from Sgt. Howie's point of view, as he's discovering the mystery. No matter how much I know that Britt Ekland dancing naked with just an easily-opened door between them, I always see it as a sinister seduction (like he does) instead of as his opportunity for survival (which of course I know it is, I just never feel it at the time.)
But what I finally picked up on this time was that Lord Summerisle (Lee) doesn't actually believe in the old gods. What I used to see as a bizarre 'fuck you!' to Christianity in favor of paganism, I appreciate more as a cynical ploy to bend religion to serve political power. See, I'm pretty sure Summerisle is an atheist. He so much as admits that his grandfather was--he was a scientist who used the old pagan religion to secure favor with the locals and depose the Christian missionaries so he plant his experimental crops on their island. His father carried on the tradition "out of love" so maybe he was a believer. But the current Lord Summerisle--he's a cynical manipulator. It's not about one religion being right or wrong. It's not about the Christian losing and receiving the gift of a martyr's death. It's about twisting a religion to hold on to political power at all costs--even if it means using that religion to convince your followers to commit murder. That's why I saw something that I hadn't really picked up on before: when Sgt. Howie makes his plea at the end, he asks Lord Summerisle to consider what will happen if their crops fail again next year. They'll need another human sacrifice, and nothing short of Summerisle himself would do at that point. He immediately responds that the crops "WON'T FAIL!" but just before that I detected a strong hint of fear in Lee's face.
It's a brilliant movie that keeps rewarding multiple viewings like that.
Running Time: 102 minutes
My Total Minutes: 338,339
Monday, October 7, 2013
Jason Watches INTOLERANCE: LOVE'S STRUGGLE THROUGHOUT THE AGES
The first time I saw INTOLERANCE (1916) at Cinequest in 2009 I was wowed by the scale of the sets, awed by the ambition behind the film, and of course loved Dennis James' live score on the Mighty Wurlitzer organ. But secretly, behind it all, there was a little doubt in my mind. I had actually enjoyed BIRTH OF A NATION much more (despite the racism and the pro-KKK plot). As a narrative, it just had a better structure and flowed better. In fact, just taking the narrative itself I couldn't help but notice it was ponderous, confusing, and kind of dull. Each of the four separate stories could have worked great on its own, but by switching between them I couldn't help but think Griffith gave all four of them short shrift and ended up confusing the audience.
So last Saturday I revisited it, on the Castro screen, in a beautiful new restoration (in digital, more on that later) and with a Carl Davis score. And...it's fantastic, a masterpiece. Maybe I was just better rested than the previous time (it played the final weekend of an exhausting festival). Maybe I'm just that much more studied in silent film and know how to watch it better. But I think the restoration is just much better than what I saw before. I still think many of the transitions between time periods were clumsy and jarring--Griffith was still in the process of inventing cinema at this time. But importantly, I can follow the stories now. Or rather, I can see it as one story--the contemporary (to 1916) story--punctuated with historical parallels turning it very explicitly into a timeless story. A young woman in undone through the intolerant machinations of others. Age-ism (particularly the elderly moral crusaders frowning upon the joys of youth), political machinations, religious intolerance, betrayal and double-crossing. These are all in the contemporary story of a young woman undone on one side by the modern pharisees and on the other side by her lover's criminal connections. And they are all more or less reflected in stories of 16th century France (political machinations leading to the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre), ancient Babylon (where a priest betrays the city to Cyrus and the Persians just because Ishtar was praised instead of his god, Bel), and the story of Jesus Christ (culminating in his crucifixion, but also showcasing the traditional Jewish wedding where he turned water to wine).
Carl Davis' score was magnificent. As a friend and silent film scholar pointed out when we discussed it afterwards, Carl Davis never had time to really develop a theme in his score, as the music had to jump between time periods along with the film, but he did a fantastic job and his score works perfectly.
It also looked fantastic. Now I know this gets controversial. I know lots of purists who would avoid this screening just because it was projected digitally instead of on film. And I tend to agree with them, I love the look and feel of film. And especially if the movie was shot on film, it's only right that it should be shown on film. And I've seen movies where digital projection rather than film kinda ruined the presentation.... But this wasn't one of those. This looked amazing. The same friend/silent film scholar I alluded to above pointed out that this probably looks better than it did at its 1916 premiere, what with simply higher-powered projectors, they can put more lumens (measure of visible light flux) on the screen. This presentation is the argument that Digital Cinema Package (DCP) has arrived, and traditionalist haters be damned (not that it isn't still possible to have a crappy digital projection, just that DCP has arrived at the point where it can look better than film.)
Oh, and one last point. CLOUD ATLAS is the modern equivalent of INTOLERANCE. It kind of bombed at the box office, but I still think it succeeded (and exceeded) in everything Griffith was trying to accomplish. So if you haven't seen it, go get it.
Running Time: 167 minutes
My Total Minutes: 338,237
So last Saturday I revisited it, on the Castro screen, in a beautiful new restoration (in digital, more on that later) and with a Carl Davis score. And...it's fantastic, a masterpiece. Maybe I was just better rested than the previous time (it played the final weekend of an exhausting festival). Maybe I'm just that much more studied in silent film and know how to watch it better. But I think the restoration is just much better than what I saw before. I still think many of the transitions between time periods were clumsy and jarring--Griffith was still in the process of inventing cinema at this time. But importantly, I can follow the stories now. Or rather, I can see it as one story--the contemporary (to 1916) story--punctuated with historical parallels turning it very explicitly into a timeless story. A young woman in undone through the intolerant machinations of others. Age-ism (particularly the elderly moral crusaders frowning upon the joys of youth), political machinations, religious intolerance, betrayal and double-crossing. These are all in the contemporary story of a young woman undone on one side by the modern pharisees and on the other side by her lover's criminal connections. And they are all more or less reflected in stories of 16th century France (political machinations leading to the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre), ancient Babylon (where a priest betrays the city to Cyrus and the Persians just because Ishtar was praised instead of his god, Bel), and the story of Jesus Christ (culminating in his crucifixion, but also showcasing the traditional Jewish wedding where he turned water to wine).
Carl Davis' score was magnificent. As a friend and silent film scholar pointed out when we discussed it afterwards, Carl Davis never had time to really develop a theme in his score, as the music had to jump between time periods along with the film, but he did a fantastic job and his score works perfectly.
It also looked fantastic. Now I know this gets controversial. I know lots of purists who would avoid this screening just because it was projected digitally instead of on film. And I tend to agree with them, I love the look and feel of film. And especially if the movie was shot on film, it's only right that it should be shown on film. And I've seen movies where digital projection rather than film kinda ruined the presentation.... But this wasn't one of those. This looked amazing. The same friend/silent film scholar I alluded to above pointed out that this probably looks better than it did at its 1916 premiere, what with simply higher-powered projectors, they can put more lumens (measure of visible light flux) on the screen. This presentation is the argument that Digital Cinema Package (DCP) has arrived, and traditionalist haters be damned (not that it isn't still possible to have a crappy digital projection, just that DCP has arrived at the point where it can look better than film.)
Oh, and one last point. CLOUD ATLAS is the modern equivalent of INTOLERANCE. It kind of bombed at the box office, but I still think it succeeded (and exceeded) in everything Griffith was trying to accomplish. So if you haven't seen it, go get it.
Running Time: 167 minutes
My Total Minutes: 338,237
Friday, October 4, 2013
Jason goes to the Niles Film Museum for THE STUDENT PRINCE IN OLD HEIDELBURG
But first, of course, a couple of shorts
UNIVERSAL INTERNATIONAL NEWS VOL. 3 #24 (1921): That's right, we start with a newsreel, just to put us in a 1920s mood. Lots of little news snippets, including the launching of the USS Colorado.
HIS WOODEN WEDDING (1925): Charley Chase isone of my favorite lesser-known silent era comedians. In this one, he's about to get married, but the rejected suitor has a few tricks up his sleeve. He tricks Charley into thinking his bride-to-be has a wooden leg, and Charley calls off the wedding. Wackiness ensues, but I can't help but thinking Charley's kind of a jerk for rejecting her just for that. Also...okay, I know times were different back then, but did you really go so far as to get married without knowing what her legs are made of?
Then of course our standard intermission, and finally the feature film
THE STUDENT PRINCE IN OLD HEIDELBURG (1927): Ernst Lubitsch, the master of the romantic comedy, directs this charming and funny story about an Austrian prince (Ramon Navarro) who lives in a sheltered, highly disciplined life but watches the common folk frolic about and have fun. (A childhood scene--contrasting a group of boys playing with a ball and him playing ball with his three elderly caretakers--sums this up perfectly.) While the commoners (of different demographics each time) muse how it must be great to be a prince, he just wants to have some fun and adventure. And when he goes off to study in Heidelberg, he finally gets a taste of it. Drinking, camaraderie, and especially the beautiful barmaid Kathi (Norma Shearer.) He falls in love, she does too, but the difference in class and status is just too much to overcome. Or rather, his royal duties don't allow him to be with a lowly barmaid. It's good to be a prince (or a king)...sometimes. Or rather, the joys of royalty exist mostly in the heads of the commoners.
For the whole thing, the excellent Dr. Jon Mirsalis provided the music on his Kurzweil electric keyboard. And for the THE STUDENT PRINCE, he provided a brief introduction talking about the "Lubitsch Touch."
Total Running Time (estimated): 130 minutes
My Total Minutes: 338,069
UNIVERSAL INTERNATIONAL NEWS VOL. 3 #24 (1921): That's right, we start with a newsreel, just to put us in a 1920s mood. Lots of little news snippets, including the launching of the USS Colorado.
HIS WOODEN WEDDING (1925): Charley Chase is
Then of course our standard intermission, and finally the feature film
THE STUDENT PRINCE IN OLD HEIDELBURG (1927): Ernst Lubitsch, the master of the romantic comedy, directs this charming and funny story about an Austrian prince (Ramon Navarro) who lives in a sheltered, highly disciplined life but watches the common folk frolic about and have fun. (A childhood scene--contrasting a group of boys playing with a ball and him playing ball with his three elderly caretakers--sums this up perfectly.) While the commoners (of different demographics each time) muse how it must be great to be a prince, he just wants to have some fun and adventure. And when he goes off to study in Heidelberg, he finally gets a taste of it. Drinking, camaraderie, and especially the beautiful barmaid Kathi (Norma Shearer.) He falls in love, she does too, but the difference in class and status is just too much to overcome. Or rather, his royal duties don't allow him to be with a lowly barmaid. It's good to be a prince (or a king)...sometimes. Or rather, the joys of royalty exist mostly in the heads of the commoners.
For the whole thing, the excellent Dr. Jon Mirsalis provided the music on his Kurzweil electric keyboard. And for the THE STUDENT PRINCE, he provided a brief introduction talking about the "Lubitsch Touch."
Total Running Time (estimated): 130 minutes
My Total Minutes: 338,069
Jason slips into a Vortex and faces some KILLER FISH
Only two martinis, then a beer, but I was exhausted for other reasons so I struggled to stay awake. In any case, I got that it was a story of treasure hunters searching for jewels in piranha infested waters. And I got that they're a bunch of of back-stabbing morons. And do you really need anything else?
Running Time: 101 minutes
My Total Minutes: 337,939
Running Time: 101 minutes
My Total Minutes: 337,939
Jason watches WE ARE WHAT WE ARE
Thanks to Midnites 4 Maniacs, I got to see a special sneak preview of this slow-burn gothic drama-thriller-horror film. And I put them in that order. I think it's primarily a carefully crafted drama. The Parkers, led by father Frank (a wonderfully, quietly creepy Bill Sage) secretly live by "old customs." And they bury the...evidence of their customs in the woods near the creek that runs by their remote house. Daughters Rose and Iris (some flowers have thorns) are...conflicted about their customs.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. In the opening scenes we see the mother collapse in front of a grocery store. Frank never let her go to see a doctor, and he opposes an autopsy now, for reasons that become obvious soon enough. That and a torrential flood that unearths some incriminating evidence is going to threaten their old customs, and force Rose and Iris to take on responsibilities beyond their years.
There are plenty of gruesome horror elements, and a few frights that can actually make you jump. But the meat (sorry, I had to...that's not technically a spoiler, is it?) of the movie is the acting and the slow, steady, tense burn. A horror movie for thinkers...thinkers who like gore.
-------------------------------------------
Update on October 8, 2013. Apparently I had actually seen the Mexican movie that this was based on, I just completely forgot about it. That was back at Indiefest 2011 and here's what I wrote about it at the time:
Running Time: 105 minutes
My Total Minutes: 337,838
But I'm getting ahead of myself. In the opening scenes we see the mother collapse in front of a grocery store. Frank never let her go to see a doctor, and he opposes an autopsy now, for reasons that become obvious soon enough. That and a torrential flood that unearths some incriminating evidence is going to threaten their old customs, and force Rose and Iris to take on responsibilities beyond their years.
There are plenty of gruesome horror elements, and a few frights that can actually make you jump. But the meat (sorry, I had to...that's not technically a spoiler, is it?) of the movie is the acting and the slow, steady, tense burn. A horror movie for thinkers...thinkers who like gore.
-------------------------------------------
Update on October 8, 2013. Apparently I had actually seen the Mexican movie that this was based on, I just completely forgot about it. That was back at Indiefest 2011 and here's what I wrote about it at the time:
It's an earnest family drama, a story of grief and struggles after the father dies. Not that he was a great man, but he did provide. Now there are power struggles, mother vs. sons, sons vs. each other, a daughter who seems to be the only one with a solid head on her shoulders. It's also a story about coming out of the closet. Oh yeah, and it's got cannibalism, whores, inept cops, and (for some reason) lots and lots of clocks. But let's go back to the cannibalism and whores. If I described this as a movie about cannibals vs. prostitutes, it would be completely accurate and totally misleading. It isn't the exploitation elements that are the driving force behind the movie, it's the drama and the characters. And of course, that tricks you into caring about the cannibals for reasons completely unrelated to their rituals. Brilliantly done, and very funny.Well, the obvious difference is that the American remake is gender reversed. It's the mother, not the father who dies in the beginning. It's daughters, not sons, who fight with each other and with their father (not mother.) Also the importance of clocks wasn't so prevalent. Same with whores. No whores in this one. And I'm not sure what I meant by "very funny." The remake is certainly not a comedy, and I kind of doubt the original was meant to be. That might be a product of my sick sense of humor, or maybe the American version is more of a tense drama and the Mexican version actually had some comic elements.
Running Time: 105 minutes
My Total Minutes: 337,838
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)