Jose Saca – The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (Second Post)

“The Revolution Will Not Be Televised” is a documentary film directed by Kim Bartley and Donnacha O’Briain, and released in 2002. The documentary chronicles an April 2002 coup attempt on Hugo Chavez that backfired, and utilizes real-life footage to construct a narrative that pits the current Venezuelan President against two leading detractors who plan on removing him from office. The following entry will examine how the film constructs a narrative out of this real-life event by using documentary footage.

Before the coup took place, an Irish film crew was allowed access to film Hugo Chavez as early as September 2001. Kim Bartley and Donnacha O’Briain originally planned to make a basic documentary on Chavez and his life. However, seven months into their stay, signs of disarray from the private media and right-wing politicians culminated into a short-lived coup that removed Chavez from office for a only a few days. The Irish film crew had their cameras on the entire time, and “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised” was the result.

The film introduces the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, as a hero to the poor with far-left policies and an anti-imperialistic agenda. In the words of the film’s narrator, Chavez “…stands out as a controversial and passionate leader.” The film crew show Chavez talking to everyday people, listening to their concerns, and at one point, singing a folksong with a mentally disable adolescent. The film plants him as a warm-hearted, likable fellow who wants only the best for his country. The filmmakers also sympathize with Chavez’s supporters, as shown in a scene where, at the Presidential Palace, Chavez’s assistants read a handful of his fan-mail from local people, which borders on the thousands, and also, in interviews conducted on the streets of Caracas with ordinary citizens, who love Chavez to death. The film crew also went into the richer parts of Venezuela and interviewed upper-class citizens, many of whom seem to think that Chavez’s supporters are ignorant, gun-toting poor people.

The film constantly shifts from its original footage with news footage from private Venezuelan media, who are vocal in their opposition to Chavez.

The narrator comments that “the privately owned media began calling for demonstrations, suggesting that Chavez’s attempts to control the oil industry were a direct attack on their prosperity.” The audience is then introduced to the two main oppositional forces against Chavez: “Pedro Carmona, President of Venezuela’s largest business federation,” and “Carlos Ortega, head of CTV, a trade union with strong ties to the old political system.” The privately owned media calls for demonstrations against Chavez, which in turn causes riots in all the major Venezuelan cities, with Chavez detractors squaring off against Chavez supporters. The violence culminates in Chavez’s removal from office by dissident military officials. The right-wing enlists a puppet government with Carmona as President, but it doesn’t last. Chavez supporters in the military retake the Presidential Palace and assist with the reinstatement of Chavez and his cabinet.

All three acts in narrative film are utilized here. The first act introduces the protagonist, Chavez, and the antagonists, Ortega and Carmona. The second act covers the coup and the right’s taking of the Presidential Palace, while the third covers the removal of the right from office and the reinstatement of Chavez and his cabinet. The film is a perfect example of how filmmakers build a narrative out of the factual. Indeed, the situation of the coup is far more complex than I illustrated, but for the sake of conciseness and clearer understanding, the filmmakers rely on narrative structure to deliver a message that is clearly pro-Chavez. The film can be seen as either a piece of leftist propaganda for supplying an opinion, or as a gripping, dense, political drama where the audience wants to know what happens next.

The writer opines that a viewer can come to this film with no knowledge of Chavez or Venezuela, and still find it to be an enthralling piece of filmmaking.

A link to the entire film:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144

"The Cable Guy"

Hope I'm doing this right.....


The film that I viewed this week was "Cable Guy". I had to view four movies for another class, so this one was easy to choose. It's just too bad that I had to pick this dribble of a film. I don't know what we're suppose to be discussing in this week's journal blog, since last week was just introduction, so I'll just discuss what worked and what didn't, like what we did after watching the last movie.
This movie did not work for me. The plot was weak, and I wasn't able to find the plot points that made it move. There was nothing exiciting, or remotely funny about the antics of the film.. The beats were dull and made no push. I failed to see a character arc. Just a stupid damsel in distress.
We were talking about how believable some films can be. Clearly, this film isn't suppose to be one of them, but in those cases, you suspend reality and have fun with the movie. This movie wasn't fun regardless of how real or fantastic. The characters were flat and unbelievable. You're suppose to accept that Jim Carrey's character is a psychopath, and oddly enough he's the most believable character in the movie. Everyone else considered "normal" seem more like clichèd robots. There were too many things that the character did only to move the story along, rather than go with what they really would have done if this were indeed reality as the main character shouted to the antagonist at the end of the film.
The movie also relied too much on the success of other films and television shows, such as "Silent of the Lambs" and "My Three Sons". You can't make a successful film by piggy-backing off timeless classics. That just goes to show that you have an unoriginal movie.

Seven

Directed by David Fincher

Seven is more of a contempary noir film then a crime drama or a thriller. Set in a nameless city that's either always dark and raining, the city has an affect on the characters as much as the crimes do. The film also does something that's not exactly the norm today. Instead of focusing on Mills, the young, more agile detective, played by Brad Pitt, the film focuses on the older, retiring detective Somerset, played by Morgan Freeman. Somerset provides a dark and disturbing view of the world. To him, there is no light or goodness in the world, or at least not in this city. You quickly get the feeling that he's been doing the job for 30 or 40 years and has seen the worst crimes commited to both the good and bad people of the city, and it's taken a great toll on him mentally and personally. Contrast to him is Mills, the over eager detective to make his mark. He's new to this experience in the city and while he at first thinks Somerset is naive, over the course of the film, he starts to break and become just like him.

The story of the film takes place over seven days with the killer, John Doe (a disturbing performance given by Kevin Spacy who doesn't even show his face until towards the end of the film) who performs disturbing and grusome killings with the theme of the seven deadly sins. Viewers can aruge wether or not David Fincher goes overboard with the graphic violence showed in the film, but it does serve a purpose. It goes along with the tone the city plays and just how sadistic John Doe is. His character has to be so dangerous and so unpredictable, that at the climax of the film, we all wonder what he's going to do to win one over Mills and Somerset.

In the end, Seven, despite it's grusome and sometimes senseless violence, sets a tone that is a call back to the noir films and blends with the thriller genre. And if anything, it does give us a reminder of how noir is a lost art and why so many viewers fell in love with it years ago.

-Chris Bergeris

This is my first time watching “American Beauty” and I absolutely fell in love with the film. Somehow this film reminds me of an indie film, exploring all ends of abnormal circumstances. American Beauty is a film that discovers the life of an unbalanced family who’s searching for acceptance. In searching for acceptance the family lives becomes clear to them. Lester, the father wants acceptance from his wife Caroline and from his daughter Jane. Jane boyfriend Ricky wants acceptance from his father. All of the character lives becomes much intertwined with one another, similar to “ Crash”.

The opening scene starts out foreshadowing Jane telling Ricky that she wants him to kill her father. Even though Ricky didn’t physically kill Lester he unconsciously killed him by telling his father he was involved with Lester.

Symbolism contributed a lot to telling of the story. The color red was predominantly seen in every scene. Red roses, red car, red clothing, and a red door. The roses could have represented Life and Death. Bushes of roses surrounds the houses turning it into a funeral home. Everytime Caroline cuts a rose from the bushes it reduces the amount of life going into the house. The rose could also represent beauty when Lester fantasizes about kissing Jane’s bestfriend Angela. A rose petal floats from Angela’s mouth, creating an image of his beauty.

The Cinematography of American Beauty was spectacular, especially at the last scene when Caroline was walking towards the house in the rain. This scene reminded me of a Hitchcock film. The light in the background illuminated the power that Caroline had. However, when the director fades out into another scene it diminishes the power that she had.
This film is a great example of what a film should look and sound like.

Burn After Reading

I watched a few movies since we last met in class, Goodfellas, Mystic River, and Burn After Reading. I chose Burn After Reading because it was the first time I had seen it and I see the Coen Brothers as a model for what I would like to do with my career as a writer. The Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan, have had the same cinematographer since their entry into Hollywood, but he had committed to Sam Mendes and his new film Revolutionary Road. To me, someone who has studied the Coen Brother’s work, it was apparent that their was someone different doing their principal photography and it didn’t have the same effect. To me, they are famous for creating their own genre, and story-wise, they did, but the camera work felt too commercial and “blockbuster-y.”
Being that Joel and Ethan, are who they are, they can write roles for specific actors. They wrote the part of Osborne Cox specifically for John Malkovich and it worked perfectly. It seemed that all of these characters were a risk for each actor, except for Malkovich. Pitt, who usually plays the “suave-handsome-athletic-cool-calm-demanding” roles found himself playing a “dumb” role, and playing it well. With a cast , like they had, it does show how the “big whigs” in Hollywood, can get whoever they want. But in my personal opinion this film would have failed without Clooney, Malkovich, Pitt, and McDormand. What stands out from all of the Coen pieces that I have seen is their ability to create relationships, and that is what made this movie what it is. To make a movie believable and have people fall into the story and become a part of it, you have to make characters not only interact successfully, but interact in a way in which it is uncommon and entertaining, and these characters exceeded that.

Burn After Reading

Burn After Reading is a very interesting and hilarious take on the government agencies that protect our country. The film combines humor, drama and surprise and creates a spiraling world of building disaster, only to cumulate at the very end of the film. While the story is unique and different, the characters were the most interesting aspect to me in this film. It wasn’t only the way the characters were written but it was the actors who played the characters that impressed me the most. It seemed that two actors (Brad Pitt, George Clooney) broke their usual mold as actors and took a role that was unlike any other. Brad Pitt was by far my favorite character in the film because of the uniqueness and likeability of his character. I’ve never seen him play that type of role and just the way he played it was hilarious. I simply loved him in the film and wanted to be his friend. The only character that I felt didn’t stretch out of their comfort zone was John Malkovich. He usually always plays the crazy insane guy and in this film it was no different. Aesthetically, the film struck me as a beautifully shot, but not the best I’ve ever seen. There were a couple of scenes where I stepped out of the story and said to myself “wow, that’s a beautiful shot” but there were others that were simply shot to par. The shots, however, I felt flowed with the mood of the story and made a more cohesive product. The Cohen Brothers have a high reputation to hold with their films, and I felt this film did not disappoint.

Death at a Funeral

So, at the top of my Netflix queue was Death at a Funeral. It’s just one of those movies I feel like I have to watch considering the good things I’ve heard about it. The premise centers around two brothers who have a funeral for their father and various hijinks ensue. It starts off at a nice, steady pace, not too slow or jumping the shark straightaway.

Than suddenly it just kicks off into a complete fiasco. First the brothers find out that their father was having an affair with a gay man, who is a midget (I don’t know if that’s the politically correct term). A guy’s naked on the roof threatening to jump because he’s out of his mind delirious because of the wacky acid concoction one of the family members made and put in a valium bottle, which gets misplaced quite often throughout the entire movie. Than one of the brothers hogties the midget and gives him valium to calm down only to discover, like I said before, that it’s acid…I really could go on. I mean, this movie is a circus!

I can say with all honesty it was a complete enjoyment. The characters were hilarious. I love the witty banter and the occasional gross out humor. My favorite movie premises are often about wacky, unusual characters who are all thrown into a seemingly normal situation and what becomes of it is nothing short of a wild ride. For instance, Little Miss Sunshine, the Breakfast Club, The Big Lebowski...

I also really enjoyed the main character’s journey. He starts off as being this insecure younger brother type, who’s jealous of his older brother’s wealth and fame as a writer. He’s very straight-laced, but by the end of the movie, in order to keep the appearance of “order” he’s stuffing a dead midget into his father’s coffin! It’s far more enjoyable for me to watch characters go from a stable, straight-laced world to a chaotic, by any means necessary situation. The acting was great. I really believed in these crazy characters and they were all funny in their own way. It wasn’t one of those movies where one outshines the rest. I also particularly enjoy movies that take place in one location. I feel like it can impose a lot of pressure on characters to be active, it sets an atmosphere that some movies lack, and it forces the storytellers to be creative. I’d give this movie 3 ½ out of 4 stars.

~Brianna P.

Casino

Casino (1995)

Director: Martin Scorsese

This film embodied everything I enjoy in a good film: crime, deception, sex, greed, and power. Marty is one of my favorite film directors and with this film he did a remarkable job detailing deeply flawed characters. Marty’s mostly famous for making characters that are either mentally disturbed or mobsters but this film intertwined those characters extremely well. Sam Rothstein played by Robert De Niro was one of the best characters I’ve ever seen on film because he displayed not the “typical” mobster. Sam’s character realized he was living a corrupt lifestyle that could only lead him facing an empty coffin one day but he settled for it. Never once did he break a sweat about anything nor did anything make him paranoid. One of the elements of film I despise is voiceovers. It’s like a mosquito nagging you at a barbecue. The voiceover worked in this case when Sam talked about how the mob wisely skimmed millions and millions of dollars from casinos. The audience was given access into the underground world of one of the biggest money schemes to be pulled. Marty created a fascinating experience for the audience with his roaming camera. It was made in a documentary style that enhanced the film to filmmaking brilliance.

I believe the film also gave the audience an inside look on how people in casinos find ways to cheat and steal from casinos. I hate to say it, not really but I find it AMAZING. I never thought people could be that clever to steal money let alone from a casino. Marty showed the world a woman that knew had to royally screw a man out of his money (no pun intended) when it came to Ginger McKenna. Ginger was a mixture of a femme fatale and golddigger. Ginger took advantage of men and preyed on their weaknesses to get what she wanted, a luxurious lifestyle and the key to never working another day in her life. On the flip side, Ginger was a pitiful drug addict and had a pimp. She allowed some miserable piece of crap (Lester Diamond played by James Woods) own her. I would’ve liked to see Ginger overcome her demons and not let drugs get the best of her but I assume Marty was trying to send a message to women. You may have all of the diamonds in the world, men at your feet, and money on top of money but when you take all of that way what can lie within is a disgusting human being. Materialism can kill the most beautiful.

Two words: Joe Pesci. As usual he puts on a profound performance as Nicky Santoro, the fast talking little man couldn’t be a better sidekick to Sam. Nicky’s voiceover in the film gave me a different perspective of how they got away with stealing millions and how it affected his life. The three strongest attributes to this story was the characters, filmmaking, and the storytelling. Some films can’t balance these elements too well and I applaud Marty for making another outstanding mob film. The characters had flaws that either died with them or didn’t really change. I loved the fact that Sam’s character was FORCED to change rather than him DECIDING to change. When Sam’s life was threatened with his car getting bombed, he knew that his connections had to change and he had to pay closer attention to the company he kept. Sam still worked in the casino business but he had to go legit or else he would’ve ended up dead. Ginger’s fate lied with drugs and it was foreshadowed throughout the entire film that she would amount to nothing. Ginger reminded me of the most popular girl in high school growing up to be a drug infested hasbeen that used sex to get what you want. Sex can backfire….sometimes. Nicky Santoro knew his lying and betrayal would eventually bite him in the butt one day. Nicky screws Ginger knowing that’s Sam’s wife and then decided to take sides with her, knowing she was off her rocker.

The filmmaking exhibited this documentary like style for directing that made the story seem like the characters were giving us their exclusive peek into the How to Steal Millions from Las Vegas and Possibly Not Getting Caught 101. The storytelling device of voiceovers actually worked well having more than one character do the story telling, which made it engaging to see the different perspectives of the characters instead of focusing on one. Without the different voiceovers, Casino would’ve lost its fire. Casino isn’t only its namesake; this is a film that shows a myriad of stories focused on one of our greatest sins, gluttony, and the downfall we all must suffer if we can’t control it.

- Amber

First Post

The Wedding Singer (1998)

Directed by: Frank Coraci

I was thumbing through my movies this weekend to see which one I'd like to rewatch for my first film review of this class, because let's be honest, I'm not paying $9 to see a film right now. "The Wedding Singer" stuck out to me as a movie I've always loved and will always love as I grow older.

"The Wedding Singer" is a romantic comedy set in the '80s where a wedding singer, Adam Sandler, meets a waitress, Drew Barrymore, and slowly falls for her after his fiance leaves him at the alter. When I first saw the film ten years ago (wow), I had many expectations going into it. First, this is an Adam Sandler comedy. While I am a fan of most of his movies, many stick to a "male humor" approach with sex jokes, crude language, and potty humor. Knowing this, I half expected this film to have those qualities. The film surprised me because of the lack of crude humor. The comedy in this film is much more intelligent than his previous films, and the storyline made me feel for his character, Robbie.

The soundtrack seemed to be its own character with some of the most popular hits from the '80s. Music is very important when setting the scene for a movie. It really puts you into the time and place these characters are living through. Also, the costumes and hairstyles all contribute to the audience believing this is happening in the 80's.

What makes this film work and, in my opinion, Adam Sandler's best movies, is the chemistry between Sandler and Drew Barrymore. Their dialogue is fun and natural, while still having those awkward little pauses to make scenes believable. They honestly look like they are enjoying being in each other's company. I honestly don't go see many romantic comedies, but this one was truly magical and will be up there, for me, as one of the best in its genre.

Pull My Daisy
1959
Adapted, Photographed and Directed by
Robert Frank & Alfred Leslie
For the past four or five years, I’ve read mostly Jack Kerouac novels. I’ve read Ginsberg, Bukowski and Dostoevsky but Kerouac dominates my bookshelf. I‘ve named all these authors to impress people, although I already know I am awesome and don’t need to impress anybody. This short film was written and narrated by Kerouac. It was originally part of a play he was working on titled, “The Beat Generation” but was never completed. It stars well-known poets, artists, and musicians such as, Allen Ginsberg, Gregory Corso, Larry Rivers, Peter Orlovsky, David Amram, Richard Bellamy, Alice Neel, Sally Gross, Delphine Seyrig and Pablo Frank, Robert Frank's then-young son.
The film takes place in the home of a railway brakeman named Milo whose wife has invited a Bishop over for dinner. Milo’s beatnik friends, however, turn the evening into a crazed discussion involving Buddhism, jazz music and serious questions like, “what is holy?” Kerouac’s narration is jazz in itself, such is beat poetry. It’s considered a spontaneous masterpiece, although the film itself was carefully planned and rehearsed. The film is just shy of a half hour.
There are two things that I really love about this film. The first is that it’s my favorite author using my favorite medium. I’ve always been interested in film, and since my first viewing I’ve become a fan of Robert Frank’s photography. The other thing is that David Amram, who scored the film, is playing a French horn in the film. I played French horn for ten years; it’s a beautiful instrument.

JOSH COHEN

First Review

Looking back at a little known film (haha, sarcasm) known as Batman Begins, a person like myself is filled with pride and joy and a helluva lot of squealing. But in a manly way, I assure you. For you see, Batman Begins is a film that renewed my love and faith in the world of superhero movies. Well, the two Spider-Man films also did that (what? there's only two!), but they have nothing to do with what I'm about to review. A film that needs no introduction. A film that a good friend of mine (Shout out to Isaac Movie Database!) doesn't consider the GREATEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME. It's not even out on DVD yet and they're talking about a re-release! Yes, the one... the only... the Nolan: DARK KNIGHT.

I'll wait for your applause.

Done? Let's move on.

I'm not going to talk about the film. We all know it's awesome. And if you haven't seen it, I'm going to suggest you get banned from all visual stimulation until you have seen it at least twice. But I'm more interested, this procrastinated evening, in talking about the expectations I had going into this film. Not that anybody's really interested in my humble and biased opinion. But I'm also interested in seeing what other people were expecting moving from Batman Begins to Dark Knight. Yes, that means you Kiminem.

Okay, so I'll be honest. When they said that the dude from Brokeback Mountain and 10 Things I Hate About You was going to play the greatest Batman Villain of all time, I almost threw up a small country. I was in vehement denial until I saw the pictures. That curved my judgement a bit, but I was still not convinced. Then I saw the trailer.

SOLD. Like Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman.

There are a few times when hype doesn't work for a movie. Somehow, though, the people that marketed the Dark Knight must've stumbled upon the Bible of Awesome and managed to give both fans of Batman (Begins and the character in general) something to look forward to for months. It's very hard to push a movie as hard as the Dark Knight was pushed, without gaining naysayers or going overboard. In some cases, people are even bored with a movie's "hype" before they even get to see the execution or delivery of the film. There are films such as The Matrix Revolutions and Spider-Man 3 that spent a good bulk of their time gaining a buzz and pushing their start and sequel power to their limits, only to have people leaving the theaters in a venomous rage and wanting to get both their money and those hours back. However, in the case of Dark Knight, the delivery is almost flawless, which is an amazing feat in and of itself.

I attribute this to Christopher Nolan. I read in an interview that after the success of Dark Knight, that Warner Bros follows Christopher Nolan's lead on the projects surrounding the Batman franchise. While he had already proved himself to be a competent director with films such as Memento, Insomnia and The Prestige, he doesn't need to "prove" he has the chops to do this, anymore. Still, though, he's taken the "blockbuster" to a whole new level with Dark Knight. The acting is superb, to say the least, as Christian Bale and Heath Ledger both play their roles with skill. Though, Heath takes the cake and steals the entire movie with a performance that should make Jack Nicholson fly over the cuckoo's nest. But the bulk of this movie's success, I think, should be attributed to Christopher Nolan.

The film is shot astoundingly. Choosing Chicago as a filming location for the fictional city of Gotham was a smart choice and it works out so well with everything that the film ended up being. I really felt like I was in the middle of Gotham, during each of the like fifteen times I've watched this film. It's incredible. I'm likely getting off track here, so let me reel this thing back in. Christopher Nolan's own expectations for making the Dark Knight were more like challenges he set upon himself and his crew. He knew the envelopes he pushed with Batman Begins and even spent many conversations with his team discussing how to make things bigger. How to make Dark Knight that much better than Batman Begins. Not just to make more money or make a better film, but to do something that hasn't been done before. Something like, oh, flipping a mack truck.

Personally, I expected so many things from this movie that I can't even begin to list them all and the Dark Knight delivers on an epic scale. From the amazing acting to the compelling story and the gripping dialogue (minus the dreaded and often comical "Bat Voice"), this movie kept me on the edge of my seat the very first time I saw it and still continues to do so. As many times as I've seen it, I can practically talk out what's going to happen next and I still feel myself surprised when it actually happens. It's a fun ride and there's no reason to not get on it. I even enjoyed the score, because it draws you in and helps to play a part in whether or not you're emotionally invested into the scene your watching or not.

As a Batman fan, I was seriously worried about how they were going to do Two Face. Of all the Batman Villains, Two Face is my favorite. I enjoy the character's duality issues and the fact that he leaves important choices in his life up to chance. I have a lot of comic history with Two Face in my mind, which kind of makes me partial to the way he's portrayed in the comics. But I was even capable of going with this origin story created for the Dark Knight. I usually get pissed off when it comes to straying too far from the comic foundation (like giving Spider-Man "natural" webbing, in that movie), but it works for the world that Christopher Nolan has created and it's given me faith that not all translations from comic to film have to be ruined.

I humbly recommend this film to everyone that's not like... under 13. There are some violent scenes and Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker can be downright scary at some points, which may be too much for younger viewers to handle. A certain "pencil trick" comes to mind. But it's still one of the best films I've ever seen in my life. The story is epic and fantastical, but still grounded in enough "movie realism" that you can actually believe that this stuff could happen. Which is something I believe is key to making a good superhero, or comic book, film. You have to be able to trick your audience into believing that these are more than just characters ripped from the pages of a 4.95 leaflet and thrown onto a screen with an actor that resembles their drawn features. These are people, like you and me, that have been thrust into amazing and dangerous lives. And that's what makes them heroes.

But I'm not even going to lie. I was rooting for the Joker the entire time.

- Jason "Why So Serious?" Newbern

Dark Knight Review

There isn't anything I can say that hasn't already been said about this film. So I'll talk about the director and how he chose to bring this story to the screen.

I'm very much a writer to the core but Christopher Nolan has really inspired me on the writing tip and now the production side. His stories are usually about obsessed characters, (Following, Insomnia, Prestige, Batman Begins etc) that have to come to terms with the choices that have led them down the path they're on -- "Dark Knight" is no exception. There were many ways for this director to attack the material and lord knows others have tried and...FAILED! (Thanks Joel Schumacher) Dark Knight is truly a genre-bending entry into the world of comic-book films. To simply classify it as another comic-book, fantasy adventure is entirely missing the message Nolan and everyone involved with this film is trying to drill in our heads like a pencil up the nose.

The film doesn't just put a shit load of gunfights and epic battles on the screen and blows everything up at the end like most of our summer blockbusters. Don't get me wrong, I love dat shit. I am that shit! But there's more to me than transforming cars and crying web-slingers. I stare out the window at school sometimes and wonder, "Is this what I'm supposed to be doing?" And for maybe one of the first times, we have a director that understands, accepts and respects the intelligence and moral complexity of the American audience and gives us a superhero film that has its hero in real danger and asks real questions. Now I don't know a lot about comics but what Nolan has over Brian Singer is Batman himself. I don't want to see Superman's cape soaking in super-tears because his son doesn't love him. (I just pitched the next Superman film!) Batman is darker and in turn, you can go deeper emotionally with his story than you could with Superman. We look to Supes when we want to transcend the mortal constraints of everyday life and just fly away. We look to Supes when we feel like an outsider trying to fit in. We look to Batman when we want to beat people the fuck up! Come on! He gets to live his dream, he goes out at night and kicks the shit out of people to relieve stress. But what Nolan has done is exposed this decision to those annoying things called, consequences. Batman has to deal with being a hero and not having the life that he truly wants. Everytime he tries to fight it, people die and eventually he realizes that this is his life. I love Keaton but he got to beat up the Joker and get the girl.

Nolan didn't create a comic-book film, he made...a crime drama. LOL! That should be 250 words. Holla Front!

Open Water

Open Water

Released in 2003

Directed by Chris Kentis

Open Water is based on a true story about an American couple that leaves their hectic lives for a scuba diving trip out on the Great Barrier Reef.  However, because of the disorganization of the boat crew, the amount of people are miscalculated by two and when the couple come back to the surface to return to their boat, they find that it had left without them and are stranded in the middle of the ocean.  The couple is stranded out there for hours as they see sharks circling and splashing around them.  Eventually, the film ends with the couple dying in the ocean.

This film was very short for a feature film, running only about eighty minuets.  It was shot using a small digital video camera, much like the ones we use here at UArts.  One of the aspects that really intrigued me about this film (as a film-maker myself) was how much they could do with the limited technology that they had.  They were able to make the picture so clear and coherent that only someone in filmmaking would be able to distinguish the difference between the technology they use to make a blockbuster film and what they used for Open Water.

The film is very successful in keeping the audience on the edge of their seat by using a motif by repeatedly showing what looks like dorsal fins of sharks swimming around them.  You never visually see a shark attack one of the characters, which in my opinion makes the film even more scary because it makes the audience use their imagination by thinking what could happen to them.  Another motif used in the film is the use of boats that travel by them periodically at a far distance to where they are in the water.  To me, this gives the audience a sense of hope for the couple and makes them yell at the screen, telling them to swim for the boat. 

Towards the end of the movie, the girl who is still alive is floating in the water holding onto the dead body of her boyfriend.  She decides to let go of him as she starts to see dozens of sharks swimming around her and lets herself fall down under water and that is where the film ends.  I thought that this was the most powerful scene in the movie not only because of the characters decision to let herself die that way but because it doesn’t show exactly how she does and leaves that up to the imagination of the audience which the film does a lot and in turn makes it a very successful independent film.

Brian Herron

First Review

Wristcutters: A Love Story

2006

Director: Goran Dukic

I had heard from different people to watch this movie and wanted to see it.  It is based off a novella entitled Kneller’s Happy Campers. Wristcutters is a film about the afterlife specifically for people that have committed suicide. It starts off with a young man cleaning his messy house and then slitting his wrists in the bathroom. We are quickly brought into a strange world that isn’t heaven or hell and life is eerily similar to the real lives of the living except no one can physically smile. Everyone there has “offed themselves” as it is commonly referred to in the film. There are police officers, restaurant workers, mechanic shops, and everything you would expect in life except they’re dead and they have the scars to prove it. Most people are curious about the people around them and how they killed themselves, such as people in real life wonder, but are afraid to ask. There is even a reunited family living together because they have all committed suicide. Most things in the film are a little grayer than usual but it doesn’t overpower you with the idea that things here are dead and everything is horrible. It is the story of the man from the beginning, Zia, searching for his girlfriend who he has found out had recently killed herself too. Traveling with his friend Eugene, they come across Mikal, a beautiful young girl trying to find the people in charge of the operation and get back home, claiming she is there by mistake. We find out she overdosed on drugs and technically didn’t voluntarily kill herself. It is a strange world created for the audience where Tom Waits runs a camp to help the people suffering there. The characters are bizarre and loveable and you don’t pity them, instead you are forced to feel what they have felt and try to understand them as well as suicide as a whole. I was pleasantly surprised by this film. The acting was honest and true to the characters and the plot had unexpected turns as well as enjoyable twists. It has a great ending that is satisfying and at the same time hopeful. It was a quirky little film that got you to think and entertained you at the same time. I love the people at the camp and the relationships that form in the film, such as Eugene and a mute Eskimo girl, as well as the undeniable inevitable attraction between Zia and Mikal. I would recommend it to other people who enjoy dark comedies and dry, witty humor. For a film about the dead, it had a lot of life to it, bringing to light the important things we take for granted. 

Julie Angelicola

First Review

Pumping Iron

Released in 1977

Directed by George Butler and Robert Fiore

Pumping Iron, the 1977 documentary directed by George Butler and Robert Fiore, takes a rare glimpse into the lives of a group of the worlds most phenomenally built and successful bodybuilders training for the title of Mr. Universe and then, the grand prize, Mr. Olympia. At the center of the film is the future action star and Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who at the time this was filmed had already been crowned Mr. Olympia five times.

I enjoyed this film immensely for its scope and for the wide range of characters, many of whom are likeable and affable men, much unlike the popular image of the testosterone emitting muscle men seen today. The film also features brilliant camerawork for two first time filmmakers, particularly a scene of Schwarzenegger posing atop a mountain that rivals Malick in its exceptional cinematography. On first viewing one can’t help but be transfixed by the charming and towering Schwarzenegger who, though boastful and a bit too sure of himself, can’t help but win over viewers of the film and audiences (including one exhibition in a prison where a male prisoner asks for a kiss) at the competitions alike.

It wasn’t until seeing the film a second time, however, that I noticed the humble and tragic Mike Katz, who is constantly outshined and tortured by his rival Ken Waller but still attempts to shake his hand after every crushing defeat. Another tragic figure lurking in the shadows of Schwarzenegger is Lou Ferrigno, future star of TV’s The Incredible Hulk, who has overcome severe hearing problems and a domineering father to reach the main stage at Mr. Olympia to compete against his idol, Schwarzenegger. Compared to the glorious California gym Schwarzenegger and his friends train at, Ferrigno’s is a tiny, barren dungeon of a gym in Brooklyn that contains no members worthy of inspiring Ferrigno to train harder so he’s forced to paste pictures of Schwarzenegger on the wall to boost his motivation. The editor ingeniously uses this sharp contrast in atmosphere in a successful attempt at encouraging the viewer to sympathize with Ferrigno.

Schwarzenegger eventually wins the title of Mr. Olympia for the sixth time and retires from bodybuilding while Ferrigno goes home empty handed. If the objective of a documentary is presenting a film in which the drama is provided by facts, rather than fiction, this film is nearly flawless. It exceeds on so many levels that after the release of this film, the common view of bodybuilding went from a misunderstood freak show to a multimillion-dollar glamorous (though controversial) business that enables men and women to take pride in their passion and get well paid for it.

Davis Rivera

First Post = Burn After Reading

Burn After Reading is definitely an interesting step for the Cohen Brothers after their success with No Country for Old Men. Al though they have done comedies, this was definitely an unusual story that was far more than the advertising would lead to you to expect.
Overall, I feel that George Clooney’s performance was the best of all. Most of this came not in his words or movements, but in the choice facial expressions that displayed a priceless reaction to each of the turn-of-events in the movie. The worse acting in the movie was John Malkovich who played the same larger-than-life, bitter, angry man that he always plays. Now, his character definitely was very bitter and angry but the shouting bouts seemed a little much. Perhaps they thought it was necessary to in order to motivate his later actions, I did not. It does not seem I could write a review of the acting in this film without mentioning Brad Pitt. He was great, obviously. I think what worked best in his performance were the pauses that he took in his sentences and the words he chose to emphasize or hold out because they way he talked spoke miles of his character.
One thing I did have an issue with in this story was the score. It was an interestingly upbeat score and definitely created a feeling from the very beginning of the story. Without it, the film might have been mistaken for a drama early on. However, the music set the comedic tones of this dark comedy that continued throughout the film.
The performances in this film and the ever-turning story lines definitely made this film spectacular. The choice of shots also added a comedic tone, especially the opening shot which seemed to drop us from the sky onto the exact location of the first scene. Also, choosing to bookend the story with two scenes in the same location created an interesting perspective of telling the story from the CIA’s perspective. The only shot choice that I truly felt was lacking was regarding displaying the relationship between two particular characters. One of the side characters has a crush on Frances McDormand’s character so they tried to display this by lingering shots whenever the character watched her. This would have been subtle if done only once or twice. However, when it is repeated at least five times throughout the film, it is no longer subtle but annoying.
The only other comment I would make on the film, (that I truly would recommend to anyone by the way…) is regarding a gift that George Clooney’s character makes for his wife. The gift is very odd and, though it does provide a level of humor, seems completely out of character for him and thus jarring to the viewer – not because of its explicit sexual content but because it is completely out of place.

First Review

Fanny & Alexander

Released in 1983

Directed by Ingmar Bergman

This is the last film Bergman ever directed for the screen (though he did a lot of T.V. work and wrote a few films in the years to come) it’s the story of a 9-year-old boy named Alexander Ekdahl, who comes from a family of theater actors in Sweden in the early 20th Century, and the year that changed his life forever. We open on Christmas Eve, and Grandma Helena Ekdahl hosts the party for the entire Ekhdal family at her house. Her three sons, the ambitious and philandering Gustav Adolf, the good-natured but financially desperate Carl, and the humble actor Oscar, the father of Alexander and his sister Fanny.

Oscar is ill throughout the party, and soon after, he dies, leaving his wife Emilie alone and desperate. She marries Bishop Edvard Vergerus, a man of the Church who is a strict disciplinarian, and he immediately clashes with Alexander’s wide imagination. With the help of his grandmother’s friend Isak, and a mysterious nephew of his who lives hidden within his puppetry shop, Alexander escapes the Bishop, but is dealt with a choice that might be too much for a little boy to handle.

Bergman was always a master at setting up his world for the characters to live in. It is the ambiance that has always set the tone in his films, and in this film, the ambiance says so much about the characters. The Ekdahl household is full of warm colors, which makes it aesthetically very welcoming. It’s a place where the viewer can feel comfortable. In contrast, the Bishop’s house is made of austere white walls. It’s a place the audience doesn’t want to stay, and the Bishop, as well as his mother and sister, seem like their made of ice when set up against these white mirrors. Sven Nykvist takes full advantage of this scenery and makes this real-world setting feel somewhat supernatural, as seen through the eyes of a little boy.

Fanny’s role in this story is the one of the loyal sister, always standing by her brother’s side, and she sees everything he sees. She’s the first to see her father’s ghost, before Alexander gets to speak with him, and she tries to protect Alexander from the Bishop as much as she can. Her mere presence gives Alexander the courage to stand up to the world. She may not say much, but Alexander knows she’s on his side.

Fanny & Alexander seems to be the culmination of all of Bergman’s earlier works. It has the intense relationship drama that we saw in Cries & Whispers and Autumn Sonata, and it explores themes of innocence and the supernatural, as well as Death, which was present in The Seventh Seal. He approaches the frailty of human life and how quickly things can change. He also explores our place in life and compares it to the roles actors play. We play the son, the father, the teacher, the creator. This is the story of a little boy with a part to play, and no one will tell him how to play it.

Isaac Richter

Jose Saca - Crash (First Post)

Crash

Released in 1996

Directed by David Cronenberg

An erotic drama for and about the postmodern age, David Cronenberg’s “Crash” is based on a novel of the same name by J.G. Ballard, and is set in Ontario, Canada. James Spader plays the lead character, James Ballard, while Deborah Kara Unger plays his wife, Catherine. The supporting cast includes Holly Hunter as Helen Remington, Elias Koteas as Vaughan, and Rosanna Arquette as Gabrielle.

The film dismantles the concept of courtship in a modern age. Catherine and James aren’t monogamous. They cheat on each other constantly, but openly talk about it when they are together. A scene in particular, where Ballard drives his car in a car wash and sits passively as he sees his friend Vaughan perform a bizarre sexual act with Catherine, challenges the viewer to look past the infidelity and more towards what the scene itself is trying to say regarding humanity and technology. A scene like this illustrates the nightmare Cronenberg puts on the screen, a world where technology assimilates with the average human being.

The reality Cronenberg presents seems intentionally rehearsed, as if mechanized. These are human beings only in appearance. The wounds we see on their bodies and the sex each character engages in are the only reminders of their humanity. The film is known for being openly sexual, as its NC-17 rating can attest. However, the film’s sex scenes are all but erotic. They seem clinical, as if one were watching the Discovery Channel profile humans in the near-future. We see the act of coitus, but the feeling, the passion, is stripped away. What we are given is the act itself. I have never seen anything like this before, sexual situations where the viewer is not given any emotion, any underlying subtext, when the act is occurring.

Dark colors and clothing are dominant in this film. Ballard tends to wear blacks, blues, and greys, matching perfectly with the many images the viewer is given of metallic braces, clinical facilities, parking lots, and the interior and exteriors of cars in general. Cinematographer Peter Suschitzky’s lighting gives off a metallic sheen. The characters, especially Spader and Unger, tend to carry sickly complexions augmented by the many close-ups Cronenberg provides the viewer, especially in the film’s sexual encounters. The characters wear dead expressions on their faces and utter their lines in either a whisper or monotone. It’s as if Cronenberg is trying to suggest that the world presented in this film is devoid of emotion, life, or passion. All these traits help give the movie a moody sickliness that lingers with the viewer well after watching.

Posted by Jose Saca.