jump to navigation

3:10 to Goodness January 27, 2008

Posted by acmd1838 in Commentary, Movie Reviews.
Tags: ,
add a comment

Hollywood goes through phases. The ’60s saw Eastwood’s Westerns, the ’80s and ’90s were subjected to an endless string of sci-fi knock-offs (save The Fifth Element), the early ’00s saw the burst of myth movies (i.e. Gladiator and Troy), and the last 50 years has seen nearly every possible premise surrounding World War II. These spurts are most often prompted by one successful movie, resulting in every competing studio trying to capitalize. 2007 was no exception. We saw a rehashing of sci-fi, going from Danny Boyle’s smash Sunshine to the all you can Will Smith buffet I Am Legend. But the most exciting genre rejuvenation of the season was the rebirth of the western. With the Coen Brother’s neo-western No Country for Old Men, Brad Pitt’s latest The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and the sleeper hit 3:10 to Yuma.

Seeing Luke Wilson with yellow teeth, spurs, and with a Southern accent was one of the stranger moments in 3:10, but proved that nobody can resist a good stint on the plains. The all-star cast, ranging from Peter Fonda to the great Russell Crowe, was a cherry atop the perfect entrance point back into the wild wild west. But it wasn’t Christian Bale straying from his badass motif that surprised me, it was the newbies, Ben Foster (Crowe’s sidekick) and Logan Lerman (Bale’s son). These two were able to capture the spotlight in spite of the greats that surrounded them.

What was most striking about Lerman’s character was his unflinching coldness towards his down and out father. He separated himself from the common angst-ridden kid, taking his role to a new level of teen defiance. He does not follow his father to protect his family from loosing their patriarch, instead he tags along with the simple belief that he is more competent than his father. These feelings are communicated delicately to the audience, through subtle hand motions, the coolness of his retorts, and most of all, in his expressions. His face remains constant, both revealing his emotion and protecting it simultaneously. It’s his final act of humanity, telling his father that he’s succeeded, that seals the transformation from revolt to regard for his dying father. And then, with a flip of a switch his coolness returns towards Crowe. It’s Lerman’s ability to communicate so effectively with so few actions that cements his character, and sets him apart from your garden variety emo 15-year-old.

Foster’s character can be seen in many ways. A son, trying to prove himself, a child in the midst of an idol, or even a love interest who cannot seem to let go. The way that he dresses, in colorful, clean, and matching leather, sets him apart from the rest of the outlaws, who appear to have just rolled off the garbage buggy. His love and admiration for Crowe is unflinching, prompting him to kill anyone who comes between them. In preparation for this role Foster studied Shakespearian actors, classic villains, and as a result given new life to the sidekick motif. His walk is calculated, his speech is premeditated, and his stares are all-together intentional. His character is a movie in and of itself.

The work of these two newcomers, in conjunction with the expected performances of the oldies, bring energy to the old west. James Mangold’s simple and dynamic direction creates an entertaining expose that infuses excellent acting with gun-slingin’ action. Such a revolution in westerns hasn’t come since the days of Sergio Leone.

Coincidence December 31, 2007

Posted by acmd1838 in Commentary.
add a comment

Coincidently enough, this week the Boston Globe ran an Associated Press story about the new movie Atonement. The story discusses the implications of a 5.5 minute tracking shot that unfolds during the British Army’s retreat at the battle of Dunkirk.

The reactions highlighted are contradictory, namely the outrage from Ty Burr of the Boston Globe. His position on the matter is that director Joe Wright has not yet earned the right to take such a bold risk when it comes to shot selection, but Wright defends the shot as not so much choice as necessity. He claims the only way to finish the thousand-plus extra scene was to go with one long shot.

The article continues to turn the spotlight on many other notable long shots in cinema history, including the accomplishments of Welles, Antonioni, and Hitchcock.

To see the story, visit the Boston Globe Online here.

My God, There Wasn’t a Single Handheld Shot in 2 Hours and 18 Minutes December 18, 2007

Posted by acmd1838 in Commentary.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

In this day and age the style of movies like the Kingdom prevails. While I’ll not hide my secret love for Jamie Foxx, or my very apparent appeal for Chris Cooper, the movie lacked substance. After all, there was only one shot in the entire thing that employed more than a shoulder for stabilization (when they are looking into the blast crater and Chris Cooper is spewing off bomb facts faster than Jason Bateman’s quips).

And while I’ll admit, the movie did keep me entertained for an hour and a half, it didn’t leave me with anything. Even Bad Boys II left me with the desire to watch it again…and to become a narcotics detective.

But the antithesis to the Kingdom complex of frequent zooms and nearly unrecognizable shots is lesser known in today’s cinema. For some reason, directors today are hooked on to the idea that action can only be captured hand held, even the Coen Brothers succumbed to the temptation in No Country for Old Men (when Tommy Lee Jones approaches the motel).

But this theory is not showcased in every movie. All 2 hours and 18 minutes of the Shawshank Redemption are stabilized and stylized to perfection, and yet the viewer is kept in firmly planted in his seat. While watching Tim Robbins crawl through sewage is not as bone jarring as Jaime Foxx hunting terrorists, seeing the prison fight scenes does get your heart beating, and they don’t need quick cuts or screaming guitars to do so.

It’s in these camera movements that Frank Darabont is able to propose a contrast, as the graceful movements of the camera contradict the harsh crimes occurring on screen. Such choices prove that quick editing and quicker movements are not required to portray violence. A single, directly overhead shot can capture the essence of a fight, and through its simplicity allow the viewer to digest the situation. Instead of trying to comprehend what’s going on behind all the cutting, the watcher is able to watch the action, and comprehend its significance. Such processing is not possible in movies like the Kingdom, as the watcher must focus his energy keeping up with the editor.

Many see the use of longer shots as shying away from the task of editing. Such films as Children of Men and anything from Kenneth Branagh can be seen as cop outs, opting to shy away from the editing room. But I disagree. These shots require a higher level of skill than any editor could reproduce, and while these shots might only be appreciated by a small minority, it proves that action can be captured in different ways and still be effective.

It’s nice to see that directors are branching out these days, that directors like Alfonso Cuaron and Paul Thomas Anderson are ignoring the quick cutting trend, and sticking to their visions. While quick editing may be the current craze, it’s good to know that directors are still getting creative, and mixing the styles together. Who knows what the Kingdom 2 will hold.