Category Archives: Realism

Movie Review: 127 Hours

Leave a reply

Once again, a Danny Boyle film begins with the simple act of running. This time, it is not one person running, or even anyone running for some sort of purpose. It is just people running. Running because they can. Rushing because they want to.

Why open the movie this way, when the hero isn’t even present? It’s because understanding the adrenaline rush all humans search for is the only way to make sense of the strange, infuriating, and painful journey the hero of “127 Hours” will endure.
“127 Hours,” takes the idea of Realism to an almost unseen level. It is based on the true story of Aron Ralston (James Franco), a mountain climber with a reckless need for adventure. One day, Ralston leaves his comfy Los Angeles apartment for a trip into the American desert, and ends up at the bottom of a canyon with his arm stuck under a rock. And this all happens while he is completely alone.
“127 Hours” is basically a one man show. That doesn’t mean there are no other good performances, it just means that Franco’s performance is the only one that really matters. Had he failed in his role, “127 Hours” also would’ve failed. However, Franco is better than that. I’ve usually found Franco’s best performances to be in comedy, but with “127 Hours,” he proved he is just as good (if even better) in drama.
What is so perfect about Franco’s performance is that it doesn’t even feel like he’s acting; he’s reacting. He does exactly what anyone would actually do if stuck in Aron’s situation. What is eventually so haunting and memorable is how much he acts through facial expressions rather than words. It’s a rare talent to show such emotions as desperation and intensity without saying anything. Usually, it’s the filmmaker, not the actor, who is told to show, not tell. Franco proves that actors should begin to take on this burden as well.
Everyone else who worked on this film is as meticulous in their field as Franco is. Those quick, narrow cuts so perfectly serve the claustrophobia of the location. The cinematography also captures the dramatic American landscape so flawlessly.
Most of all, Boyle has impressed me more and more with each film he makes. Boyle could be accused of being one of the worst offenders of over filmmaking. “127 Hours” randomly contains shots ranging from the inside of a water bottle to the inside of a bone in someone’s arm. Usually, these would just be detours in a film. But in “127 Hours,” they are the tiny details that truly emphasize this man’s incredible quest for survival.
It is funny with all of the over filming how much at times “127 Hours” doesn’t even feel like a movie. At times, it doesn’t even feel like a pseudo-documentary. It feels just like a slice of reality.
Boyle’s most amazing talent is his ability to see that it’s not just about what’s being filmed, but how it’s being filmed. “127 Hours” might have been a preachy, cliche story in another’s director’s hands. With Boyle, it is a nail-biting adventure, even if the ending is already known. One of the best examples of this is during the rain scene. There is nothing interesting about a rain storm. However, there is a lot interesting about it if you slow it down and turn it into a frightening, unstoppable force of nature.
Boyle also has such a way of connecting with the locations he shoots in, inhabiting them as if he had lived there his whole life. He can connect places with a variety of emotions. The film nails suburban American sprawl in the first five minutes by connecting Los Angeles to various icons of consumerism. He makes this place seem as empty as he made the slums of Mumbai beautiful in “Slumdog Millionare” and the streets of Edinburgh exhilarating in “Trainspotting.”
Boyle has always been a highly stylized director, and “127 Hours” is certainly a highly stylized film. Boyle has the rare gift of turning style into substance. Not only does he make such an interesting adventure, he also makes such an interesting character. Aron reminds me of a modern day Christopher McCandless, but with more knowledge of how to survive in nature. Like McCandless, Aron is a people person who doesn’t act like one. He seems to only be able to connect to the world by foolishly isolating himself from the people he loves.
This could also be because he defines the McCandless mentality: one has to prove themselves worthy by doing it alone. Maybe it’s because men feel they have a special one-on-one connection with nature or they feel nature must be tamed. The lesson Hollywood seems to be teaching us is if you’re trying to go on a dangerous trek through nature alone: always leave a note.
In the end, “127 Hours” shows a new Boyle who is more emotionally effected by tragedy. It contains an ending that could’ve bordered on base sentimentality but is instead truly moving and deserving of a good tear or two. Aron Ralston, despite being selfish and aloof of reality, really deserves a hero’s welcome simply for his amazing will to survive and thrive.
One more note before I leave will be of the scene everyone is talking about. If you know the true story or have read the articles, you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about. Yes, it’s shocking, gruesome, and hard to watch. However, don’t let those few very negative reactions of one scene shape your entire opinion of the film. “127 Hours” is a film too big, and too meaningful, to be judged on one scene alone.

Movie Review: Winter’s Bone

Leave a reply

For a moment, let’s take the word ‘hillbilly’ out of our dictionary. Let’s also take the word ‘hick’ out, and all those other words. Let’s just call them, well, people. For the sake of understanding, and truly appreciating “Winter’s Bone” at least.

“Winter’s Bone” is a nice little movie. Well, not nice in the sense that it’s at all happy or uplifting. Just in the sense that it feels like a movie that is rarely released at this time of year.
“Winter’s Bone” is not much about big events or big thrills, it’s just about people and a story. The film takes place in an extremely remote area of the Missouri Ozarks in a small, tightly knit community. 17-year-old Ree (Jennifer Lawrence) is quite a story. She’s forced to take care of her ailing, pill-addicted mother and two younger siblings.
Why does she have to do this? Ree’s father is a meth cooker on the run from the law. He’s expected to appear in court, so he puts his house up for bond. This means that Ree and the family, already money troubled enough, will be forced to live on the street. Or in there case, the woods. As protector, Ree now must find her father, and save what remains of her family. The results aren’t pretty.
“Winter’s Bone” is nothing like what your expectations would have you believe it to be. It’s set up like a thriller. It’s lit up like a horror film. Yet, it’s simply a character study. It’s an examination of how people react to a crumbling society and deteriorating morals. The story is strangely told in such a simple way, yet in that simplicity lies a deep complexity.
Every good character study needs good actors, and “Winter’s Bone” has just that. Here, Lawrence is basically expected to hold down the fort. Just as Ree carries the weight of her family’s sins and shortcomings on her shoulders, she carries much of the film. She projects a style that is never panicked, and never over-the-top. She shows much and ambivalence, and even more realism. An excellent supporting performance comes from John Hawkes as Teardrop. He turns this character into a sometimes frightening, and always unpredictable, ball of rage.
“Winter’s Bone” might just be one of the best made films I’ve seen in a while. The cinematography is nothing short of masterful. Every shot looks drained of color, and devoid of the goodness in life. It helps feed into the film’s great usage of the Missouri landscape. Those patches of snow, the sagging trees, and of course that lake in the film’s shocking climax all contribute to the establishing mood excellently.
All of this reminded me much of the recent “Frozen River,” which coincidentally told a similar story of people in the country fighting for survival. I could pinpoint several other films this one reminded me of. That country band that played as Ree is violently abused might bring up bad memories of “Deliverance” (especially that banjo). And though this might be a stretch, the lake scene had a very similar vibe to the one that marked Fredo’s end in “The Godfather: Part II.”
At times the film even feels like a novel. I guess it’s something with the rhythm and feel of the conversations. No surprise there, it was adapted from one.
All I can say about “Winter’s Bone” is that it’s not the movie you’d expect to see in theaters everyday. It’s the kind of film that should be going into, and then getting released from, Sundance more often. Even at its darkest parts, there is always the optimistic spirit of the struggle for survival. Not to mention, an amazing view of humans at their most self-sufficient.
“Winter’s Bone” is one of those films that forces us to forget about all of our thoughts and stereotypes of other people and see a new perspective on life first hand. No matter where one comes from, life can be hard, and we can all somehow connect because we all have our struggles. Though, not everyone has to deal with severed hands.

TV Review: Skins

Leave a reply

I never thought I’d say this, but the world has found a new “Freaks and Geeks.” The late, great show has found its self reincarnated in the British show “Skins.” It’s “Freaks and Geeks,” uncensored.
“Skins” is so different from most shows today portraying high schoolers in its realism and dimensionality. It follows a large group of friends at a British high school, with each one getting their moment in the sun. There’s Tony (Nicholas Hoult), the cocky, obnoxious pretty boy. Tony’s best friend is Sid (Mike Bailey). Sid lacks the confidence of his best friend. He’s both the kind of guy everyone defines simply as “nice,” and the kind of guy who cares less about his own problems than everyone else does.
Sid is also deeply in love with Tony’s girlfriend, Michelle (April Pearson), who wonders whether or not there’s an emotional being under her boyfriend’s sleaziness. Sid might love Michelle, but he is constantly pursued by Cassie (Hannah Murray), an insecure but sweet girl with eating issues.
The rest of the important players include immature Chris (Joseph Dempsie), kind and musically gifted Jal (Larissa Wilson), and Anwar (Dev Patel), a Muslim grappling with his religious identity, so much so that it leads him to troubles with his gay friend Maxxie (Mitch Hewer).
The rest of the story typically just involves the teens navigating through a world of teenage angst. That could involve screwy relationships, embattled friendships, school work, and drugs. But then it also arches out to broader, everyday issues, like how to cope with getting hit by a car while trying to confess your love for someone.
“Skins” is one of those shows that wants to give every member of its large ensemble time to reveal their stories. Yes, it’s about redemption. Yet, not every character will immediately receive redemption in their assigned episodes. When one character is given an episode, it is their chance to realize their flaws and maybe think of how to change them later on. On “Skins,” redemption is never just given; it has to be earned.
Despite the fact that most of the characters get to redeem themselves, that doesn’t mean everyone is necessarily likable. Unlike most modern American shows, “Skins” doesn’t push to make any of its characters likable. In fact, some of them could be considered detestable. Yet, that’s what makes them human; not every person has the ability to be a totally great human being of any sort.
Unlike many high school stories, “Skins” is not just about its teens. The plot stretches into the lives of teachers and parents. When we see the lives of the parents, we are allowed to experience both the anger and angst that is passed down to the children, and through this we get an even more complex and detailed character study. Basically, everyone has a problem.
“Skins” is most engaging with its fascinating characters. It also manages to grab attention with its unique storytelling devices, the kinds that are atypical for this type of show. Many episodes will end right in the middle of an action, denying its audience of seeing the one action the episode has built up to. It’s a way of saying that the final action doesn’t matter; it’s the path the character took to get their that truly matters.
At other times, the show might even break the fourth wall. In the final moments of season one, rather than having a huggy-kissy moment, “Skins” opts for a very “Magnolia” moment. I won’t tell you how, because that would ruin the strange magic to it.
One extremely noticeable thing about “Skins” is how wildly uncensored it is, and sometimes how casually, yet seriously, it tackles some of its more controversial subjects. But hey, maybe swearing and partying are just casual hobbies for kids. Another thing that makes “Skins” great is that it never cuts corners or tries to be a clean version of reality. While it might heighten reality at times (like the episode where they go to Russia, or that whole ordeal with the submerged car), it never veers from its intended vision.
Whenever I review TV shows, I often look at them from the perspective of film. That is, the ones that have episodes that seem cinematic in quality. “Skins” has made me realize that that simply isn’t what makes a show great.
While most episodes of “Skins” can work as self-contained stories, this overall story could never work as a film. The character development that takes place could happen over several seasons, not 90 minutes or so. It’s amazing how we’re not only how deep the show goes, but how many characters it is able to so fully develop. “Skins” will impress not by gags and gimmicks, but simply by a deep and detailed fascination with how people behave.