Movie Review: Moon

1 Reply

Of all the movies I’ve seen, even the strangest still give me something to say. It is at the rarest occasion that I am almost at a loss for words. One of these rare occasions occurred as I watched Duncan Jones’ “Moon.”

This doesn’t at all mean that “Moon” is a bad movie; it is in fact quite a good one. It is just so complex and almost non-linear that it will take a lot to explain what I just saw.
The film is a mixture of both the sci-fi and psychological thriller genres. Along with “District 9″ and “Avatar,” “Moon” proves why 2009 was the year that sci-fi made a comeback.
“Moon” is set sometime in the near future. At this point, humans have gone beyond using dirty forms of energy and have found a clean form of energy in fusion from the sun. This form of energy can only be found on the surface of the moon so the company Lunar Industries sends people to the moon to harvest it.
At the moment, the man on the moon is Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell). Sam is under a three year contract and, being the only person on the moon, faces extreme loneliness. He especially misses his wife (Dominique McElligott) and daughter. The only company he has is a robot named GERTY (Kevin Spacey). The only thing that makes GERTY seem remotely human is the little smiley face attached to him, which at times seems more intimidating than friendly.
One day, Sam is involved in a vehicle crash and wakes up to find himself in the middle of Lunar’s twisted, new experiment.
It’s going to be hard to discuss both the thematic and narrative implications of “Moon” without giving away a giant spoiler. Therefore, I will do my best to avoid revealing this huge plot point. What I will say though is that Rockwell does an amazing job dealing with this twist. I always knew he had talent, but “Moon” just proves it even further. He shows some great skill handling a character with a tendency toward both lunacy and normalcy. In the face of the very strange journey he goes on, he manages to seem as realistically perplexed as the viewer is.
Jones’ writing and directing also deserves great praise. I am always fascinated by visions of the future. Where do artists believe we are headed as a species? “Moon” definitely has some interesting things to say on that topic. While a lot of dystopian genres take the bad things of present day society and amplify them in the future, Jones does the opposite and takes the clean energy craze and turns it into something that could doom us all.
However, Jones also does tie in the topic of technology. Sam’s isolation could be a tool to show how our increasingly computerized world can be dehumanizing. In fact, the future of “Moon” seems like a time in which humans are treated more like machines that can be easily programmed and deprogrammed then like actual human beings with thoughts and emotions. The future will quite literally be dehumanizing.
“Moon” also manages to create a convincing futuristic hell through the amazing set designs. A lot of the cold, white hallways of the station were reminiscent of “2001: A Space Odyssey.” This isn’t very surprising, as that film also portrays a future where humans have been taken over by technology. Also, the utter attention and focus put on every detail of this time create a world that seems so vividly real that the viewer might almost feel a part of it. That is the true essence of a Kubrickian filmmaker.
The film also felt slightly like “Alien,” as it pits helpless crew members in space against a corporation with shady intentions. “Moon” also uses outer space the same way “Alien” did and uses it as a tool for being both trapped and extremely isolated. When you’re in space and you’re life is in danger, there aren’t many places you can turn to.
“Moon” will likely leave you feeling perplexed, and shaken up. It uses both genres it combines to compliment each other and create an extremely original and satisfying whole. It’s engaging from its very first shot and it never lets you go from there.
This is a Sci-Fi film not reliant on action but rather on character study and it reveals what the genre does best: use the extraterrestrial or technological world to reveal human nature. When you walk out of this film, you will question what it means to truly be a living, breathing, human being.

Movie Review: The Conversation

Leave a reply

The next time somebody says to you, “they don’t make ‘em like they used to,” know that they’re likely talking about “The Conversation.” Nobody observes time and space while fully exploiting all the great elements of film quite like Francis Ford Coppola did.

“The Conversation” deserves to be known as one of the great, defining films in the greatest era of filmmaking: The 1970s. “The Conversation” is set in San Francisco and, like any captivating film, captures the life of a person we never wanted to see.
Coppola follows the life of Harry Caul (Gene Hackman). Caul is an expert private surveillance technician. Despite making a living off spying on others, he is extremely protective of his own privacy. Caul has been hired by a mysterious and very wealthy man to spy on what we presume is a very happy couple. This case mirrors one that has haunted Caul and he believes what he has seen is a recipe for disaster, and that he can stop it.
“The Conversation” prevails because it is top-notch at everything it tries to do: it has superb performances, a nail-biting story, and thrills that are actually thrilling. It’s hard to expect anything less from Francis Ford Coppola who also pioneered such other masterworks as “The Godfather” series and “Apocalypse Now.”
Despite the fact that the running time of “The Conversation” is significantly shorter than the running times of his other aforementioned masterpieces, it feels just as lengthy. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
While any other director would normally try and cram as many events as possible into under two hours, “The Conversation” basically only has a few scenes that go on for long amounts of time. In fact, nothing extremely thrilling happens in the film until its last half hour. The rest of the film serves as character buildup. We are given an understanding of Caul’s twisted psyche. Coppola allows the viewer to view him the way a detective would view someone he’s secretly listening to. In this manner, the detective here’s candid conversation up close and thinks he can figure everything out from there. However, the detective is not that person, and doesn’t know the full truth. This is both how Caul seems to view other people and a pretty brilliant mind trick that leaves us totally unprepared for the shocking finale.
Despite the fascination around the central mystery, this is not just a film about a story, but about a person. Hackman, always the dependable performer, brings even more life to Harry Caul. His performance here reminds me of his performance as Popeye Doyle in “The French Connection.” Caul and Doyle are very similar; they both seem to believe they’ve been put on this earth to rid evil in anyway they can.
Caul also has the added dimension of being a walking contradiction: he spies on people, yet will barely share anything of his own life with others. This may be a byproduct of having to remain in hiding for a living. Or, it could just be the work of a raging sociopath. Hackman plays Caul as being a mixture of both of these. This adds to one of the film’s eventual themes of how the world of work often spills over into the world of pleasure and that in the end, every person is vulnerable to being consumed by their job.
This film mainly showcases why Coppola, despite a less prominent future career, deserves to be known as one of the great auteurs of all time. He understands how time and place can be used to forward a story. He understands what type of music to use to jolt the viewer out of their seat. He knows when to place the light in one place and when to place it in another. Most importantly, he knows how to take a story that anybody else could’ve told wrong and figures out how to tell it right.
“The Conversation” is such an exemplary American thriller of the 1970s for many reasons. The film often reminded me of “Chinatown,” “Taxi Driver,” and “The French Connection” for its use of taut camera angles and brilliant use of light and shadows. Also, its musical score is both classical and jazzy, suggesting the great era of Film Noir. The hero of “The Conversation,” like in these other two films, also contains the characteristics of an anti-hero. Basically, the lives of others are being put in the hands of someone with a past too haunted to ever be trusted in a conventional Hollywood thriller.
All of the tense buildup of “The Conversation” is worth it. We get a mystery well worth the wait and a few scenes that simply remind us of the pure magic of good filmmaking. I guarantee the final scene of this film is one that will stay with you. It is a scene that fully respects the idea of image being more powerful then word as Caul rips apart the very floor he stands on and then smashes a statue of the Virgin Mary, suggesting a world that is not only empty of morality, but too paranoid to even care what morality is.

The One Tarantino Rumor I Hope is True

Leave a reply

I spend a lot of time on this blog talking about Quentin Tarantino. And over the past few posts, I’ve mentioned “Inglourious Basterds” at least once. You’re probably so sick of the name by now. However, this is one piece of news you just may have to hear.

I don’t know how entirely truthful this piece of news is. It comes from Tarantino himself. The man does have a knack for bringing up film projects he never seems to follow up on. Over the years, he’s brought up the possibility of a Vega Brothers movies, a “Basterds” prequel, and a third installment of “Kill Bill.” Those sound all like great follow-ups to such great movies. Then again, we are talking about Quentin Tarantino, one of the most original directors working today.
That is why today I was thrilled to read a story today on FilmDrunk (originally from the New York Daily News) that Tarantino is throwing around the idea of doing a film based on the Underground Railroad during the days of American Slavery. He’s defining it as being sort of like a Western, but called a “Southern.”
I’ve been hoping that someday, Tarantino would do a pure Western. However, I’m also invested on how he’s taken the Western ideology and implanted it into Nazi-Occupied France, Japan, and the greater Los Angeles area.
I can already picture Tarantino’s vision of slavery now. Like “Basterds,” it will take place in a slightly altered alternate universe and likely center around a slave rebellion. One slave will escape his plantation and seek brutal revenge on their former owner. Meanwhile, another group of escaped slaves will seek their own form of revenge by destroying plantations, and scalping lots of white people. Samuel L. Jackson will play a badass slave seeking vengeance, and Christoph Waltz will play a harsh yet charming slaveowner. Daniel Day-Lewis will have a minor, but affecting role as Jefferson Davis (just because he needs to be in a Tarantino film already).
I have a bad feeling this project might go the way of that Vega Brothers film. Let’s hope not. As much as I really want to see Tarantino save the Western by making a true one, I am enjoying seeing the ideas of the Western get inserted into other aging dramas. Has there ever been a good, tasteful film chronicling American slavery besides “Gone With the Wind?” I remember once watching an 80s version of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” in school. That’s about it.
Then again, if there was anyone who could make a movie about American slavery and do it right, it would be Quentin Tarantino.
More information on this here and here.
Side Note: If you must understand the true roots of my Tarantino obsession, read here.

Movie Review: A Single Man

Leave a reply

Ignore the posters that make this film out to be a romance between Colin Firth and Julianne Moore. Ignore the buzz that makes this film seem like nothing more than a “gay movie.” “A Single Man” is much more than a romance of any kind. “A Single Man” is a film with amazing depth, but unfortunately, falls just short of perfection.

“A Single Man” takes place in Los Angeles in the early 1960s. It centers on the complicated life in and out of the head of British college professor George (Firth). The film begins at a climatic moment one would expect to see in the middle, rather than beginning, of a story. George’s lover, Jim (Matthew Goode), dies in a car crash.
From there, the film becomes one of those films where the story is less a plot and more of an idea. George copes with the pain of losing his lover. He seeks solace in liquor, an old flame (Moore), and a curious young student (Nicholas Hoult).
Much praise has been heaped upon Firth. This is no surprise; he is able to express so much in so little. George is a character who keeps much of his true self hidden, and Firth always gives George a little less than a smile and a little less than a frown. We know he is not emotionless, and he eventually proves not to be.
Perhaps one of the most moving scenes of the year was made possible by Firth’s incredibly real acting. After getting the call that Jim was killed, George breaks down and cries. However, it is not a loud, over-the-top reaction. Rather, he remains silent. His silence increases the intensity of his reaction more than any scream could.
The film also contains an excellent, yet too brief, performance by Julianne Moore. She revives her British accent from “The Big Lebowski” and brings something of an uplifting spirit to an otherwise saddening story.
It may sound strange, but one of the strongest features of “A Single Man” is also its only real weakness: the directing. The film was directed by Tom Ford, a fashion designer. For a directorial debut, it’s somewhat impressive, and very promising.
Ford has already begun to establish a style. He directs the film like a fashion designer, paying very close attention to color and small details. He really loves color. Ford truly does embrace the aspect of style, and he tries to use it to enhance the substance. There are times when this works. For example, throughout the film, George is constantly shot with washed out colors. Meanwhile, every time Kenny (the young student) enters the frame, George’s world lights up with warm, lively colors.
Details like this work because they are subtle. However, other overly artistic details in the film don’t work at all. While the very strange way George looks at his neighbors serves to show how conflicted he is between lifestyles, the continuous freeze frames also take away some of the seriousness of the story. At other moments, George will be in the middle of experiencing an emotional breakthrough and Ford’s over-the-top direction will give away exactly what we’re supposed to get on our own from the complexity of Firth’s performance.
The major problem of this film is that the director, the film’s leader, is too present. While Ford is talented, he is also dealing with an extremely talented cast of actors. Without his constant intervention, their talents could have wowed us even further. While all of the best directors leave their personal stamp on every film they make, everyone else involved should be allowed to leave their mark as well.
Despite some small hiccups, Ford manages to get both the story and themes across effectively. In fact, George manages to come off as fully developed despite being someone who can barely express his true feelings. It seems that the whole point of the film is to do the best any film can to get inside someone’s head from an outsider perspective. We see a fully realized world of confusion and uncertainty.
“A Single Man” is the first movie in recent years with a gay main character not to make a huge deal of the character’s sexuality. The word “gay” is never used once in the film. Given the time period, most men were beyond closeted, and homosexuality seemed basically impossible. The relationship between George and Jim is used to convey the sense of freedom and openness that is trapped inside of him. The film becomes one about finding identity and reaching clarity.
The greatest thing Tom Ford does with “A Single Man” is that he makes it a love story that’s neither a gay love story nor a straight love story but rather just a love story about understanding love and dealing with loss.

That One Scene: Inglourious Basterds

3 Replies

“That One Scene” is a recurring series on The Reel Deal where I examine that one scene in a certain movie that sets it apart from all others.
First off, we have a major dilemma. When I first created “That One Scene” back in August, I promised to write about one remarkable movie scene every week. Obviously, this didn’t happen.
However, now that I am a second semester senior and certain responsibilities don’t exist for me anymore, I believe now is the perfect time to bring this post back. And now, I’m going to bring it back by discussing a movie I’ve talked about way too much recently: “Inglourious Basterds.” My incessant chatter though is for good reason, as this was a film made to be broken down piece by piece to be fully admired. Also, I hope this serves to show you why this film truly deserves to take home Best Screenplay this year.
There are a multitude of great scenes to break down in this film. I could’ve discussed the stretched out, tension-filled opening scene. I could’ve discussed the audaciously long tavern scene. I also could’ve had some fun and discussed the Bear Jew beating a Nazi with a bat. However, I’ve opted for one of the more subtlety beautiful and less appreciated scenes in the film. It’s a tour-de-force of fine writing, acting, and directing.
The scene occurs after our hero Shosanna (Melanie Laurent), a Jew hiding as a French movie theater owner in Nazi-Occupied Paris, manages to sit through an entire meal with Joseph Goebbels. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), the SS Officer responsible for the slaughter of Shosanna’s entire family walks into the room. Quentin Tarantino doesn’t skip a beat going into this scene. The banging drums seem out of place in a WWII epic, but it serves well in sending chills down the viewer’s spine.
As Landa greets her, Shosanna’s skin turns white as a skeleton. Laurent shows her as someone vulnerable enough to crack at any moment. Tarantino spends an awful long time focusing on Shosanna’s facial expressions, basically making the conversations occurring right above her shoulder seem insignificant. Laurent’s acting shows more fear, vulnerability, and ultimate strength in just a few smacks of her lips than any amount of words ever could. For a director so enamored by conversation, this seems like an interesting, and even welcome, change.
This entire scene contains an incredible amount of ambiguity around it. From the beginning, we are nervous of whether or not Landa will recognize Shosanna. By the end, it’s still impossible to tell if he did or not. For someone known as “The Jew Hunter,” Landa maintains a jovial demeanor throughout the scene.
Landa says the purpose of their meeting is to discuss security matters. At times, it seems less for information and more as a means of torture. He even orders Shosanna a glass of milk, the very thing he drank the last time they were acquainted.
Meanwhile, there is a great focus on the strudels. It seems unnecessary, but Tarantino seems to have a great love of shaping human interaction around the things we eat. That lovingly shot close up of Shosanna ripping off a piece of strudel, then piling a little cream onto it, reminds me of watching Samuel L. Jackson devour a Big Kahuna Burger in “Pulp Fiction.” Tarantino seems to think a lot can be said about a person by how they eat their food. In this instance, Shosanna is someone who is careful, and will never miss a detail. Landa, meanwhile, shoves the pastry in his face. This is consistent with much of the humor arising from this character; he seems to be funniest in how outlandish he is in just about everything he does.
It’s strange also to see the weird chemistry between Landa and Shosanna. While one is a Nazi and the other is a secret Jew, they seem quite good in listening to each other and responding to each other’s comments. At times, they chat almost as if they are old friends.
Of course, while parts of this scene may seem very light-hearted, one can forget its extremely serious undertones. After all, this is a film about the topic of genocide. The most serious moment comes as Landa states, “I did have something else I wanted to ask you.” His smile so quickly turns into a frown, showing how his character can go so quickly from kind to cruel. Shosanna of course, tries to stand her ground. Tarantino takes no hesitation in lingering on this long, frightful silence.
Suddenly, Landa’s deathly stare turns into an all-out smile. He states, “But right now, for the life of me, I can’t remember what it is. Oh well, must not have been important.” This reveals something very important about Landa. Throughout the film, he seems to constantly be on the line between very serious man, and cartoonishly over-the-top. He is a villain so frightening in his insane self-centered principles. Yet, here, he is as clueless as the conventional Hollywood villain who’s too underwritten to stop his foe.
In this case, it’s not poor writing, but some form of satire. That, and it reveals Landa as the most complex Nazi we may ever see on film.
If we look at it from the possibility that he did know it was her, why wouldn’t Landa try and stop her? Well, maybe he didn’t want to because he enjoys torturing her with mystery better. Also, Landa is always fixated on the idea of survival. He seems to hold great respect for those who will do anything to survive. This is why many believe he let Shosanna run away at the beginning. Now, he sees that she is not only surviving, but thriving (like the rats he discusses earlier in the film). He may be simply amazed at how she overcame so much to come this far, and that she deserves to remain in secret.
After Landa leaves, we get to see why Laurent deserved an Oscar nomination this year. After Landa leaves, her feigned smile quickly turns into a frown. When she sees she is completely alone, she lets out a giant gasp and begins crying. It seems almost as if she’s been under the identity of Emmanuelle for so long that she forgot how to feel like Shosanna. It’s strange how she turns around to see if it’s okay to cry; as this makes it seem like her reaction is almost mechanical. However, Laurent manages to make it the most emotionally realistic moment in the entire film. It could also be that she, like the audience, can’t believe she’s made it this far. In this way, Laurent turns Shosanna perhaps into the film’s most relatable character.
Overall, this scene seems to be an embodiment of what “Inglourious Basterds” is truly about: a celebration of the finer things in culture. This ranges from good cinema to good Scotch, good cigarettes, and of course, a fine dessert. Here is a scene that represents why Tarantino is the auteur of our generation: he has an incredible understanding of humanity, timing, and detail.

Oscars ’09: The Snubs

Leave a reply

Melanie Laurent (Inglourious Basterds)- In a film powered by raw, unforgiving violence, Laurent was the true heart of “Basterds.” Her emotional performance as a Jew hiding in Nazi-Occupied France truly brought sympathy for this lady vengeance. By the end, when she’s become nothing but a hovering, etherial cloud of smoke, her human presence is never gone. No, it’ll live on in “Too Good for the Oscars” immortality.

Michael Stuhlbarg (A Serious Man)- If voters were actually paying attention, Stuhlbarg would be the frontrunner for Best Actor. Of course, they weren’t, because his brilliant performance was layered in deep, hilarious subtlety. For example, look closely as he waddles down his roof like a chicken as he spies on the woman of his dreams. The Coen Brothers couldn’t have found a more perfect man to portray awkward, Jewish angst.
(500) Days of Summer- How could one of the most inventive comedies in years be totally snubbed, not even scoring in the Best Original Screenplay category? You know you’ve got a special romantic comedy when it seems easier to compare it to “Memento” than “It’s Complicated.”
Peter Capaldi (In the Loop)- Here is a man who deserves to be one of the most famous actors in the world. Capaldi let comedic sparks fly high with the handling of his character’s incessant cursing. While his character is far from a joyous one, he doesn’t seem to curse out of anger, but rather out of involuntary obligation. His impeccable line delivery helped make this dark comedy as dark and funny as a dark comedy can be.
Lance Acord (Where the Wild Things Are)- Technical work saves a tepid screenplay. Acord’s cinematography, deeply observing the beauty of nature, becomes a story of its own. It’s one of those films where you could turn down the volume, and just enjoy the incredible imagery.
Other Glaring Snubs: Matt Damon (The Informant!), Fantastic Mr. Fox (Best Adapted Screenplay), Brad Pitt (Inglourious Basterds), Neil Blompkamp (District 9), Alfred Molina (An Education), “Stu’s Song” (The Hangover)

Movie Review: An Education

1 Reply

The beginning of “An Education” might throw you off a bit. For a premise that sounds so trite, the music is so upbeat and unexpected. It’s basically an indicator for what’s to come: a surprising, refreshing, and extremely entertaining British drama.

“An Education” brings us back to a time where many things were accepted and others rejected that we couldn’t even imagine today. Still, something about this time seems alarmingly relevant. The year is 1961, and the location is London. Jenny (Carey Mulligan) is a 16-year-old with a love for French music and film. Her real ambitions seem to be to absorb all things cultural. However, she is ruled more by the ambitions of her strict father (Alfred Molina). Therefore, she attends an all girls private school with a goal of getting into Oxford.
Everything in Jenny’s life seems mechanical. Even the cello, which she loves so much, is meant simply as a means of getting her into college. This all changes one day when she meets David (Peter Sarsgaard). David is a Jewish businessman about twice Jenny’s age. He breaks her away from her imprisoned life and introduces her to a world of jazz, gambling, and drinking, amongst other things. Once she sees this new life, she never wants to go back.
Much talk about the film has gone into Carey Mulligan’s performance. All of this talk comes for good reason. I cannot see any other actress stepping into the role of Jenny and doing as fine a job as Mulligan does. She conveys Jenny’s emotion and confusion with absolute perfection, letting both her emotions and her ambivalence guide the story. Mulligan also constantly reminded me of Audrey Hepburn in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s.” It’s not just for her looks, but for the way she conveys her many complex feelings, and ultimately finds her purpose in life.
Mulligan might be front and center, but she’s not the only great actor on display. Molina is amazing when you think how drawn out his character could’ve been. Instead, he breathes life into his performance and even bring a good deal of humor into his character’s awkwardness. And in his sternest moments, he’s always convincing.
Sarsgaard performance is the most underrated in the film. He has a fascinating ability to be able to act in two different emotions at once, especially with his body language. His smile will suggest a calm amiability, while his cocked eyebrows can suggest a whole different man. This is a rare talent few actors possess, and for this, as well as his convincing British accent, Sarsgaard should be praised more often.
“An Education” does not solely rely on performances for greatness. To tell you the truth, the only thing that got me to see this movie was the Oscar buzz surrounding it. The story sounded like something I’ve seen many times before. However, “An Education manages to take this formula and bring a whole new dimension to it.
For starters, none of the characters are turned into caricatures. None of the adults seem to be putting Jenny through her miserable education simply to torture her. There is always a reason behind each motive. In the end, Jenny’s strict father ends up being as likable as she is.
The whole story is an ode to rebelliousness and non-conformity. This of course isn’t the first film to celebrate these things. What is so great about the story is that it doesn’t seem to be celebrating the wrong kind of rebelliousness. It wants Jenny to find freedom, and find it in the right way. Just as it makes the point that one can’t get an education until they realize why they’re being educated, one can’t truly go their own way until they understand why they’re going in the direction they’re headed.
Some film critics judge how much they like a movie by their emotional connection to it. I don’t do that too often but with “An Education,” I will take a big exception. Jenny’s coming-of-age story reminded me of events I’ve faced recently in my own life, and some words she hears sound a little like things I’ve been told as well. It’s not just what Jenny is told, but her reactions to it that I can relate to so much.
I think what made “An Education” such a unique viewing experience for me is its tone. It could’ve been a film that was darky, moody, and constantly angry. Instead, it remains optimistic throughout. Even when Jenny reaches her lowest point, there is always the reaffirming touch of life in every shot. It’s nice for once to see a film about the machine that is life which doesn’t approach it’s subject in such a pessimistic manner. “An Education” is a film that proves that it doesn’t just matter what story you’re telling, but how you tell it.

What J.D. Salinger Meant to Me

Leave a reply

I meant to write this post on Thursday or Friday. Hopefully, this topic hasn’t lost its relevance yet.

As a blog that devotes exclusively to the moving image, it is only a rare, yet deserving occasion that I would devote an entire post to a book. This is one of those occasions.
On Thursday, J.D. Salinger, author of “Catcher in the Rye,” died of natural causes. He was 91. Salinger has become quite legendary for his extreme secrecy. However, his true claim to fame is his writing of the American classic “Catcher in the Rye.”
“Catcher in the Rye” seems to have become a mandatory read in this country. Every high school student is given a copy to read at some point in their lives. I am proud to say its one of the only required readings I’ve ever been given in my life that didn’t feel like a chore. For those who haven’t read it yet, “Catcher” tells the story of Holden Caufield, a teen who has just been kicked out of boarding school and now spends a few days aimlessly wandering through New York City before having to face the reality of telling his parents.
Holden Caufield hasn’t necessarily been an idol to me but rather just someone I look to to understand my own life. Over 60 years on, he truly resonates as one of pop culture’s greatest anti-heroes. He is someone who acts so mature yet ironically is extremely immature. He also is something of a representation of anti-establishment. For all these things, Salinger’s creation has never left our thoughts.
Surprisingly enough, there has still never been a film version of “Catcher in the Rye.” This is mainly because Salinger strictly guarded his story’s rights. It wasn’t out of pure stubbornness, but rather because Salinger never wanted us to see Holden. It was up to our imaginations. After Salinger died, there were random whispers on the web of a future film adaptation.
Not only would it be wrong to ever adapt “Catcher in the Rye,” it would also be extremely unnecessary. It would be unnecessary because in a way, Holden’s story has already been put on the screen hundreds of times, with amazing results.
One of the finest examples is “The Graduate.” Ben Braddock mirrors Caufield in his aimless wandering. Both of their unsure journeys from kid to adults seem like sort of dangerous purgatories. And both characters, despite lacking ambitions, are so hard not to root for.
Perhaps a film much more directly influenced by Salinger is “Rushmore,” which is the story of a teenager kicked out of private school for his failing grades. Like Holden Caufield, Max Fisher acts much more mature than he actually is. Perhaps the best way that Anderson imitates Salinger is the way in which we view his character. We don’t necessarily root for his immaturity but rather for his journey to maturity and the harsh way he is pushed around by society.
While most of my influences remain in the film world, there are only a few others from different mediums that I can say have truly influenced my life. Of those, all I can think of are Bob Dylan, Lorne Michaels and J.D. Salinger. Not only has he touched my own life, but he’s also shaped the way that films tell stories. We never need to see Holden Caufield on film because in truth, there is a Holden Caufield in all of us.

Movie Review: In the Loop

Leave a reply

Some things are too ridiculous to be true. Other things, when put into the right context, are too ridiculous to not be true. This is the very case for “In the Loop.” Its a very relevant political satire about ridiculous characters and situations during a very ridiculous period in history.

“In the Loop” might be so brilliant because of its stunning realism, or just because of how funny it is. The film is shot in a mockumentary style and spans a wide range of characters across an entire ocean. It takes place in the days leading up to a major war with a Middle Eastern country (no name is mentioned, but the film is obviously alluding to Iraq).
The film follows the lives of incompetent bureaucrats as the US and Britain prepare for war. The British side is headed by the Prime Minister’s enforcer Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi), a man who curses more than he thinks. The war plans are constantly compromised by Minister for International Development Simon Foster (Tom Hollander) and his new assistant Toby (Chris Addison).
On the American front, Liza Weld (Anna Chlumsky) writes an anti-war report. As the two countries try and thwart the invasion, the more they work together, the less they get done.
“In the Loop” works so well for so many reasons. For one, it does not encompass one single style of humor, but rather a very broad comedic range. The film seems to have a combination of humor from both sides of the pond, which is a perfect fit. At times, it embraces British deadpan and visual humor. At other times, it uses the American humor of awkwardness and slapstick.
The great thing is that it doesn’t restrict British humor to the British characters and American humor to the American characters. One of the best examples in the film is when Toby stumbles into a meeting late, and he uncomfortably tries to find a good excuse. Of course, he has no clue what he’s talking about.
“In the Loop” is also blessed by hilarious dialogue from writer Jesse Armstrong. At times, some of the lines seem too natural to be scripted; I would not be surprised if improv took place in this film. The lines contain many pop culture references, and a fair amount of cursing. However, the cursing is not just thrown in for the sake of being there. It seems to have a purpose. At times, it can reveal frustration. Other times, it shows abundant emotional immaturity. Mainly though, it just manages to make you laugh. Rarely has the f-word been used this creatively.
“In the Loop” is boosted by an incredible ensemble. No one actor dominates. Rather, each is given a moment to shine. James Gandolfini shines as a US general. He manages to be hilarious by being intimidating at some times, and at other times delivering lines about murdering kittens and puppies without sounding angry.
The strength of the cast lies not just in the strength of each actor, but in the way they all communicate with each other. While great chemistry between actors is usually defined by how convincing it is that they like each other, the great chemistry in “In the Loop” is defined by how well the characters fight with each other. The fact that this was passed on by SAG for the Best Ensemble Award is something of a crime.
“In the Loop” works not just as comedy, but as spot-on political commentary. Armando Iannucci has created a satire worthy of being mentioned alongside “Dr. Strangelove,” the greatest political satire of all time. Like “Strangelove,” “In the Loop” shows miscommunication as the most powerful starter of war. However, unlike “Strangelove,” “In the Loop” is based more off something that actually happened rather than something that could’ve happened. Both are inevitably about trying to stop a crisis that’s already started.
All joking aside, “In the Loop” does have a very serious message to tell. Of course, it does this through humor. It portrays a world in which everything we’re told is essentially a lie, and the real, dirty business goes on way behind closed doors. Also, by having pretty much every person working for the US and British government be way too young, Iannucci is saying that Iraq War might as well have been planned by children. This balance of humor and serious message is something we don’t see enough in modern American comedies.
I really hope in the next two weeks, Oscar voters take this film into some serious consideration. Mainly, a surprise nomination for Capaldi and a Screenplay nomination for the bleeding gums scene alone would be just fine.
In the end, there is really one reason you should go and see “In the Loop”: it’s the most intelligent comedy you’ll see involving diarrhea jokes.

The Hurt Locker: A New Frontrunner?

Leave a reply

Well, I guess was wrong.

Just one week ago, all of the Oscar buzz was in favor of “Avatar.” After dominating the box office for over a month, the film picked up the Golden Globes for Best Picture and Director. From reporters to ordinary moviegoers, no one would stop talking about “Avatar.” It was riding an unstoppable wave to the top.
Then, one of the most important precursors to the Oscars, the Producers Guild of America, announced its pick for Best Picture: “The Hurt Locker.” While “The Hurt Locker” picked up nearly every major critics’ award, it went home empty handed at the Globes and Screen Actors Guild Awards.
Now, just one award might not mean “Avatar” is a total goner. However, the Globes are not known as a very good predictor for the Oscars (sorry, “Hangover” fans). The Guild Awards are usually much more accurate, as much of the voting body for the Guilds also vote for the Oscars. Meanwhile, the HFPA, who vote for the Globes, are an entirely separate voting body.
This news still stuns me. While “The Hurt Locker” is one of the most critically acclaimed films of the year, its box office can’t help it much. “The Hurt Locker” made about $12 million domestically. That’s less than half of what “Avatar” made on its opening day.
Now, Best Picture winners don’t necessarily need to be blockbusters like “Avatar,” however I do recall people saying that the $54 million gross was too low.
Going beyond money, “The Hurt Locker” makes sense as a Best Picture winner. Not only is it a masterpiece, but it’s a defining film of our time. It is by far the best film made yet about the Iraq War. It’s a film that combines brilliant directing and technical mastery with fantastic performances and solid writing. Not to mention, it can go down as one of the most suspenseful films I’ve ever seen.
Also, awarding “The Hurt Locker” would be something of a brilliant move on the Academy’s part. In a year where the Academy extended the field to 10 movies in order to attract bigger movies (and more viewers), nominating a little seen independent film like “The Hurt Locker” would be a hilarious screw you to the American public. Well, at least I’ll be laughing.
“The Hurt Locker” might even have a bigger shot in the Best Director category. Kathryn Bigelow did an outstanding job giving her film a documentary feel and bringing out the highest level of tension in situations that involved absolutely no blood shed. This is the kind of work someone should win Awards for, and depending on which direction the DGA goes, I have a strong feeling that this could end up being the first year a woman picks up the prize for Best Director.
Then again, the Oscar nominations have yet to even come out. Who knows, maybe voters will shock us all and nominate neither. That’s highly unlikely. One thing is for sure though: after years of easily predicted frontrunners (“No Country for Old Men,” “Slumdog Millionaire”), we finally have little clue who is going to win. This could turn out to be one of the more exciting Oscar years in our lifetime.
Side Note: I can’t forget to mention that “Inglourious Basterds,” still my favorite movie of the year, one the SAG Award for Best Ensemble. Actors make up the largest portion of the Academy, and there is always a possibility that “Basterds” could pull of an upset like “Crash” did after it beat out “Brokeback Mountain” for the Best Ensemble prize. I can dream, can’t I?