Paul Newman
1925-2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Movies You May Have Missed - #3
A Woman Under the Influence (1974)
John Cassavetes' seventh film as director remains a tremendous work of art, a triumph of independent filmmaking, and one of the best films ever made.
Gena Rowlands and Peter Falk star as a mentally unstable wife and her husband, respectively. Rowlands and Falk deliver two of the most harrowing performances of all time, completely uninhibited and raw, nearly leaping off the screen in their intensiveness. At first glance, Rowlands might seem to go a little over the top, but as the film progresses further, it becomes evident just how pitch-perfect she is in the role. It remains one of the most honest depictions of mental illness ever seen on film.
The film, which runs two-and-a-half hours, really only consists of about 10 major scenes. So obviously, the reason for the length is that these are really long sequences (one noteworthy dinner scene is nearly twenty minutes). But it's anything but boring. It's obviously not for everybody, but if you're one who likes to see dialogue and character interaction in films, you'll be in heaven.
Shot in Cassavetes' trademark documentary style, the camera merely captures the action, rather than dictating where or when the action will occur. In a Cassavetes picture, the actor is the most important element; the visual element isn't exactly ignored, it's just considered less important. Misframing and out-of-focus shots are a common occurrence, but it adds to the reality of the picture. Not to say that the movie is ugly - not at all. Filmed on grainy, 1970's 35mm film stock, it has that special kind of beauty that most films of the period did.
Contrary to what most people think, Cassavetes' films were not entirely improvised, but rather were the result of the actors collaborating on the script in the pre-production phase, where the improvisations were subsequently written into the script. The end result is great, natural dialogue, where nothing feels written and everything feels real. Heartbreakingly real, at times. The following twelve-minute sequence is one of the best of the film. Mostly featuring Rowlands, this scene in particular is widely considered one of the best pieces of film acting in modern cinema.
Barely given a release in 1974, A Woman Under the Influence was financed independently by Cassavates himself, out-of-pocket, with a budget of approximately one million dollars. Once completed, it was refused by every studio. Cassavetes resorted to literally carrying the film reels under his arm, and pitching the film to individual theaters. Not until Martin Scorsese was able to get the film into the New York Film Festival was it recognized for what it was. It stands today among the best work of the '70s.
Gena Rowlands and Peter Falk star as a mentally unstable wife and her husband, respectively. Rowlands and Falk deliver two of the most harrowing performances of all time, completely uninhibited and raw, nearly leaping off the screen in their intensiveness. At first glance, Rowlands might seem to go a little over the top, but as the film progresses further, it becomes evident just how pitch-perfect she is in the role. It remains one of the most honest depictions of mental illness ever seen on film.
The film, which runs two-and-a-half hours, really only consists of about 10 major scenes. So obviously, the reason for the length is that these are really long sequences (one noteworthy dinner scene is nearly twenty minutes). But it's anything but boring. It's obviously not for everybody, but if you're one who likes to see dialogue and character interaction in films, you'll be in heaven.
Shot in Cassavetes' trademark documentary style, the camera merely captures the action, rather than dictating where or when the action will occur. In a Cassavetes picture, the actor is the most important element; the visual element isn't exactly ignored, it's just considered less important. Misframing and out-of-focus shots are a common occurrence, but it adds to the reality of the picture. Not to say that the movie is ugly - not at all. Filmed on grainy, 1970's 35mm film stock, it has that special kind of beauty that most films of the period did.
Contrary to what most people think, Cassavetes' films were not entirely improvised, but rather were the result of the actors collaborating on the script in the pre-production phase, where the improvisations were subsequently written into the script. The end result is great, natural dialogue, where nothing feels written and everything feels real. Heartbreakingly real, at times. The following twelve-minute sequence is one of the best of the film. Mostly featuring Rowlands, this scene in particular is widely considered one of the best pieces of film acting in modern cinema.
Barely given a release in 1974, A Woman Under the Influence was financed independently by Cassavates himself, out-of-pocket, with a budget of approximately one million dollars. Once completed, it was refused by every studio. Cassavetes resorted to literally carrying the film reels under his arm, and pitching the film to individual theaters. Not until Martin Scorsese was able to get the film into the New York Film Festival was it recognized for what it was. It stands today among the best work of the '70s.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Movies You May Have Missed - #2
In the Company of Men (1997)
"Let's hurt somebody..."
While we're on the subject of dark comedy, here's one of the best of the genre: Neil LaBute's 1997 debut film, In the Company of Men. It caused a storm of controversy when it was released, based solely on the plot: Two angry businessmen, fed up with their love-lives and with women in general, hatch a scheme to, well, hurt somebody. They decide to both date the same woman over six weeks, continually advancing the relationship, professing love to her - whatever it takes - and then suddenly dump her in an attempt to emotionally devestate her.
Note: the following clips contain strong language. NSFW.
LaBute's film is as bold and uncompromising as anything to ever come out of American independent cinema. Filmed for an astoundingly low $25,000, it serves as a constant reminder that compelling stories can be told on film for next-to-nothing. Although the budget matches that of Kevin Smith's Clerks, which was shot on 16mm black and white, Company was filmed entirely on 35mm color film stock, something which makes the low budget all that more amazing.
Featuring great performances by Matt Malloy and Stacy Edwards, and a star-making performance by Aaron Eckhart, In the Company of Men is one of the best films of the '90s.
While we're on the subject of dark comedy, here's one of the best of the genre: Neil LaBute's 1997 debut film, In the Company of Men. It caused a storm of controversy when it was released, based solely on the plot: Two angry businessmen, fed up with their love-lives and with women in general, hatch a scheme to, well, hurt somebody. They decide to both date the same woman over six weeks, continually advancing the relationship, professing love to her - whatever it takes - and then suddenly dump her in an attempt to emotionally devestate her.
Note: the following clips contain strong language. NSFW.
LaBute's film is as bold and uncompromising as anything to ever come out of American independent cinema. Filmed for an astoundingly low $25,000, it serves as a constant reminder that compelling stories can be told on film for next-to-nothing. Although the budget matches that of Kevin Smith's Clerks, which was shot on 16mm black and white, Company was filmed entirely on 35mm color film stock, something which makes the low budget all that more amazing.
Featuring great performances by Matt Malloy and Stacy Edwards, and a star-making performance by Aaron Eckhart, In the Company of Men is one of the best films of the '90s.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Burn After Reading
There's really not a whole lot I can say about this movie without spoiling plot details, but I'll give it a go. This is the new film from the Coen Brothers, fresh off their Oscar win for No Country for Old Men, and, quite honestly, it serves as a showcase for everything that's wrong with the Coens. It's purely an exercise in style and coolness, and while that's all fine and dandy, there wasn't anything here to keep me interested. I was constantly reminded of The Big Lebowski during this film; there's another Coen picture where the plot is ridiculously complicated, but it's really of no consequence because the movie is entirely about character and dialogue, and the plot is merely an excuse for these groups of people to be in rooms talking to each other. As far as I can tell, that's what they were trying to do here. But there's just one problem... there's no characters here. At least not memorable ones. And apart from a few clever lines and a terrifically funny ending sequence, the dialogue is nothing to write home about, either. It really feels like they were on autopilot for this one. The tone is completely solid; that's probably the best thing about the movie. It's a jet-black comedy, and if you're dialed-in to its twisted sense of humor, there's a few good laughs to be had. It wasn't a total waste of time, but I can honestly say I don't think I'll ever watch it again.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Movies You May Have Missed - #1
When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts (2006)
In these movie doldrums of September and October (and again in January and February), in which very few worthwhile films are released, I thought I might bring up some films of years past which may have slipped by you, for one reason or another. I'll probably do a few of these here and there.
Today's movie was never given a theatrical release, but was instead shown on HBO, which also funded its production. As such, it didn't qualify for Academy Award nominations, but it did win three Emmys. The film in question is Spike Lee's 2006 documentary When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts, an examination of New Orleans both before and after Hurricane Katrina, and the resulting devastation.
Lee's film is nothing less than one of the best documentaries ever made, right up there with Hoop Dreams and Hearts and Minds. Each of its one hour "acts" focuses on a different aspect of New Orleans and Katrina, from the history of the city to the chaos of the storm and its aftermath. One point right up front: This movie has a four hour running time. But that shouldn't dissuade you from seeing it, because it's one of the best-edited films I've ever seen. The reason for this is the editing technique used here. There are no rules; you can switch from one topic to another, go off on a tangent, return to the first discussion, and then go on to something that was last mentioned an hour ago. You reach the end of the four hours and you're left wanting more. Even as all-encompassing and exhaustive as the material is, it's so good, and so moving, I could have easily watched another two hours of this.
Note: The clips below contain strong language and some graphic visuals. NSFW.
Spike Lee brings his distinctive style to the film, but much like his previous documentary, the amazing 4 Little Girls, the people and the topic at hand are front and center. This movie should be required viewing for anyone interested in great documentary filmmaking. It's harrowing, audacious, and powerful. A must-see.
Today's movie was never given a theatrical release, but was instead shown on HBO, which also funded its production. As such, it didn't qualify for Academy Award nominations, but it did win three Emmys. The film in question is Spike Lee's 2006 documentary When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts, an examination of New Orleans both before and after Hurricane Katrina, and the resulting devastation.
Lee's film is nothing less than one of the best documentaries ever made, right up there with Hoop Dreams and Hearts and Minds. Each of its one hour "acts" focuses on a different aspect of New Orleans and Katrina, from the history of the city to the chaos of the storm and its aftermath. One point right up front: This movie has a four hour running time. But that shouldn't dissuade you from seeing it, because it's one of the best-edited films I've ever seen. The reason for this is the editing technique used here. There are no rules; you can switch from one topic to another, go off on a tangent, return to the first discussion, and then go on to something that was last mentioned an hour ago. You reach the end of the four hours and you're left wanting more. Even as all-encompassing and exhaustive as the material is, it's so good, and so moving, I could have easily watched another two hours of this.
Note: The clips below contain strong language and some graphic visuals. NSFW.
Spike Lee brings his distinctive style to the film, but much like his previous documentary, the amazing 4 Little Girls, the people and the topic at hand are front and center. This movie should be required viewing for anyone interested in great documentary filmmaking. It's harrowing, audacious, and powerful. A must-see.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Snow Angels
This is the second 2008 film from director David Gordon Green (George Washington, All the Real Girls), released five months before Pineapple Express. This year was a great year for Green. On top of Pineapple, which was his first mainstream film and a huge success, he also released this film, which is among his best.
When this movie was released back in March, it quickly came and went, lost in the shuffle. I attempted to see it in the theater, and was unable, as it only played for five days. It opened Friday, played through Tuesday, and when another film opened on Wednesday, it was bumped out. Needless to say, it didn't do well at the box office. On a budget of $1.5 million, it grossed $400,000. Not a complete loss, and it's actually in line with what most of Green's films gross. But it's a shame this film wasn't seen by more people. It received mixed-to-positive reviews from critics, but it just happened to be one of those movies that slipped through the cracks.
Tim Orr - who has shot all of Green's films - returns as DP, and continues to bring us beautiful widescreen cinematography. Green and Orr create great compositions and move the camera to great effect, and even use a new technique here for the first time in one of their films: In a few particularly dramatic sequences, the camera dollies to the left and right, slowly pushing the actors out of frame. I could see it as something that might annoy people, but I liked it quite a bit. I always like when people keep tension in the frame - something that PTA does quite a bit. It's important with scope (2.35:1) photography, and I don't think enough people make use of it.
A film about small-town people and how a little girl's disappearance affects them and the community, this is a picture that's really all about character and dialogue, things that Green knows very well. It was adapted from a book - which I've never read - so I can't say how much of the material was Green's, but it's all very good. Young love, something that is particularly hard to pull off in films, is done very well here. It's awkward and not too schmaltzy, which is the way I like to see it done.
The couple above is played by Michael Angarano (Almost Famous) and Olivia Thirlby (doing a complete 180 from her role in The Wackness). They're both great, but the movie is really about an older couple, played by Sam Rockwell and Kate Beckinsale. I liked Beckinsale quite a bit in this, and unfortunately I've never really seen her in anything substantial before - other than her small role in The Aviator - because she tends to accept roles in the sort of films that don't interest me (i.e. the Underworld films). She's very good here. But this movie really belongs to Rockwell. I've liked him ever since Matchstick Men, and along with this movie and his role in The Assassination of Jesee James by the Coward Robert Ford, he's quickly earning a reputation as one of the best actors around (I can't wait to see him in Choke). If this movie had gained a little more exposure, I would have predicted a Supporting Actor nomination for him. His character does some not-so-great things during the picture, but Rockwell is able in instill sympathy in the character. A great performance.
The movie really only has one flaw in my eyes, and it's really more of a subjective thing. In my opinion, the ending feels a little rushed. After everything that happens in the movie, the closing events seem to occur much too quickly. I would have preferred to see things drawn out a little more. Nothing substantial, but perhaps another ten minutes or so. It's a small complaint, but I guess I feel the ending could have been more powerful with a stronger buildup. Regardless, it's still a great movie - one of my favorite films of the year so far.
(It's released on DVD September 16th)
When this movie was released back in March, it quickly came and went, lost in the shuffle. I attempted to see it in the theater, and was unable, as it only played for five days. It opened Friday, played through Tuesday, and when another film opened on Wednesday, it was bumped out. Needless to say, it didn't do well at the box office. On a budget of $1.5 million, it grossed $400,000. Not a complete loss, and it's actually in line with what most of Green's films gross. But it's a shame this film wasn't seen by more people. It received mixed-to-positive reviews from critics, but it just happened to be one of those movies that slipped through the cracks.
Tim Orr - who has shot all of Green's films - returns as DP, and continues to bring us beautiful widescreen cinematography. Green and Orr create great compositions and move the camera to great effect, and even use a new technique here for the first time in one of their films: In a few particularly dramatic sequences, the camera dollies to the left and right, slowly pushing the actors out of frame. I could see it as something that might annoy people, but I liked it quite a bit. I always like when people keep tension in the frame - something that PTA does quite a bit. It's important with scope (2.35:1) photography, and I don't think enough people make use of it.
A film about small-town people and how a little girl's disappearance affects them and the community, this is a picture that's really all about character and dialogue, things that Green knows very well. It was adapted from a book - which I've never read - so I can't say how much of the material was Green's, but it's all very good. Young love, something that is particularly hard to pull off in films, is done very well here. It's awkward and not too schmaltzy, which is the way I like to see it done.
The couple above is played by Michael Angarano (Almost Famous) and Olivia Thirlby (doing a complete 180 from her role in The Wackness). They're both great, but the movie is really about an older couple, played by Sam Rockwell and Kate Beckinsale. I liked Beckinsale quite a bit in this, and unfortunately I've never really seen her in anything substantial before - other than her small role in The Aviator - because she tends to accept roles in the sort of films that don't interest me (i.e. the Underworld films). She's very good here. But this movie really belongs to Rockwell. I've liked him ever since Matchstick Men, and along with this movie and his role in The Assassination of Jesee James by the Coward Robert Ford, he's quickly earning a reputation as one of the best actors around (I can't wait to see him in Choke). If this movie had gained a little more exposure, I would have predicted a Supporting Actor nomination for him. His character does some not-so-great things during the picture, but Rockwell is able in instill sympathy in the character. A great performance.
The movie really only has one flaw in my eyes, and it's really more of a subjective thing. In my opinion, the ending feels a little rushed. After everything that happens in the movie, the closing events seem to occur much too quickly. I would have preferred to see things drawn out a little more. Nothing substantial, but perhaps another ten minutes or so. It's a small complaint, but I guess I feel the ending could have been more powerful with a stronger buildup. Regardless, it's still a great movie - one of my favorite films of the year so far.
(It's released on DVD September 16th)
Friday, September 05, 2008
Vicky Cristina Barcelona
The relationship between Woody Allen and the critics (and, by extension, my opinion of his films in relation to theirs) has been a strange one lately. I have been of the opinion that Woody has slowly been returning to form ever since 2003's Anything Else, a movie that was trashed by the critics, but which I really enjoyed and I still think is vastly underrated. His next film, Melinda and Melinda, was similarly hated by the critics, and it is an admittedly flawed film, but I saw moments of brilliance in it, especially in the way Woody differentiated the comic and tragic storylines by filming with methods commonly used by himself in each respective genre (long master shots for the comedic half, coverage and close-ups for the dramatic half, etc.), which I saw as a comment on his own style. We all seemed to agree with Match Point, a brilliant film that Woody himself has called the best film he's ever done. Scoop was a disappointment, but not nearly as bad as the critics would suggest. Then there was Cassandra's Dream, a film I really liked, but once again, hardly any critics shared my view.
Now we come to Vicky Cristina Barcelona, his latest film. The critics are in love with him again. But guess what? Surprise, surprise - I didn't like it nearly as much as they did. Don't get me wrong, it is a very strong picture. It has moments that leap off the screen with near effortlessness. But I just don't see what all the fuss is about. I personally liked Cassandra's Dream better. But let's get to what I liked about it. The acting is great, of course. Everyone is singling out Penelope Cruz, but for me the real stand-out was Rebecca Hall. I'd never seen her before, but apparently she's really British and doing an American accent for the film. I thought she was marvelous. I identified with her more than any other character in the film. Whenever she was off-screen, I longed for her to return. Not an easy task in a cast that includes Javier Bardem, Scarlett Johansson and Penelope Cruz.
The film includes some great Woody Allen dialogue, especially in an early scene in the movie, which just happens to be my favorite of the film. It's the first interaction between Bardem and the two women of the title, Vicky and Cristina (Hall and Johansson). In summary, Bardem walks up to the two of them, introduces himself, and invites them to join him for the weekend, where they will travel, stay in a hotel, and make love. In any other movie, you'd laugh him off the screen. But Allen makes the situation believable. And Bardem comes off as the biggest Smooth Operator since 007.
The story keeps unraveling, but by the half-way point, I had sort of half-checked out. At some point I just didn't care anymore. By the time Cruz shows up, the film is about the love triangle between the three people on the poster - Cruz, Johansson, and Bardem. The only person I was really interested in was Hall, and unfortunately her story began to veer toward the dreaded Frequently Charted Territory. I don't know what happened, but the charm just didn't last for me. The first half is very clever, but then it seems to go on autopilot for the rest of the picture, and the 96-minute runtime begins to feel more like two hours.
For Allen fans, it's still worth a watch for a few things: First of all, he uses another one-shot cinematographer for this one (will he ever have another Gordon Willis-like relationship with a DP again?), Spanish cinematographer Javier Aguirresarobe, and he gets more experimental with his camera this time; he uses the Steadicam quite a bit in this one. There's also a narrator in this movie - quite the rarity for a Woody Allen film.
So, yeah... It's worth a look, and you might enjoy it more than I did. I liked it, but not quite as much as everybody else. As always with Woody Allen, even a mediocre Allen picture is usually an above-average film. I'm really looking forward to his next movie, Whatever Works, starring Larry David and set in New York - Woody's first film there since 2005. I'm also really excited by his choice of DP - Harris Savides (Elephant, Zodiac). Should be an interesting movie...
Now we come to Vicky Cristina Barcelona, his latest film. The critics are in love with him again. But guess what? Surprise, surprise - I didn't like it nearly as much as they did. Don't get me wrong, it is a very strong picture. It has moments that leap off the screen with near effortlessness. But I just don't see what all the fuss is about. I personally liked Cassandra's Dream better. But let's get to what I liked about it. The acting is great, of course. Everyone is singling out Penelope Cruz, but for me the real stand-out was Rebecca Hall. I'd never seen her before, but apparently she's really British and doing an American accent for the film. I thought she was marvelous. I identified with her more than any other character in the film. Whenever she was off-screen, I longed for her to return. Not an easy task in a cast that includes Javier Bardem, Scarlett Johansson and Penelope Cruz.
The film includes some great Woody Allen dialogue, especially in an early scene in the movie, which just happens to be my favorite of the film. It's the first interaction between Bardem and the two women of the title, Vicky and Cristina (Hall and Johansson). In summary, Bardem walks up to the two of them, introduces himself, and invites them to join him for the weekend, where they will travel, stay in a hotel, and make love. In any other movie, you'd laugh him off the screen. But Allen makes the situation believable. And Bardem comes off as the biggest Smooth Operator since 007.
The story keeps unraveling, but by the half-way point, I had sort of half-checked out. At some point I just didn't care anymore. By the time Cruz shows up, the film is about the love triangle between the three people on the poster - Cruz, Johansson, and Bardem. The only person I was really interested in was Hall, and unfortunately her story began to veer toward the dreaded Frequently Charted Territory. I don't know what happened, but the charm just didn't last for me. The first half is very clever, but then it seems to go on autopilot for the rest of the picture, and the 96-minute runtime begins to feel more like two hours.
For Allen fans, it's still worth a watch for a few things: First of all, he uses another one-shot cinematographer for this one (will he ever have another Gordon Willis-like relationship with a DP again?), Spanish cinematographer Javier Aguirresarobe, and he gets more experimental with his camera this time; he uses the Steadicam quite a bit in this one. There's also a narrator in this movie - quite the rarity for a Woody Allen film.
So, yeah... It's worth a look, and you might enjoy it more than I did. I liked it, but not quite as much as everybody else. As always with Woody Allen, even a mediocre Allen picture is usually an above-average film. I'm really looking forward to his next movie, Whatever Works, starring Larry David and set in New York - Woody's first film there since 2005. I'm also really excited by his choice of DP - Harris Savides (Elephant, Zodiac). Should be an interesting movie...
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
RE: Zodiac
Some people might remember my ramblings last year about how I truly thought film was dead, and that HD video had finally caught up in terms of quality and ultimately the possibilities of low light-photography.
Well, I was just listening to David Fincher's commentary on Zodiac, when I came across a scene late in the movie in which Fincher explains that the entire scene was lit with three 40-watt light bulbs! Anyone who has shot on film knows how insane that is. That has heightened my appreciation of the photography of this film that much more.
Screenshots of the scene in question below
(click on each to view full size):
Well, I was just listening to David Fincher's commentary on Zodiac, when I came across a scene late in the movie in which Fincher explains that the entire scene was lit with three 40-watt light bulbs! Anyone who has shot on film knows how insane that is. That has heightened my appreciation of the photography of this film that much more.
Screenshots of the scene in question below
(click on each to view full size):
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
