Loomis & Ash : Two Guys Talkin' Movies

The Innkeepers (2011): 4 stars / 5 Stars

Dir. By: Ti West

Written By: Ti West

Cinematography By: Eliot Rockett

Starring: Sara Paxton, Pat Healy & Kelly McGillis

            The best ghost stories are those that are also the best told. Period.

            Films that deal in the supernatural and the haunted are forced to walk a fine line between telling and showing. I always think back to John Carpenter’s “The Fog”; the opening sequence around a campfire as the old, grizzled fisherman (actor John Houseman) tells his tale.  And do I even need to mention “Jaws”? Ghost stories tend to break the age old rule that showing is telling at the movies – sometimes when it comes to the most effective ghost stories ever brought to the silver screen, telling is telling.

            On the other hand, can anyone argue the effectiveness of the melting face in “Poltergeist”? Or the shaking bed, man-eating tree and killer clown doll that plagued the poor children of that film? And yet, would such elements have been nearly as terrifying if the characters that were affected were not made to be realistic or, dare I say it, charming to the viewing audience?

             I would argue that it would not have been effective at all, which is an opinion that I believe Ti West (writer, director and editor of “The Innkeepers”) shares with me. A truly great haunted house movie has to have both the ability to recount its story by way of effective characters and the sensibility to showcase well placed scares when necessary. “The Innkeepers” accomplishes this and does so in a way that is extremely slow building and unique stylistically when compared to other modern films in the same genre.

             Anyone that has seen Ti West’s previous 2009 film “The House of the Devil”, will know what I mean when I say the director prefers his films to have a slow burning effect. The bulk of the film is simply two characters who work at a failing and very much forgotten hotel in the final days of its operation. The scenes certainly contain the discussion of a possible haunting, but are far more about who the two people are and what their lives are about. There are two reasons why this format works: Ti West’s script and Sara Paxton’s ability to create a unique and defiantly loveable character in her portrayal of Claire.

            The banter between Paxton and Pat Healy (portraying Luke and who was also tremendously entertaining) was extremely reminiscent of Joss Whedon’s scripts in its fast paced nature and intelligent quips (and coming from a big fan of Whedon’s, I mean this as very high praise). The other accomplishment of the script was that it managed to drag me into the droll life of these two people, making the horrors that were approaching on the horizon that much more disturbing. Most horror films spend the girth of their script preparing you for the awful climax, but not “the Innkeepers”.

            To be honest, the cinematography was nothing special, but I don’t think it was supposed to be. If I had one criticism, it was that the film was shot in a mostly uninteresting way that felt very familiar. A few shots stand out (POV shots looking down at Paxton from the top of a winding staircase, for example), but the only section of the film that I found visually impressive were those which took place in the basement climax. The fascinating aspect of those, however, was not so much the camera work but the lighting.

            I would wager that Ti West’s goal was not to spend a whole lot of time bringing a Sam-Raimi-sized technical introversion to the genre’s overall style (if confused by this sentiment, seek out “Evil Dead” and “Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn” for a visual explanation), but to rather add some intriguing characters and a different kind of set up to the canon of horror movie ghost stories. Very few films spend as much time as “the Innkeepers” getting to know their characters and avoiding the actual elements of horror that most audience members seek out in these types of movies. I imagine many viewers felt alienated by this and perhaps even bored, but I would hope that those horror fans that stuck with it and reviewed the final product would realize just how much scarier the climax was because of this tactic.

            Stylistically, the film contains a great deal of ambiguity. The characters that populate the world of the film (aside from Paxton and Healy) are mostly unexplained and unexplored in a real world sense. Take for example the character played by Kelly McGillis, Leanne Reese-Jones, a former actress turned soothe-sayer who happens upon the hotel just as the ghostly activity hits its stride. The film is careful to never truly answer the question of her validity – is it coincidence or fate? This sense of ambiguity (brought out mostly obviously and, at times, a tad bit subtly) drives the script from beginning to end.

            In the end, “the Innkeepers” warrants is use of a slow build by coming through with its promise of scares, which it has in spades. I will not say too much about this aspect as I wouldn’t want to spoil the climax for any eager viewers, but I feel compelled to mention one thing about the end of this film that I loved. At the end of the film, there is one final tracking shot that was, in my opinion, intended as a visual wink to the audience (watch carefully to see if you can pick up on the reference – I refuse to spoil it). Saying too much here could be interpreted as a spoiler, so what I’ll say is this: Ti West knows his ghost stories and knows which ones to respect and pay homage to – just another reason why his film worked so well.

            The best ghost stories are those that are also the best told, both in verbal execution and physical manifestation. Ti West took this in stride and brought something new to the table with “the Innkeepers”. The film is clearly a low budget venture (in Hollywood terms, at least) and at times rough around the edges, but it contains unique and interesting characters and, due to a slow, steady story structure, truly effective scares.

            Earlier, I mentioned some big titles (“The Fog”, “Jaws” and “Poltergeist”) in reference to what makes a ghost story great at the movies. I would not say that “the Innkeepers” achieves the status that these films have, but I would venture so far as to say the film does right by them and is worth mentioning in their company. If that doesn’t warrant watching the movie, I’m not sure what would.

Loomis

On a side note: At a time where the highest grossing horror films are shoddy, thrown together remakes and rehashes of classic horror titles that have already been milked dry by sequels and spin-offs, I welcome new and original ideas. Ti West has now given us two films back to back that have been fresh and original in the genre. He has a segment in “R/E/C” which comes out later this year and is simultaneously working on yet another film titled “The Side Effect”. I would recommend supporting these films and this director as there are not that many working as hard, as frequently or as successfully in the genre at the moment. Just a thought …

     This was an odd year for film. It was one those years that I did not see eye to eye with the vast majority of critics and one of those years that spawned a different sort of movie going experience for me. However, I do not pretend to think my “list” is any more accurate than anyone else’s.

      After all, when compiling an arbitrary list (or reading one), it is important to keep in mind the nature of such catalogs; to be specific, they are personal and within the context of one, singular individual’s experience and taste. There will always be elements that factor in that cannot be reproduced in any other circumstance or, indeed, one’s own mind. And, therefore, there will never be a definitive BEST or WORST film (or any other piece of art or otherwise) of any year. Ever.

     Just wanted to be upfront about that.

      Also, it should be noted that I don’t do honorable mentions, I don’t do runner-ups and I don’t do (what I consider to be the worst infraction of all in these kinds of lists) ties. This is a “Top Ten”. Are there more than ten films that I enjoyed this year? Absolutely. But to list them all would defeat the purpose of this snapshot (and, make no mistake, a snapshot is exactly what this is) and, most of all, the fun of the challenge a list like this provides to someone who loves cinema (like me and my cohort, Ash).

     In the end, all I can hope to do is provide you with the films that moved me, excited me and challenged me the most profoundly this year. The following films are the one’s that will stay with me beyond 2011 and are certainly the pictures that, to me, most represent the year itself (all the good, all the bad and everything else in between). So, in conclusion, take this for what is: my favorite films of 2011.

Network (1976): 3 1/2 stars / 5 Stars

Dir. By: Sidney Lumet

Written By: Paddy Chayefsky

Cinematography By: Owen Roizman

Starring: Faye Dunaway, William Holden, Peter Finch & Robert Duvall

The Hudsucker Proxy (1994): 2 stars / 5 Stars

Dir. By: Joel Coen & Ethan Coen

Written By: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen & Sam Raimi

Cinematography By: Roger Deakins

Starring: Tim Robbins, Jennifer Jason Leigh & Paul Newman

So Im a little behind, big whoop. Heres how you catch up to Loomis in one swooping blow! A Double Review!!!! Now these are both old movies, and Loomis already talked in depth about their plot. We can do a brief review of their plots’ and then talk about the good stuff! And, to make things challenging and fun, lets talk about both at the same time…Scared? I am too, but we can make it through this…and hopefully I wont screw this up again in the future. And …. here….. we….. go!

Network is an ensamble cast experience in which we watch a tv network abuse and use a deranged/depressed/suicidal/semi-genius man to get higher ratings. The once news station now more of an O’Reilly factor style show’s ratings are dropping and they dont know how to get rid of Howard Beale!

Hudsucker Proxy is a about a young naive man being used by a giant company to lower the companies stock so the board can buy it back cheap. Well the plan backfires, then works, the backfires, then works, etc etc.  

Story lines are kind of similar but the films are completely different. Network is a serious drama with dark humor moments. Hudsucker is a complete comedy, but done in a way that only the Coen’s could do. They were both lead by top notch teams. Sidney Lumet is a master story teller who constantly challenged the societies standards and ways of life. He directed Dog Day Afternoon, 12 Angry Men, Murder on the Orient Express, and many more (btw….never won an oscar….yeah Academy theres another terrific job by you guys!). The Coens have directed many of my personal favorite films of all time including; No Country for Old Men, Fargo, Millers Crossing, Barton Fink, The Big Lebowski, and many more. Both of the cinematographers have great backgrounds as well. Roizman (Network) had done The Exorcist and The French Connection. Deakins is a god among cinematographers who has done most the of Coens’ pieces along with Shawshank, Jarhead, Assassination of Jesse James by the Cowardly Robert Ford, and many many others. Deakins has never won an Oscar….Academy Awards….go fuck your selfs…this is one of the best cinematographers of all time….everyone in the academy is a piece of shit…there I’ve said my piece! 

The reason I mention all of this is because I think one team did an excellent job and I think the other did a terrible job. Now you can see my stars above, but you can still guess for yourself??? Who did worse. Enter Jeopardy music and write down your answers. 

The answer! 

What is Hudsucker Proxy!

Hudsucker Proxy was poorly made by comparison to Network. My two giant problems with Hudsucker are- 1 The acting….no one seemed comfortable or funny in the film. 2- The look……it did not have the usually Coen brothers look.

1- Robbins, Leigh, Newman…..now minus Leigh (she was still trying to build a career/reputation) and you have no reason to fail with those leading men. Im not sold on Leigh’s acting chops and Loomis put it best… she’s no Katherine Hepburn. Both Robbins and Newman seemed to be forcing their acting, neither seemed natural. Neither was funny to me. I couldn’t believe that these two actors could put in such a sub par performance. You really have to blame the guys up top, the Coen’s. Now thats not easy for me to say….I love these guys as film makers. Everything they make I will see and almost everything I will love (this and Ladykillers are the exceptions…maybe there is a trend with me and their comides…well get back to this). The Coen’s are the directors…as the director you have 2 main jobs; shot selection and actors. If they aren’t acting well you change them, or their approach. Same thing you do if you dont care for a shot you’ve selected. 

2- The look. The Coen brothers movement and amazing camera work was in the film. In fact they had some really fun moments. But the look of the film was so very early 90’s it hurt. It looked like they were reusing the sets of Batman and Dick Tracy and just made it work with the script. Their visions are so much better than what was shown in this film. By contrast, I cant believe how old Network is. It looked like a newer film. Obviously it has aged, especially the story, but the look was very modern and sleek. 

Also when you compare the acting you see why people love Network. I wasn’t the biggest fan of the story. It was to slow for me, and the love story seemed a little out of whack. It wasn’t forced by any means, but it just wasn’t something I cared about. I was much more intrigued by the news station and their problem of dealing with a psychotic anchor. Every actor in that film nailed it. They all deserved oscars…well I havent looked up who beat who for oscars…but they all really nailed their roles. 

To wrap this up in a nut shell. Hudsucker Proxy was made by brilliant people, brilliant actors, but not a great film. Network was great director, great actors, but in an aged story. So both were good watches, but if I could only watch one again, it would be Network……Joel…Ethan….and most of all Sam Raimi (Evil Dead’s, Spider Man’s, and Drag Me to Hell) Im sorry…but you’ve all done way better. Network is a film that really speaks to todays news. I kept thinking Fox News when I was watching it. Take news and make it more of a show…with actors, story lines, and less about reporting news more about spreading your opinion. 

Ash: We can’t bury Shelly - S-She’s a friend of ours. 

The Hudsucker Proxy (1994): 3 ½ stars / 5 Stars

Dir. By: Joel Coen & Ethan Coen

Written By: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen & Sam Raimi

Cinematography By: Roger Deakins

Starring: Tim Robbins, Jennifer Jason Leigh & Paul Newman

            The Coen brothers seem to be entranced with fairy tales; as writer-directors, they often tell their stories by way of the overtly fantastical, outrageous and, somehow, in a way that is usually deeply captivating and heart felt. Their work always seems to have an element of the surreal. Whether darkly dramatic (i.e. “No Country for Old Men”) or ludicrously comical (i.e. “Raising Arizona”), one is treated to a story where no character or plot point is too insignificant to have its own, distinctive voice. “The Hudsucker Proxy” is no exception to his pattern. The film is pleasantly over-the-top and although it follows a well-worn path, it does so with enthusiasm and an air of originality.

            The film opens on a cityscape that seems right out of a child’s picture book. A friendly voice welcomes us to New York, New Year’s Eve 1958: a time of magic, wonder and, of course, celebration. We’re introduced to our hero, Norville Barnes (Tim Robbins), who, in the midst of this pleasant and beautiful fantasy version of the New York we’re all familiar with, is preparing to leap from the 42^nd floor of a large building adorned with an oversized, cartoonish clock. Indeed, the narrator informs us, the man is about to become “jelly” on the sidewalk.

            From there, we’re treated with archetypal, villainous businessmen (one of them being the always fun to watch Paul Newman), the naivety of a hapless everyman and even a plucky, hard-hitting news gal who’s just trying to earn a position in a man’s world (played by Jennifer Jason Leigh – more on her later). The film plays to every stereotype that one can imagine when it comes to film from the 1940s and 1950s. In fact, they may as well have called Jennifer Jason Leigh’s Amy Archer character Katherine Hepburn (it would have been less obvious…).

            To be honest, Leigh’s annoying Hepburn impression coupled with the phoned in performance from Tim Robbins were probably my biggest issues with the film as a whole. While I understand that these characters were supposed to be from the theatrical age of filmmaking (what some who I disagree with refer to as the “Golden Age of Hollywood”), the performances felt forced and unauthentic (even with the given context). Paul Newman was the only entertaining lead in this film and sadly his character had little to say, little to do and petered out of the story in an unsatisfying manner.

            However, we must not forget who directed this picture. The Coen brothers and co. created a world so mechanistic and dry (yet fascinatingly sweeping and empty) that every room, every set piece was worth consideration. The cinematography by the unfathomably talented Roger Deakins was a pleasure to watch. From the depth of field created in Newman’s office backed by an enormous clock, to the shadowy film-noir inspired rendezvous’ between Leigh and Robbins, we are treated to a visual world that is nothing short of top notch.

            As usual, the Coen brothers also wrote the film (this time with the help of their college chum, and mastermind that gave us “The Evil Dead”, Sam Raimi). The script is witty and self-aware (and about Hula-Hoops for God’s sake), however lacking their usual flair for stand out oddities within the character base. That is not to say that each and every character in the film is boring, without worth or poorly constructed. But, due to the high caliber of their other work, I will admit that I expected more. There is no The Jesus a la “The Big Lebowski” and no Bear Doctor a la “True Grit”. As I stated earlier, Paul Newman was a pleasure to watch, but, c’mon, it’s Paul Newman. He could be animated and a car and in a movie that is essentially about Nascar and still be… well, I think you get the point.

           The film had a lot of fun playing with visual throwbacks. There was even a scene where Tim Robbins watched as translucent text flew at him from different directions, reminding him that he was a failure and ill-equipped to survive in the big city. The Coen brothers were clearly enjoying experimenting with the premise, allowing themselves to tell a serious story in a completely unserious way.

           That was the film’s strength, in fact. It contained all the right themes and plot points, trials and lessons – messages that should, by all accounts, be directly pertinent to real life situations. Yet, the world the film inhabited was distinctly unreal and, moreover, intended to be so. In essence, the film was a fairytale, an allegory intended to reflect our won world without actually occupying the same space.

          “The Hudsucker Proxy” is by and large entertaining, driven by a consistently interesting and visually stimulating imagery and photography. The Coen brothers instilled their trademark wit and idiosyncratic voice in yet another well put together production, this time showing us their (albeit comedic) version of the “Golden Age of Hollywood”. Put it this way, if “His Girl Friday” had been about haplessly climbing the ladder of a billion dollar corporation (and also made in 1994 in a somewhat retroactive manner) and a Coen brothers film, well… cue “The Hudsucker Proxy”.

            On a personal note, I am absolutely astounded by the Coen brothers. They consistently deliver fantastic cinema and they only seem to be getting better. Unfortunately, this is not a film that even compares to “No Country for Old Men”, “True Grit” or even something like “The Big Lebowski”. But it is a good film and one worth watching. I suppose when the bar has been raised as high as these two guys have raised it, even a good film can be somewhat disappointing.

 Loomis

NOTE: Oh, and maybe next time, don’t cast a subpar variation of Katherine Hepburn (*cough*JenniferJasonLeigh*cough*), go for the real thing. Sure, she may have been a bit aged at the time, but they can do wonders with CGI. I mean, did you see X-Men 3?

Game, set and match Coen brothers.

The Sting (1973): 4 stars / 5 Stars

Dir. By: George Roy Hill

Written By: David S. Ward

Cinematography By: Robert Surtees

Starring: Paul Newman, Robert Redford & Robert Shaw

            “The Sting” is what happens when a bunch of talented people get together and decide they’re going to make a heist film. I would liken it to 2001’s “Ocean’s 11”, but I wouldn’t want to give off an improper impression: make no mistake, “The Sting” is great fun but it’s also a good film, which is what separates it from other twist-riddled films from the era.

            Let’s start with the cast. The film was shot in 1973 and stars arguably the biggest movie stars of its time: Paul Newman and Robert Redford. David S. Ward had directed the two in 1969’s “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”, which contained a similar sense of reckless adventurism, although rarely to the point of becoming overtly comic. Clearly, David S. Ward allowed his actors to breathe in his films, to own their characters from start to finish. This much is apparent from the moment “The Sting” opens; the meandering opening soundtrack over title cards and freeze frame moments introducing the actors as “The Players” signify a type of ownership ordinarily reserved for the stage.

            The film unfolds as a playbill, segmenting the various stages of the plot (or con, whichever way you choose to view it) by way of title cards. I was fearful that this would hinder the pacing of the film, drawing far too much attention to its act breaks and plot devices. However, this tactic aided the films overall flow and allowed the viewer to stay on point with the complex actions (and conversations) displayed by the film’s “players”.

            Normally, that is precisely the problem with these kinds of movies. The “con” is far more important than the characters, which is all fine and good until the viewer understands the twists and turns that lead to the big finish. After that, the stereotypical con film loses much of its flare and withholds very little replay value. “The Sting” manages to escape this issue, ensuring that the characters are complex and carry with them motives that go far beyond the standards of “greed” or “revenge”. After all, how many conmen would go through all the trouble of stealing half a million dollars simply to walk away from his winnings, saying simply “I’d only blow it.”

            The story unfolds in a dangerous world; characters are often running for their very lives in a constant state of trepidation and unease. Yet, the filmmakers manage to capture the fun and the fantastical attitude that goes along with the almost mythical “big cons” the world has come to associate with these kinds of films.

Cinematographer Robert Surtees (who has photographed some of the best and most interesting pictures of our time, including “Ben Hur” and “The Graduate”) brings a lot of this to the table with perfectly timed tracking shots almost as elaborate as the hoax at hand. Director David S. Ward obviously wanted to draw attention to the fact that this is a film. Camera tricks and funny wipes are spread playfully throughout the work, lightening the mood every time Robert Redford has a near death experience.

            But putting the con aside, what made the film work was that each and every character had a life outside of the central story. Robert Redford’s Johnny Hooker had a score to settle due to a murdered mentor and some pent up unrequited love. Paul Newman’s Henry Gondorff was a thrill seeking conman on one hand and a listless, somewhat disinterested alcoholic on the other. Even the walk-on character actors had minds and personalities of their own. For heaven’s sake, Charles Durning’s Snyder (your average, run-of-the-mill crooked cop) was a pleasure to watch. The film seemed to understand that archetypal characters are necessary in any good con, and it takes the right conman to ensure that each “mark” plays precisely that part.

            “The Sting” is exactly what you think it will be: smart, entertaining and well put together. It is not the most original story in the world (the film draws much from Stanley Kubrick’s groundbreaking 1956 heist film “The Killing”) but it did do a lot to expand (and evolve) the “action” and “suspense” genre as a whole. Put together a script that does that with a young Paul Newman and Robert Redford and its safe to say you’ve got a classic.

            My recommendation? Grab a bowl, fill it with popcorn, turn off the lights and enjoy. They rarely make them like this anymore.

Loomis

           PS- I would like to state, just for the record, that despite my affection for this film, it did not deserve the Oscar for Best Picture over the film “The Exorcist”. “The Exorcist” was by far the superior outing and, arguably, one of the most influential and important films of that particular decade. “The Sting” is great fun, but “The Exorcist” it is not. That is all.

The Sting (1973): 4 stars / 5 Stars

Dir. By: George Roy Hill

Written By: David S. Ward

Starring: Paul Newman, Robert Redford, and Robert ”Cage goes in the water, you go in the water. Shark’s in the water. Our shark.”Shaw 

Let me first say that I am sorry. Loomis is lapping me in reviews and it has been hard for me to keep up. I know most find his reviews long winded and boring so I will try to get two out this week for sure. And as long as cry baby Loomis is ok with that we will be back on schedule…..Loomis blows…..

George Hill made Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and said “You know what worked really well….Paul Newman and Robert Redford in the same movie.” He was right….and then hes like Ill add Robert “Here’s to swimming’ with bow-legged women.” Shaw as the antagonist. These are three of the coolest actors of all time all in one film. The film is so great because of the characters these actors create. The dialogue they bounce off each other is terrific. These three are just fun to watch the entire film. 

Synopsis time! Johnny Hooker (Redford) is a small time con man. He steals and tricks people for a living. Well one day, guess what, he steals from the wrong guy. Doyle Lonnegan (Robert “What are you? Some kind of half-assed astronaut?” Shaw) is a mob boss who does not mess around. Because our protagonists crime Doyle wants anyone involved killed, as a showing of what happens to those who try to take anything from him. They kill Hooker’s partner Luther, who was not only his partner but also Hooker’s best friend. Mini Time out…The film uses some strong language when talking/describing Luther because he is a black man. I know this is to make a more “realistic” feel, plus you have to consider the time when the movie was made or released. Films that do this kind of thing (Tarantino Im looking at you) have always made me feel a little uncomfortable. I guess thats sort of the point…but just wanted to throw this thought out there. Time In! Luckily for Hooker, Luther made a call to Henry (Newman) to give Hooker a better hideaway/mentor to learn the big con from. Henry is an expert con man and agrees to help Hooker con Doyle and get back at him for what he did to their friend Luther. There is also a mini story of a cop that feels odd at times for me, I think it was supposed to make you feel overwhelmed, I just felt bored at his parts. There is another side story of Hooker meeting a woman, Billie (Eileen Brennan) that I loved and will get more into later. 

Well this is just a classic film with amazing characters that has impacted films since its creation. Its classic story, meets great actors, meets classic director, etc etc etc… But Ash!!!! What are the films downsides…well im glad you asked because there were a couple. First as I mentioned in the synopsis is there is a side story of a dirty cop looking for Hooker…I just found this boring and too convient for the plot/flow of the film. I didn’t think that the direction was anything that great, even for the time. There were many impressive shots in the film, but he won best director for this. Now maybe my problem isn’t so much that Hill won for director and it won for best film in the academy awards, but rather which film/director it beat out. Now I could write a paper 100 pages long of all the fuckups the academy awards have done/continue to do. Instead, I will write a quick list here that I think will explain not only why they are pointless but why people should laugh at the idea of the award being considered “prestigious”.

Citizen Kane

Alfred Hitchcock

Stanley Kubrick

Robert Altman

Kane did not win the best picture the year it came out, even though AFI considers it the best film of all time….well argue with AFI later….but the fact the “best film ever” did not win best picture for the year it came out says a lot. The three directors listed never won a best director award….this is a fucking travesty…these are 3 of the most influential and intelligent film makers the worlds ever seen. I listed them in particular because they are all dead…so they will never win one (Academy…if you dont give one to Paul Thomas Anderson I swear…Ill hunt you down….Ill do it). Wow I got off base again….The point is the year the Sting won it beat out The Exorcist. Its not a better film the Exorcist….its not better directed. Exorcist is a once in a fucking lifetime kind of film. Its wildly intelligent, well crafted, an almost perfect film. Sting is not. Sting is really really cool. Its got the flash of the cool actors, cool sets, and fun feeling. But its not almost perfect…its not even close. Its not even as influential to predecessor films…but to get back on point. I hold a lot against The Sting because of the caliber of film its supposed to be. Regardless of my thoughts on the academy awards, they hold certain memorable value when you hear a film won for best picture/director. So hearing that it won and beat out The Exorcist really set a standard in my head for how good the film had to be. Was it good…hell yeah….was it ACADEMY AWARD WINNING (BETTER THAN THE EXORCIST GOOD)……no it wasn’t. 

(Spoils In this paragraph) The huge pat on the back I want to give the film is the way it handeld two things: the love story and its ending. The love story is built like every other love story. Feels kind of forced, but at the same time necessary to build and develop the characters. The film builds slowly on this relationship for a good portion of the film. Then we see her walking down an alley and BLAMO! A guy shoots her….its a real WTF kind of moment when your watching it. Apparently she was gonna kill him, while it doesn’t make complete sense  when you consider the whole story, its a really cool moment in the film. Its the biggest and one of the only unique leaps the film takes. The end is not very happy when you look back at it. Do they con Doyle, yes! But what did they gain out of it…..money….yeah sooo…this guy killed their friend. He is still the head of the mob and still very rich. Did they “con him”….yep…but at the end of the day they are still just con men, he runs the city, and their friend is dead. The film ends on a happy note with them celebrating, but you know deep down neither character is happy. 

Ash

Farewell and adieu to you, fair Spanish ladies. Farewell and adieu, you ladies of Spain. For we’ve received orders for to sail back to Boston. And so nevermore shall we see you again. 

I really like Jaws lol

Network (1976): 4 ½ stars / 5 Stars

Dir. By: Sidney Lumet

Written By: Paddy Chayefsky

Cinematography By: Owen Roizman

Starring: Faye Dunaway, William Holden, Peter Finch & Robert Duvall

             At the time of its release “Network” was viewed as something of an over-the-top and often (albeit darkly) comical interpretation of the degrading state of television and the all-encompassing media/affiliates/pundits/etc. that delivered the world its news. The film takes a biting stance against not only the underhanded methodology of big business that this type of “news” employs but also the inane acceptance of corruption shown on a consistent basis by the masses (as represented by “ratings”). What makes the film more powerful still is its pertinence today in regards to modern news outlets. I mean, a madman touting himself as a news anchor, screaming about being “mad as Hell” is not too far off from what we see on the Fox “news” channel on a nightly basis.

            The film is about manipulation. From the moment the dry opening voice over resounds over the four, humming television screens, all of which depict random newsmen spouting their uninteresting dialect, the viewer is presented with information as though it were fact (whether or not that’s the case remains consistently unclear in the film). The unreliable narrator is just one small piece of the puzzle that comprises “Network”, a web of intersecting deviants who desire nothing but control. How do they get that control? By feeding the public information that furthers their motive, whatever that may be at the time.

            Enter Howard Beale (memorably played by Peter Finch). Washed up and unimportant, the once prominent news anchor is no longer relevant to the world he preaches to. He turns to alcohol and subsequently loses his mind. He then announces (on air, I might add) that he is going to “blow his brains out”. But the world is a fickle place and generally uninterested in actual news. No, what they want is spectacle. So Beale’s upsetting confessions is celebrated rather than condemned.

            Chayefsky’s script does a phenomenal job of transitioning from the real to the fictional as Beale’s newscast slowly evolves into the ranting of a sociopath. Faye Dunaway guides this transition as Diana Christensen, heartlessly using Beale’s mental breakdown to her advantage and exploiting his prophecies for a few extra viewers. What makes the character compelling, however, is that she too is a mindless “rating”, a lifelong viewer of the kind of television she is force-feeding to the public. In this way, she has become a mindless part of the machine. Her attention span is non-existent and she has no idea how to interact with other people. She’s never had a meaningful relationship and for a young, virile and beautiful woman, her sexual drive is stunted and broken.

            But that’s the cruel joke of this film. As I said before, it celebrates and condemns the very public, the very generation of spectators that the picture is targeted to. The characters often engage in conversations and arguments that may as well be soliloquies in one of Shakespeare’s plays. As though the filmmakers wanted to send a direct message to their audience. Not only that they’re “mad as Hell”, but that it’s okay to feel that way.

            Sidney Lumet (director of “12 Angry Men” and “Before the Devil Knows Your Dead”) composes the film extremely carefully. Other than a few experimental shots at the beginning and end, the film is comprised of mostly close ups and medium shots. This again harkens back to the stage and puts the viewer in a position of surveillance. I believe this was done to keep distraction to a minimum. Lumet intended people to pay close attention to the dialogue and the story. Owen Roizman (cinematographer for “The Exorcist” and “The French Connection”) plays it very straight as a result of this. The film is beautifully shot but in a surprisingly minimalist way.

            More importantly, this style allows for the actors to own each and every scene. This is the type of film where one holds on a single person speaking to the camera for minutes at a time. William Holden is often the voice of reason in this film (playing the lust driven, everyman of news days past, Max Schumacher). He provides the only commentary that can be truly trusted and even it is infused with opinion and resentment. It is through Holden that the film draws its story full circle, in a way explaining how even the most experienced and professional newsman can be controlled and made obsolete.

Again, at the time of this film, such things almost seemed comical. That a man could be praised for didactically preaching the end of all things seemed relatively far-fetched. However, when compared to the vernacular of popular media pundits featured on television today, the comments no longer seem outlandish.

            Let’s compare; the following is a quote from Peter Finch’s character Howard Beale:

            “We know things are bad – worse than bad. They’re crazy. It’s like everything everywhere is going crazy…”

            Now I present a line spoken by the popular media figure Glen Beck:

            “There are a lot of things going on that have happened before… violence, political unrest – all of these things have happened before… But now, they’re starting to snowball, cascade…”

            Difficult to tell the difference, I would say. I suppose the argument could also be made that the farcical social commentary demonstrated within “Network” has become fully realized in today’s over saturated age of information. That Glen Beck is merely an entertaining product, a commodity that Fox is selling to its customers. Hell, Glen Beck himself has made this connection, even saying straight out: “I am like Howard Beale”.

            I, of course, am thankfully not the first person to make these modern day comparisons but I can honestly say the similarities were completely unexpected. Beyond that, the film allowed me to truly reflect on the doomsday rhetoric that has become so commonplace in what is being labeled as unbiased coverage of everyday events. Perhaps the vocabulary is but another way to gain ratings, to “win” the game that is news: the game of television as a whole.

            “Network” is a brilliant film that was decades ahead of its time. Sidney Lumet masterfully balanced an all-star cast, a brilliant script and a spider web of contradictory dialogue and story points to build a modern day fable warning about the dehumanization that comes along with selling information and, more importantly, “truth” as commodity. Watching the film today, I have to wonder if Lumet peers out at the constant flow of misinformation and bias masked as fact from time to time, thinking back on the message of this earlier, seminal work. I wonder if it bothers him that what seems to have been meant to be a warning, merely stands as a prophetic view of the future that was simply an inevitability.

            Although, I suppose whether or not he’s mad as Hell about it all is irrelevant, because regardless of how we think or feel, we’ll keep taking it. Just look at Howard Beale. He professed his distaste and claimed that he “wasn’t going to take it anymore”. And look what happened to him.

            Come to think of it, didn’t Glen Beck’s show just get canceled? Oh well, there’s always more where that came from, right? Eh, if not, you can always change the channel.

Loomis

Antichrist: 3 stars / 5 Stars

Dir. By: Lars von Trier

Written By: Lars von Trier

Cinematography By: Anthony Dod Mantle

Starring: Willem Dafoe, Charlotte Gainsbourg

Lars von Trier is a visionary. He truly has a beautiful eye. He has been apart of the “dogme-films” movement which is very limiting to a filmmaker, but results in some beautiful storytelling. He documented the “5 Obstructions” which forced a film maker to revisit his first film with different obstacles each time (5 times overall). He also created Dogville which is an experimental feature length film that combines theatre with film and then goes off the deep end. Antichrist is another step forward in this film makers feature length abstract world. 

Antichrist is about a married couple whose dealing with the death of their only child. The opening scene is haunting. The couple are being intimate in the room next to their child’s crib. This film is no holds bar, which is interesting but at times its downfall, showing the intimacy up close and personal. We watch as the child undoes the latch of the crib and walks right out the window. Its truly hard to watch, you are being thrown into two worlds full steam ahead. You are being hit in the face with intense scenes of sex and then slowly watching a child’s demise. The parallels and comparison of sex and violence go throughout the entire film and never flinch. They really test you as an audience member, this is not an easy film to watch. The whole sequence is in black and white and is slowed down a touch. The sounds, which is the films major strong point throughout, are eerie and beautiful. They have a funeral for the child and then decide to seclude themselves to try and “fix” their emotional state. He (Willem Dafoe) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) are struggling hard with the death. Those by the way are their names in the film…he and she…were never allowed into their world or know the characters before the death of their child. Besides the funeral sequence their are no other people in the film. None…no one walking by or anything. So it is truly an accomplishment of the director/actors to hold your attention throughout a film when it is just the two of them. After a little while of discusion they find out that She is afraid of a cabin she stayed at a year or so ago with the child, the cabin/area are called “Eden”. He is a psychologist and is more interested in his wife’s problems then he is with the child’s death. He seems very emotionally inept and empty about the whole situation. She feels guilty over the death and seems rather intent on killing herself. They go to the cabin and shit goes bat-shit crazy over time. 

We will jump into the cabin and sequences that happend in the cabin over time. I first want to give my opinion on a few of the abstract liberties the film maker takes at times. The sound is amazing. I am incredibly jealous of a few of their ideas for sound concept and construction. They had some incredibly haunting sounds to accompany his visuals. He used a lot of abstract camera techniques that would last a whole scenes; scenes being slowed down, incredibly wide, random close ups of nature, etc. All of these are complimented by haunting noises that are so subtle at times you hardly realize that its the reason your feeling so tense during a scene that has nothing to be scared about. Then at other times the sound is so advert in your face that its startling. When Lars is being obvious with the sounds he build the tension throughout a scene and just has you on the edge of your seat ready for anything. One of the great things about this film is you are ready for anything….nothing is out of the realm of possibility. 

The one real downside of Antichrist for me is the story. I was just not that interested in a He/She relationship and how they are trying to fix it. They never seemed that close. I did not believe that anything was going to change that. The other issue with the story is the way over emphasized sexual nature of the film. Im no prude…nor fan of censorship, but this was just uncalled for. There over emphasis on sex did not add to the story. The connection of sex and violence is made obvious in the opening scene and is not needed for repeated replays of the incident in several locations. Not only that but it made the film very boring, because the sexual endeavors would mess with the pacing. I think if he would have focused more on the characters, maybe a little more backstory rather than sexual moments, he would have had a much more successful story and horror film. Dont get me wrong, I realize that he is not a normal film maker/story teller. What he does is going to be abstract and unique. But I think at times he let his visuals and concepts dictate his actions more than the stories and characters. You can be unique and original and still tell a good story, this had a great base/set up, but the story never won me over 100%. 

Now back to the bat-shit crazy moments. This film is beautifully crafted, if you look at individual scenes and ignore the story as a whole you see this man is talented and can make a great horror film. Some of the scenes that worked best for me were as follows.

- The deer He sees in the woods that has a dead baby deer hanging out of the doe

- The acorns hitting the roof

- The scary hole in the ground

-The moment the woman is no longer afraid of the ground

- The story of the woman hearing the child screaming for help/mom

- The coyote who talks

- The bloody penis scene 

Now a little side bar….I did all of this up and till here and then read Loomis’s review…and we really disagree of some things that I will bring up now. First off….I dont care for you Loomis…I think its ur face…but it could be the rest of you too…I cant be sure about this. I can not argue with Loomis’s (how the hell do you plural your name)  overall thought that if he did not enjoy the film then give it a low star rating, that makes sense to me. We both agree that the visuals and audio are incredibly well done. We agree on the characters being a little weak and easy to manipulate in the story from their overall set up. What I have a problem with is his use of the word “cheap trick”. I think their are films that use violence as a crutch. They can not tell a good story so they use deaths as mark points in the film. For example: We have 5 characters….kill the slut this way…then the jock this way…etc etc…This film Antichrist, while Im not the biggest fan of the characters, was not built in this manner. The scenes that are disgusting are done so with purpose. Every moment is very thought out and symbolic within the story arc. Loomis even came to the conclusion of “the fall of man” during the child’s death. I took it as the loss of innocence for the characters, but either way, what a beautiful and terrifying concept and execution by the storyteller. I will admit that the bloody penis scene is very over the top and very abrupt. I would not use the word cheap trick though, I dont think anything in this film is a cheap trick. A cheap trick to me is when a movie uses violence to replace the story. This scene was sadly, set up very well ahead of time, the combination of sex and violence was going to erupt at some point in this story. I am not a fan of the scene, I mentioned earlier I would have liked less sex and more background, but thats not my call. Lars von Trier wanted to compare/have the parallel of  sex and violence to the bitter end of this film. I would not argue that scene as disgusting, it is, but its well within the story and not a cheap trick. Overall it is beautifully shot, haunting score/sound design, but a very flawed film. I think it was a brilliant film maker who just missed the mark on making a really groundbreaking horror film. 

Ash

Duke Henry: I am Henry the Red. Duke of Shale, Lord of the Northlands and leader of its peoples. 
Ash: Well hello Mister Fancypants. Well, I’ve got news for you pal, you ain’t leadin’ but two things, right now: Jack and shit… and Jack left town. 

Antichrist: 1 ½ stars / 5 Stars

Dir. By: Lars von Trier

Written By: Lars von Trier

Cinematography By: Anthony Dod Mantle

Starring: Willem Dafoe, Charlotte Gainsbourg

            Expressionist cinema (especially that found in Germany and other European countries, France for example) was considered to be far ahead both aesthetically and artistically of American, or Hollywood, cinema in the early days of film. Everything from basic lighting techniques to trick camera work (noted most memorably in the early work of Alfred Hitchock or even the films of Orson Wells) can be found in 1930s German film. The odd thing is, unlike most obscure film, people have heard of these expressionist works; most even know of their importance (at least in some respect). Let’s take an example.

             The difference is this: most everyone has seen “Citizen Kane”. Most everyone has only heard of “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari”.

             Both are (arguably) equally influential, but with one major difference: a modern style narrative is present in one and not the other. Culturally we are attracted to the kind of narrative we can relate to and understand. And, unfortunately for films like “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” and (see where I’m going with this?) “Antichrist”, expressionism does not follow the rules and guidelines that the standard “narrative” requires.

            In plain English, “Antichrist” is hard to watch. I would not call the film or the experience of watching it “enjoyable”. On the contrary, its purpose is to make its viewer squirm, to feel… uncomfortable. If the average narrative exists to convey stories of hope or strong emotional connection, then “Antichrist” is here to counter that message with its own; a message of despair, dread and explicit sexuality and violence.

            The film exists within a hyper reality. From the very moment the slow motion, black and white prologue begins to play (accompanied by an exquisite aria), we are brought into a world where everything that happens, every minute action holds importance. The pacing is deliberately slow and constantly treading toward what can only be tragedy. This sequence, this prologue, introduces us to the catalyst that causes “She” to slip into madness, the death of her neglected child. The sequence (quite literally) culminates in something that must surely represent “The Fall of Man”.

            In a film called “Antichrist” where much of the central action takes place in a wooded area called “Eden”, it is paramount that we discuss religious implications. The film challenges the notion that nature is pure and beautiful, and that man and woman are works of art – are works of God. However, from what I’ve heard and what I’ve read of its premiere at Cannes, the controversy (in reality) was less about the assertion that Satan is man’s creator and more about the graphic, self-indulgent way the film meets its climax. The polarized critical response was due to the fact that the film not only abused its characters, both mentally and physically, but that it also abused its audience with an onslaught of imagery that was heralded by an hour of mental anguish.

            The cinematography was generally very clean. Anthony Dod Mantle (Academy Award winning cinematographer of “Slumdog Millionaire”) masterfully photographs the beautiful landscapes with care and cunning. When it comes to the characters, his shots are intimate and close on. There is a great marriage of wide, medium and close up footage. Visually, the film is splendid (and worth a “star” in its own right).

            What it boils down to is that the film is hard work to get through. Lars Von Trier is widely considered to be an important figure in the cinematic world. His work is edgy and nothing if not unique. With “Antichrist” he wanted to evoke a strong, visceral and emotional response from his audience. He wanted them to feel and react. He wanted disgust. He succeeded.

            And we arrive at the argument at hand. If the director succeeded in achieving his goal, succeeded in creating something truly upsetting and moving at the same time, then how can we not consider his film a triumph?  On the other hand, if a film is not enjoyable to watch, if it turns off its viewership, then is it truly effective? Or, rather, is it not easy or, in a way, a cheap trick, to “upset” an audience by showing smashed genitalia and the subsequent ejaculation of blood?

           I’ve mentioned in earlier reviews that I am a horror fan. I’ve seen plenty of upsetting movies. I mean 1970s horror films (those that I most cherish) were in no way modest… about anything. But it was hard for even me to watch the last 30 minutes of this film.

            Did I enjoy the movie? No. But even I have to admit, what is there is powerful, whether I like it or not.

             However, at the end of the day, none of that maters if I didn’t enjoy the film. I thought the character interactions were uninteresting and alienating (as neither of the protagonists were very sympathetic). As a result of this, the violent climax felt exploitative and, above all, forced, to simply hammer home the director’s point about the nature of all human beings. To put it bluntly, the film wasn’t for me.

             Expressionist film does not have to be ultra violent and deeply upsetting. Go seek out “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” or “Nosferatu” and you’ll see what I mean. “Antichrist” decided to go that route because (I believe) the medium offers a direct window into one’s psyche (being so disjointed and abnormally focused stylistically). The expressionist technique is intimate and invasive, slow trotting and most of the time at a snail’s pace. I did not enjoy “Antichrist”, but I was affected by it. On that level, I would think, Lars Von Trier would consider even my experience with the film “successful” in regards to the message he was trying to convey. But that, I suppose, is the beauty of expressionism.

Loomis

Oscar season is upon us and so Ash and I decided to weigh in! We had a conversation this morning outlining what we thought would win (designated: PICK) versus what we thought should win (designated: FAV), and, in the spirit of the season, we decided to post these predictions, dream-outcomes and conversation snippets. ENJOY!

•               BEST VISUAL EFFECTS 

         ASH’S PICK: Inception

         ASH’S FAV: Inception

         LOOMIS’S PICK: Inception

         LOOMIS’S FAV: Inception

•               BEST SOUND MIXING 

         ASH’S PICK: The Social Network

         ASH’S FAV: The Social Network

         LOOMIS’S PICK: Inception

         LOOMIS’S FAV: The Social Network

•               BEST SOUND EDITING 

         ASH’S PICK: Inception

         ASH’S FAV: Inception

         LOOMIS’S PICK: Inception

         LOOMIS’S FAV: Inception

•               BEST ORIGINAL SONG 

         ASH’S PICK: Toy Story 3: “We Belong Together”

         ASH’S FAV: Country Strong: “Coming Home”

         LOOMIS’S PICK: Toy Story 3: “We Belong Together”
 

         LOOMIS’S FAV: Tangled: “Mother Knows Best”

•               BEST ORIGINAL SCORE 

         ASH’S PICK: The Social Network

         ASH’S FAV: Inception / TRON: Legacy

         LOOMIS’S PICK: The Social Network

         LOOMIS’S FAV: How to Train Your Dragon

•               BEST MAKEUP 

         ASH’S PICK: Barney’s Version

         ASH’S FAV: Barney’s Version

         LOOMIS’S PICK: Barney’s Version

         LOOMIS’S FAV: Barney’s Version

•               BEST FOREIGN FILM 

         ASH’S PICK: Incendies

         ASH’S FAV: Dogtooth

         LOOMIS’S PICK: Incendies

         LOOMIS’S FAV: Incendies

•               BEST FILM EDITING 

         ASH’S PICK: The Social Network

         ASH’S FAV: Black Swan

         LOOMIS’S PICK: The King’s Speech

         LOOMIS’S FAV: Black Swan

•               BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT 

         ASH’S PICK: The Warriors of Quigang

         ASH’S FAV: The Warriors of Quigang

         LOOMIS’S PICK: Killing in the Name

         LOOMIS’S FAV: Killing in the Name

•               BEST FEATURE DOCUMENTARY 

         ASH’S PICK: Exit Through the Gift Shop

         ASH’S FAV: Exit Through the Gift Shop

         LOOMIS’S PICK: Inside Job

         LOOMIS’S FAV: Exit Through the Gift Shop

•               BEST COSTUME DESIGN 

         ASH’S PICK: Alice in Wonderland

         ASH’S FAV: The King’s Speech

         LOOMIS’S PICK: The King’s Speech

         LOOMIS’S FAV: The King’s Speech

•               BEST ANIMATED FEATURE 

         ASH’S PICK: Toy Story 3

         ASH’S FAV: How to Train Your Dragon

         LOOMIS’S PICK: Toy Story 3

         LOOMIS’S FAV: Toy Story 3

•               BEST ART DIRECTION

         ASH’S PICK: The King’s Speech

         ASH’S FAV: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I

         LOOMIS’S PICK: The King’s Speech

         LOOMIS’S FAV: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I

•               BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

         ASH’S PICK: Inception

         ASH’S FAV: Black Swan

         LOOMIS’S PICK: True Grit

         LOOMIS’S FAV: Black Swan

•               BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

         ASH’S PICK: The King’s Speech

         ASH’S FAV: Black Swan

         LOOMIS’S PICK: Inception

         LOOMIS’S FAV: Black Swan

•               BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

         ASH’S PICK: The Social Network

         ASH’S FAV: The Social Network

         LOOMIS’S PICK: The Social Network

         LOOMIS’S FAV: The Social Network

•               BEST DIRECTOR

          ASH’S PICK: David Fincher, The Social Network

         ASH’S FAV: David Fincher, The Social Network

         LOOMIS’S PICK: Tom Hooper, The King’s Speech

         LOOMIS’S FAV: Darron Aronofsky, Black Swan

•               BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

         ASH’S PICK: Melissa Leo, The Fighter

         ASH’S FAV: Jacki Weaver, Animal Kingdom

         LOOMIS’S PICK: Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit

         LOOMIS’S FAV: Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit

•               BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

         ASH’S PICK: Christian Bale, The Fighter

         ASH’S FAV: Christian Bale, The Fighter

         LOOMIS’S PICK: Geoffrey Rush, The King’s Speech

         LOOMIS’S FAV: Andrew Garfield, Never Let Me Go

•               BEST ACTOR

         ASH’S PICK: Colin Firth, The King’s Speech

         ASH’S FAV: Joaquin Phoenix, I’m Still Here

         LOOMIS’S PICK: Colin Firth, The King’s Speech

         LOOMIS’S FAV: Jeff Bridges, True Grit

•               BEST ACTRESS

                Natalie Portman, Black Swan

               (No distinction necessary)

•               BEST PICTURE

         ASH’S PICK: The Social Network

         ASH’S FAV: The Social Network

         LOOMIS’S PICK: The Social Network

         LOOMIS’S FAV: Black Swan

There you have it! We will of course post an update on how our guesses faired, and a single, solitary winner – shaming the other into eternal damnation in their own wrongitude. And nobody likes that…

Hi everybody Ash here! What a great year in movies! Thats right…..fuck Roger Ebert and any other critic that says otherwise. This year has been awesome, despite a slow start. Lets cut the chit chat and get to the goods. NUMBER 10!

10. Inception (Christopher Nolan)

The action extravaganza of the year. Now let me say this about the film. Great action, awesome actors all the way around (I love you JGL&Cillian), and a great hook with dreams. My big issue….I was very underwelemed. Maybe I expected to much, but I thought with a movie about dreams we would see some really off the wall shit. Most of the time though I just felt like the undersold the ideas and capabilities of dreams. That spinning room scene though….fucking awesome!

9. True Grit (Coen Brothers)

The Coen Brothers strike again! First off, if you have never seen Millers Crossing, Barton Fink, Fargo, The Big Lebowski, No Country for Old Men, or A Serious Man….do yourself a favor and go now. This film is excellent. Terrific acting, direction, and score really lift this film above the rest. Most years this film would be in my top 5 for sure, but not this year. The competition was just to tough. This films only downfall for me is the final 15 mins. The Coen brothers always have unique endings to their films. This is what makes them so interesting and different than other filmmaker. This was the first time it did not hit me the right way. But, a 15 min end that I dont care for does not take away from a 95 min beginning I loved.

8. How to Train Your Dragon (Dean DeBlois, Chris Sanders)

This film really just came out of no where for me. For the record….Im not huge on the animated genre. Im very hard on them and just can not get into “kiddy” films. This film had its fair share of moments that really had me squirming to stop watching. BUT!!! The movie had a ton of heart. It really reminded me of The Incredibles. In the sense that in combined a cool story (Dragons/Superheros) and had an incredibly meaningful ending. The other big knock I have on the film is the voice actors….maybe the first time Ive seen an animated film and wish that they had gone with more unrecognizable people. The voices did not match personality or animation…except for Gerard Butler (you think I would say shit about that guy…. ripped and was a lawyer…yeah right… hed kick my teeth and then sue for the scuff on his boot). Total side note, Gerard Butler was amazing in this and every other film!

7.Kick Ass (Mattew Vaughn)

This movie kicked ass, wait whats that…Im not the first to use that line….damn. Well it was really good despite what this guy says (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100414/reviews/100419986) Ebert said “Then the movie moved into dark, dark territory, and I grew sad.” And i said “Ebert Shut the Fuck Up”. I love Ebert, he is by far my favorite critics. But when he misses, he misses hard. Its still hard for me to believe that Ebert did not like this movie at all because of a violent young girl. This movie is full of clever dialogue, great action, and fantastic direction. This movies biggest fault is the love story that just feels out of place at times. One more moment with Roger Ebert here….Hey Roger….Its Ash…Im sorry for telling you to shut the fuck up…that was wrong. What I meant to say is that sometimes when you dislike a movie you dont give great support. I know everyone should make up their own mind, but your a critic. Its kind of what you do. And a p.s. stop hating on horror films, I know your kick is sci-fy movies….but you dont have to tear good horror films apart because you dont like the genre. Sincerely, Your friend, Ash

6. Exit Through the Gift Shop (Banksy)

One of my favorite docs in recent memory (The Cove was awesome too…I just saw it this year…but it came out last year…so it doesn’t count…but here is my plug for it either way). Exit is by far my favorite documentary of this year. If you want my review you can see it….here! http://loomisandash.tumblr.com/post/2718431201/ash-reviews-yet-another-film-why-wont-he-stop If you want to read Loomis’s review you can try looking it up. The only thing to add to this is that the film is hilarious. It told such an original story without beating its message over your head. Its a lot like Banksy’s art in real life. Clever and fun to look at. 

5. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (Edgar Wright)

One of the most exciting and fun visual experiences I have ever had in movie theatre. Edgar Wright has proven that he is leaps and bounds better than most of the best young directors out there. His visuals are always unique, his actors are always terrific, and he is one of the few directors who is an editors friend. Wright (and Aronofsky) have some of the best edited sequences in their movies bar none. Their montages and their use of the quick cutting style, is at times just amazing. This movie was funny, exciting, and was unique. It is probably the movie I most excited to watch again!

HALF WAY!!!!

So I thought for a little break I will admit that I have yet to see Blue Valentine, Waiting for Superman, or any of the foreign films. So you may see some updates if any of those films blow me away.

4. The Town (Ben Affleck)

Ben Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms. No seriously fuck Ben Affleck….and George Clooney….any actor who is a talented director can go fuck himself. Nick Cage your ok (never seen Sonny, but Ill assume the worst). The Town was awesome. Had great direction, great sound editing (the gun shots are chilling), great acting, and a really cool action story. Jeremy Renner has just been winning me over with every new film I see him in. From the way he acted in Hurt Locker and in this film, there is no doubt in my mind that Renner has some serious issues. But acting is not one of them. Ben Affleck is now 2 for 2 in my books as a director so I urge him to continue making these great films. If he gained a good 50lbs of fat it might also make it easier for me to like him…..just a suggestion.

3. The Kings Speech (Tom Hooper)

This one really surprised me. Thought for sure that I would find it boring and visually dull. But no. I loved it. Colin Firth gives one of the best male lead performances of the year. The direction was surprisingly original and well done. He did some very cool camera tricks to make shots look seamless, and he also used a lot of unique framing of characters. This film was just a great story told and acted by some really talented people.

2. Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky)

One of the most intense theatre moments of my life. Darren Aronofsky is a true auteur of our time. The story is that of Swan Lake only updated. Its hyper sexuality, ballet choreography, and paranoid motifs are just paralyzing to a viewer. When the movie ended I felt as if I had been holding my breath the entire film. I was mentally and physically exhausted from this film. I was also in awe of what I had just seen. Natalie Portman had the best performance (male/female/anything in-between) of the year. It is one of the best performances I have seen in the last couple years. The film was almost all hand held, which I normally hate. I really dislike that style and visual message it sends. Not with this film. It was perfect. The look, the movements, the message it delivered were all great. Trust me, I wanted to knock it, but this film was just fantastic. 

Before we get to number 1 lets talk about some films that were not so great…..

Robin Hood (Ridley Scott)

By far the worst movie I saw in the theatre this year. That includes The Last Airbender, Sex and the City 2, and Clash of the Titans. This movie had 0 redeeming factors. Their was no reason this film should have been made. Its an embarrassment for all those involved, and Im embarrassed for seeing it. 

Cop Out (Kevin Smith)

I love Kevin Smith, Bruce Willis, and Tracey Morgan. But not together. This is a comedy where I did not laugh once. Well maybe once or twice when Seann William Scott did something random. This movie is just such an utter failure at being funny….and you dont know who to blame. They have all made you laugh before, what went wrong this time? I hope the paycheck was worth it guys.

Alice in Wonderland (Tim Burton)

Remember when Tim Burton made Big Fish and everyone was like wow this guy is truly amazing and a visual auteur. That was 8 years ago. Since then he has made three remakes, all starring Johnny Depp, all starring his wife (why don’t they get married yet) Helena Bonham Carter, and they all sucked! Sorry to be harsh, but they are boring as hell. This was by far the worst, and I think it made the most money theatrically. YEAH for failing up in Hollywood! If I were Tim Burton I would do as follows. 

Step 1- get some sunlight you are scaring the children

Step 2- get a normal haircut 

Step 3- write out a new screenplay….no remakes… re-visioning….has to be 100% original live action  

Step 4- cast someone besides you wife and Johnny Depp. Both are great actors, but they are boring to see in your films

Step 5- Rince and repeat!

Now for the Number 1…my favorite film of 2010 is……

The Social Network (David Fincher)

Aaron Sorkin will win best adapted screenplay. This is a fact. It was a terrific story with amazing structure and incredible wit. Their conversations are so layered and profound. You learn almost everything you need to know about every character by what they say, and the way they say it. Its an amazing feat when a story can construct several characters who are all dynamic and realistic. It does this all while keeping you entertained and interested in the story. Most films that try to be profound and script base end up being boring. This film is far from boring. The actors Jesse Eisenberg, Armie Hammer (what a great name!), and Adrew Garfield might not win any awards but they all deserve major credit. They each gave a great performance. I think everyone of these actors, and most of the actors in the film, were able to show great depth without going over the top. The film had a unique but very fitting score done by Trent Reznor….yeah I didnt see that coming either. The recent trend of famous musicians like Reznor, Daft Punk, and Johnny Greenwood doing the scores for big films has really been paying off. Each is brining a unique sound that really pushes these narratives to places that classically trained composers would not tread. I am amazed that it is paying off, but you can not argue with the results in these respected films. David Fincher was stellar yet again. I do not think this film is the best direction he has every done, or the best film he has ever done. But it is definitely a unique story for him to tackle. Fincher has been making incredible works for years now. Each is very stylistically his own, while at the same time, is directed very unique and fitting to its story. I think he should have received much more credit for his directing on past works, but he will get it this year for this film. 

That is my top 10, bottom 3, and a few random thoughts in between. If you have any comments, questions what ever please leave them and Loomis and I will get back to you with our thoughts.

Sheila: You found me beautiful once… 
Ash: Honey, you got reeeal ugly! 

   It’s that time of the year again; that magical month where hundreds of anonymous top ten lists emerge all over the blogosphere. And, it is in that tradition, that I arbitrarily number these titles for the several people that care (and “several” is a pretty generous estimate, I must admit).

   I will begin with ten and work my way up to one. I would like to comment, before we start, on the immense amount of critics reporting that 2010 was a, and I quote, “weak year for film”: I disagree. I found this year’s list incredibly hard to narrow down. In fact, there are several that did not make the cut that I genuinely feel are top-notch works. Sadly, I feel a top ten should be just that (meaning… ten), so I will not be listing additional titles, runner ups, etc. Just know that it was difficult for me to exclude, le’s just say, films that rhyme with “Wexit Mew the Thrift Cop”.

   Also, I reserve the right to update this post if I see a 2010 film that I haven’t yet and feel it’s “list worthy”. I do not claim to have seen the 500+ films made last year, I only hope to provide for a slice of the great art that was out there. The point of these things is to help guide others to works that inspired and impacted me in some way. If nothing else, take this list as a “Loomis recommends…” and watch with certainty that you will think, feel and reflect all the while experiencing distinct and unique visual and writing styles. C’mon, you know that sounds cool.

   Now, without further adieu, I present…

Number 10:

FROZEN

    “FROZEN” is one of those films that I stumbled upon by accident. As I’ve written in the past, I’m a horror buff, and the director of “FROZEN”, Adam Green, has done some great work on shoestring budgets over the past couple of years. “FROZEN” is no exception.

   Haunting and jarringly real, “FROZEN” follows three friends trapped on a ski-lift for what could be one full week. Very similar in concept to “127 Hours” and even “Buried”, “Frozen” deals with isolation and, more importantly, its effect on people who live in a world drenched in quick and easy communication. The cinematography is simple and straight on. The power comes from the script. This is a film driven by its characters and their exchanges. These people are relatable and sympathetic… yet, hopeless and, ultimately, doomed.

   If you’re going to watch one of the films that came out this last year that deals with the simple and straight forward premise that a person/people are trapped and essentially have to come to terms with their own mortality through poignant and poetic dialogue and storytelling, see “FROZEN” (how’s that for a sentence?).

Number 9:

The King’s Speech

   Now “The King’s Speech” was a film I sought out. Like everyone else who follows film, I had to see this (so-called) mammoth performance by Colin Firth. What I got was a whole lot more.

   I loved the direction (thank you Tom Hooper). The camera work was exceptional. The odd close on shots and strange (but fitting) composition of each frame put the audience in the perfect mindset to behold this awkward man who would be king (aka Colin Firth).  The film was interspersed with vignettes of humor, these sequences often times carried by the genius that is Geoffrey Rush. Just when I thought I couldn’t take another bro-mance flick, I’m handed the “King’s Speech”… and I’m blown away.

   One scene stands out in particular. It occurs toward the beginning of the film. We see Colin Firth telling a bedtime story to his daughters. He fights through his stutter and speech impediment to express a heartfelt and touching message: that although their father doesn’t sound like most normal people do, he still has the capacity to love them with all his heart. We’re reminded that a King is just a man, and as one’s status is elevated, so are his shortcomings.

Number 8:

Tangled

   “Tangled” is pure, unadulterated fun.

   I grew up watching Disney. And when I say Disney, I mean 1989-1999 Disney. I’m talking “The Little Mermaid”, “Aladdin”, “The Lion King”, et al. If you’re like me, and you hold a special place in your heart for that style of animation, then “Tangled” will be a huge treat. Alan Menken provides a fantastic group of new songs that hold up well when compared to the greats previously mentioned. The animation is gorgeous (despite it being computer generated) and the floating lanterns are as iconic as the chandelier in “Beauty and the Beast”.

   More importantly, the film has heart. The characters are not one-dimensional archetypes but thinking and feeling people that dream and will sacrifice to attain that goal. All too often modern day animation is surface level and stuffed to the brim with poorly written jokes that play to the lowest common denominator (I’m looking at you Dreamworks along with your seventeenth “Shrek” outing…). “Tangled”, following in the footsteps of its distributer’s former glory and in a wholly different way to the amazing work of Pixar, succeeds in reminding us why we think of Disney as “magic”.

   “Tangled” did not appear on many top ten lists, but it ignited in me a feeling that I haven’t felt since I was a kid. And, to be honest, if this had been hand drawn and called “Rapunzel”… well, let’s just say it would’ve broke top five.

Number 7:

Scott Pilgrim Vs the World

   It is extremely rare that one actually stumbles upon an altogether original and stylistically distinct film. I just talked about “Tangled” and how much fun it was. Well, “Scott Pilgrim Vs the World” is fun too, but on an entirely different level.

   Here is a film that achieved cult status the second it hit theaters. Edgar Wright is a man who knows how to please the Geek universe. After bringing us such treasures as “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz”, he unleashes the energetic and funny (yet poignant) Scott Pilgrim. I argued for years that it was impossible to make a good video game movie – “Scott Pilgrim Vs the World” proves me very wrong.

   Fantastic script. Great camera work. Immense fun. Unlike anything you’ve ever seen. I think that about sums it up.

Number 6:

Blue Valentine 

   Switching gears – okay, “Blue Valentine”. What an exquisitely crafted, introspective character piece. I have to say, right off the bat, the film works so extremely well due to the performances of its two main characters: specifically, those of Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams.

   In interviews, the film’s director (Derek Cianfrance) has said that the actors would spend hours and hours doing the same scenes over and over again. The idea was to force the actors to become their characters, to forget that they were playing a part and just fall into the various arguments and romantic moments that the characters share. The result of this is a touching and realistic view of how love is formed and how those feelings can be broken down – more importantly, how both can occur due to the exact same circumstances.

   We’ve all seen films concerning romance. We’ve all seen films concerning heartbreak. I’m not sure we’ve seen a film concerning both simultaneously, concerning the same individuals and done with such honesty. At least I hadn’t. I left the film feeling sad, but somehow (I think) better for it.

   And now, my top five…

Number 5:

True Grit

   I walked into “True Grit” with high expectations. I’m not a big western fan (mostly because it’s a genre I haven’t explored too deeply) but I am big Coen brothers supporter. I love how they tend to blend humor with hard laced drama, quirky individualism with modern day Hollywood narrative. “True Grit” hit the nail on the head in both respects.

   This film deserves more than a few paragraphs of summarization, but sadly, those are the confines I agreed to with this list. Jeff Bridges gives (arguably) the best performance of the year. He crafts a character so layered and experienced, the audience feels like we see but a small snippet of who he really is. The cinematography is gorgeous. I was reminded of “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”, but Roger Deakins (cinematographer) makes it his own. From open to close, the film is a wonder to behold.

   I laughed, I cried, I cringed. What more could you want from a movie?

Number 4:

The Social Network

   Most of my friends assured me that this would be my favorite film of the year. They were wrong, but it was damn good.

   The strength of this film is its script and how that script is portrayed. Jesse Eisenberg is fantastic as an anti-social nerd who is kind of an asshole but that doesn’t really get that he’s an asshole. The wit and cynicism of those crafting the very thing that would forever change the culture of the entire world is captivating to say the least. Moreover, the mere fact that David Fincher was able to make a movie about Facebook that is actually worth seeing is a feat worth recognizing.

   “The Social Network” is one of those films where every element blends well. Nothing is by accident and the talent of every last crew member pours out of every scene. Truly a great film.

Number 3:

Never Let Me Go 

   Here’s one that snuck up on me. I loved “One Hour Photo” and I loved how Mark Romanek directed the picture. “Never Let Me Go” could not be more different in story and scope, but one commonality remains: both share a slow burning pace that results in beautifully crafted character work and an important message about life, liberty and love.

   The film is a period piece, only that of a different reality. It observes its inhabitants as though studying them, waiting to decipher their decisions and motivations as they become clear. The film opens with future events, letting us know right off the bat where things are headed. It never pretends to be anything else, never deviates from the fate that our doomed trio is headed to. See, in this world, some are born only to die; some are brought up merely to donate their organs and provide longer life to those citizens who matter. Oddly, our protagonists understand this fact and carry themselves with pride, thinking (mistakenly) that they matter to.

   There is a scene toward the end of the film where Andrew Garfield’s character learns a crushing truth. The release of emotion that follows is amongst the most powerful I’ve seen captured on film. The lack of an Academy nomination is criminal. That was the moment where I realized that I loved this film. I wonder what your moment will be.

Number 2:

Toy Story 3

   Leave it to Pixar to create not a sequel but a second sequel that is powerful enough to appear on hundreds of top ten lists. Damn you Pixar… damn you.

   What can I say about this film that hasn’t already been said? I love that they went here with these characters. I love that the future that we all knew would come actually came and that these toys (what’s left of them anyway) actually have to come to terms with their own mortality. Forget that the animation was brilliant. Forget that the story was exciting and funny. Just focus on the idea that these toys, whose sole purpose were to make their owner happy, no longer have an owner. Imagine the emptiness. The pain. All of this dealt with in a “kid’s movie”.

   I know it’s been said, but I have to talk quickly about the scene in the garbage dump. No words spoken. Just our protagonists taking one another’s hands, gazing reminiscently and intently into each other’s eyes, perhaps not ready, but accepting that their journey has come to an end. What a powerful and touching sequence. Oh Pixar… I might as well pencil in “Monster’s Inc. 2” for top ten 2012 now and just get it out of the way.

And Loomis’s number one film of the year is…

Number 1:

Black Swan

   I should admit that I will be posting a review for this film shortly. Here’s a brief excerpt.

   “Every single element of ‘Black Swan’ works. Period.”

   Darren Aronofsky has made a film so tightly written and directed, that every last shot, every precise edit feels deliberate, moving the audience closer and closer to the exciting climax. Natalie Portman provides (what I feel to be) the hands down best performance of the year, male or female, with Nina Sayers. She doesn’t say much, but every look and every nuanced, soft spoken word serves to craft a deeply troubled past and darkly slipping psyche that makes the viewer question the reality and validity of every action. This is a movie you have to work for and with to appreciate, one that challenges the mind and in so doing provides great reward.

   The film opens with a haunting dance, a dream of a moment, between the pure white swan and her dark, twisted and deformed alter ego. The film is in itself a ballet, one the flows much like the music by which it was inspired. Beautiful and breathtaking, a masterpiece.

   In my humble opinion, the best film of the year.

Exit Through the Gift Shop: 4.5 stars / 5 Stars

Dir. By: Banksy

Hi Everyone Ash here,

“I used to encourage everyone I knew to make art; I don’t do that so much anymore.” -Banksy…..and this basically sums up the movie. What is art? What is not art? 

The film may involve a little frenchman named Thierry Guetta (AKA Mr. Brainwash), it may involve street art/graffiti, it may involve the famous artist who never shows his face Banksy, but this film is not about any of them. Rather it uses them for a bigger story. Its a documentary, wait, maybe its not, but either way it is profound. And it’s my favorite documentary (real or not) of this year (which means last year-2010). It may have had those people and things I just listed, but are they the films true focus point? Yes and no, I guess… Lets go over them one at a time to really absorb all of this film.

Thierry Guetta is a little fat frenchman who owned a boutique shop. One day he gets a video camera and  falls in love. He films everything in his life, that statement was not an exaggeration, he films everything. He does nothing with the video tapes he makes, just changes them out for a new one when the old one is full. One day he hangs out with his cousin Space Invader, a semi famous graffiti artist, and finds his art to be truly amazing. He gets a desire to film Space Invader while he is putting his art throughout the city. It is really a cool moment watching an artist use an entire city as his canvass. If I had an ounce of artistic ability I would honestly give this a try. Thierry goes on more trips with his cousin documenting all of the escapades of hiding and throwing graffiti in a ton of different cities. Thierry starts to meet and follow other artists around. Thierry informs them all that he is making a documentary about street art, he does this just to be able to film and hang out with them. He never truly believes hes going to make a documentary.

Throughout the whole adventure he is alluded by the most famous and secretive graffiti artist Banksy. After year of searching and trying to meet this secretive artist, by luck and chance he is finally introduced to Banksy. They kick it off. Banksy shows him his art, his creation process, includes him on tough adventures, an art exhibit, fake money that he made, and even get into a little zoo trouble together.  After a long time of hanging out together Banksy tells Thierry to try and make his own art.

Thierry’s first attempt is to make the documentary that he had been filming for several years. You assume that he made the film that we are watching, but it is not.He shows it to Banksy, who hates it. “Yeah, I was faced with that terrible thing, when somebody shows you their work and everything about it is shit… so… you don’t really know where to start.”

So Banksy decided to try and edit the documentary himself, and that is how we get this film. But thats not all! Thierry decided that he would try to be a street artist like Banksy, calling himself Mr. Brainwash. He is able to put on a show and does really well from it. Mr. Brainwash ends up selling over a million dollars worth of art, even though most of it was done by other people. What was not done by other people is clearly ripped off or stolen from other artist. Thierry has no style of his own, only variations of the artists that he had seen and hung out with over the several years of his filming.  

The great question everyone will have when this movie ends is…..what the fuck is art? Exit through the Gift Shop raises these sorts of questions without ever trying to supply an answer. But thats the point, not in an annoying ambiguous way, more in the sense of how could one answer not differentiate on a case by case argument. Was it real, is it all staged? Does it matter? The point of the film is about the credence of art, and a closer look at those who judge it. Would it make it less of a film if it were staged rather than real. Not in my eyes, it would still be funny and insightful. What shame does Mr. Brainwash put on the graffiti artist world, none. They may be embarrassed of his plagiarism and lack of creativity, but Thierry made money by copying exactly what they did. So are they mad at his success, his obvious plagiarism, or the whoring of graffiti art into the mainstream. Im sure they are mad at him a little for all of those reasons, but they also have to see that they have made equal contributions to each. Most of the artists were plagiarizing someones art, most were becoming famous/successful from it, and most were putting on art exhibit shows that made graffiti art mainstream. They support him as a friend, but not an artist and I can understand that. Was Banksy the first graffiti artist, no. Are his images unique…..yes they are. Was Thierry the first to document street art on a camer, Im gonna assume no. Were they able to tell a unique and original story though this medium.Yes. Regardless of your thoughts on street art, the validity of this documentary, or the artistic merit of Banksy/Mr. Brainwash/any other graffiti artist, you have to admit that they told one hell of a story. One that made me reexamine my thoughts on art as a whole. 

http://www.banksy.co.uk/

http://www.mrbrainwash.com/

Shop Smart….

Shop S-Mart!

Exit Through the Gift Shop: 4 stars / 5 Stars

Dir. By: Banksy

            Art is all around you. Life is beautiful. Let’s talk for a minute.

            In college I took a class that focused on stage plays. In one of our first sessions the teacher stood beside the chalkboard and asked the question: What is art?

            My hand shot up (yes, I was that guy) and within moments I was called upon. I was quick with my response and uncharacteristically succinct. I said simply, “Art can be anything. It has no definition because everyone who views it will have their own unique interpretation.” Or something like that…

            “Well, no…” That was how my teacher began his response. He told me I was incorrect, that art did indeed have a clear and defined meaning that was specific and not open for interpretation. That’s the academic reality. Art does indeed “mean” something and we go to school to study that “meaning”, to be told how to feel about it. And it’s because of that school of thought, so to speak, that we have a world where an artist such as Mr. Brainwash can flourish. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

            “Exit Through the Gift Shop” is a documentary about street art. No, scratch that, it’s about an amateur documentarian. Wait, no, it’s an experimental piece about the artistic process. Or is it an indictment on the current state of art and its diminishing aesthetic value? Maybe it’s about us – the public that provides art with meaning, with value.

            Sorry, I got ahead of myself again; this is a review for a film that studies the dangers of art. Let’s take it from the beginning. We have a man, Thierry Guetta, who comes by a video camera. And from the moment he gets this camera, he becomes an artist.

            Well, that’s right isn’t it? He films everything in sight. He takes reality and documents it, immortalizing it in his own unique way with his own unique eye. Forget about the quality of the video and the structure-less manner in which this is achieved. None of that matters. Art is art. Right??

            Guetta then discovers a different type of art. The moving picture evolves into a still one. Street art is everywhere. It surrounds him. It is the everyday world that most just walk past, through, around, etc. Street art is the modern way to express one’s self aesthetically. Guetta must capture this on film.

            Oddly, Guetta fascinates the street artists. To be honest, I don’t think they quite knew what to make of him. A funny little Frenchman with a camera? Well, seems risky to document all of the illegal activity, but, hey, an extra pair of hands always helps when hanging life-sized posters on overpasses in the middle of the night.

            Where was I? Oh, right the film. What struck me while watching this meandering work play out was the manner in which Guetta treated the pseudo celebrities he stumbled into while [falsely] documenting them. He studied their actions and their styles. He learned from them, mirrored their attitudes and behaviors, and did so in front of their eyes. Yet, none of them had a problem with this, none of them viewed him as a threat to their artistic environment… because none of them suspected he had any real talent. Who knows if they were right or not.

            The footage gained was beautiful, fun and invigorating. To elaborate, let’s try something here. I’m going to write a word. I want you to read that word and then close your eyes. Visualize the word. After a moment, reopen and continue reading. Alright, ready? Here we go:

            GRAFFITI.

            Close your eyes.

            Back? Okay. What’d you think of? Post comments. Respond with descriptions. I ask because the word generally evokes an array of images; spray painted tapestries shaping everything from enormous obscenities to biblical imagery. Most of all, however, the word evokes a negative connotation. No matter what you thought of, or how beautiful you felt it was, chances are you thought that whatever it was was brought into the world illegally, put someplace it did not belong or, perhaps, was just something that shouldn’t be done.

            Culturally we are indoctrinated to believe certain things. Graffiti is a label given to a type of art to discourage the masses from supporting it. To get back to my original point, the footage depicted in the film was wonderful. Why? Because it depicted the act of graffiti, aka street art, as a powerful and effective art form. Moreover, a positive force to be reckoned with.

            The film’s content will spark conversation. I don’t care who you are or who you’re with. The film will end and you will talk about it. If you’re alone, you’ll call somebody. Hell, maybe you’ll do what I’m doing and review the thing in a meandering piece of something I’m going to go ahead and label as being art. Guetta would.

            Let’s talk more about Guetta. The conclusions made by the film are… well inconclusive. It’s funny. Infamous artists, artists renowned the world over, appear in the film calling Guetta a friend and ally. They also renounce the man. They support his art. Yet they subtract themselves from the equation where they accept his art as being part of that official canon which all acknowledge as being “true” or “good” art. Confused? So are they.

            But enough beating around the bush, I’ll level with you:

            This is a film about art. Whether Guetta’s an “artist” or not doesn’t matter. Whether what he produces is or is not “art” doesn’t matter.  What matters is how easy it was for him to do it. What matters is how happy it made him. How the “art” acted as a fulfilling agent in the strange man’s life.

            My teacher was wrong. Art has no definition – at least, that’s my opinion. The film is far more interested in raising the question, “What is art?” and far less concerned with actually answering it. I think that may be because the answer to that question can be a little disheartening when actually given.

            Guetta’s work can be viewed as imitation. It can be viewed as progress. The work can be viewed as assembly line. But no matter how you view it, you have to admit: it’s art. Or maybe it’s not.

            You may have noticed that my review was a bit all over the place. Not the norm, style or structure you (or I) are used to. But the review should reflect the film. The review should reflect the reviewer’s experience, don’t you think?

            Art is probably the most powerful and lasting form of expression we as human beings employ. The film seems to advocate that we all jump on the bandwagon. Although as world renowned artist Banksy reflects at the end of the film:

            “I used to encourage everyone I knew to make art; I don’t do that so much anymore.”

            Are you really still reading this? Pick up a pencil. Jab your fist into a paint can. Open your junk drawer and pull out the duct tape. Art is all around you. Go find it. Or don’t.

            Who knows, maybe it’ll find you. 

Loomis