Articulated

Contemplating the Basterds

Last night I finally saw Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds“. I really wanted to see it in the theater, but I’ve not been very good at getting out to see movies over the last few months. My girlfriend and I have been caught up watching “Mad Men” on DVD.

As usual, QT shows his mastery of dialog and scene. Say what you might about the “Kill Bill” saga, the second movie was a collection of brilliant scenes and excellent dialog. What set’s “Kill Bill 2” apart from “Basterds” is that there is a clear cut (pun intended) revenge story (the framework for which is established in “Kill Bill 1“). By comparison, “Basterds” feels like another collection of brilliant, tense scenes that lack the same kind of cohesive story structure. While all of “Kill Bill” characters orbit the same plot and each scene builds to the climactic meeting between Bill and The Bride, the central story of “Basterds” is harder to identify. Despite the movie’s title, I think the main story is that of Shoshanna’s revenge on Colonel Landa. Brad Pitt’s slightly stupid but sinister Aldo seems to move in and out of the movie at random with no clear continuum to his actions or motives. Rather, he’s just there “killing Nazis”. Christoph Waltz’s Landa, while brilliantly played, serves as Aldo’s foil and as the source and object of Shoshanna’s understandable rage.

The whole composition makes more sense if you consider the main characters as avatars of World War II’s key players. Aldo, the hyper-American symbol (he’s part Apache!) arrives relatively late to the movie, after the action has already begun. He’s a little stupid and ignorant but also cunning and ruthless and escapes the movie more or less victorious. By comparison, Landa’s representation of Germany is multi-layered. He’s smooth, extremely intelligent, perpetually in a good mood but also ruthless and self-serving. He jumps at the opportunity to exit conflict under the best possible terms but comes away permanently marked by the stain of the Nazi regime. Shoshanna, representing the Jews, is successful in seeking her revenge but fails to survive – in part because she retains her humanity. Her killer, the embodiment of German national pride, is killed at the climax of the movie but not before killing Shoshanna.

The movie is also full of references or homages to other movies. I particularly enjoyed the nods to old James Bond movies, the obvious reference to the Dirty Dozen, and the Cinderella scene. There are also many scenes that seemed brilliantly familiar though I cannot name the specific reference. Lovers of cinema will pick up on them easily.

“Inglourious Basterds” is a Tarantino film in every sense. It is violent, over-the-top, and brilliantly made. It embodies the director’s love of cinema and is not easily dismissed.

Buttoned

I just watched David Fincher’s “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”. Before I say anything else, I have to acknowledge that it is a beautiful movie. The cinematography is outstanding. The movie also stands out in my mind for how well light was used in the design of the scenes. After having recently seen “Milk”, which was very poorly shot despite being an excellent movie, “Button” clearly stands apart and makes me appreciate how much light and shadow play a part in the design of a movie.

I know reviews of this movie were somewhat mixed when it came out. While I think everyone agreed that the movie is a beauty to watch, there was less agreement about the quality of it’s substance. This is not a complicated movie. I suppose some might consider it thematically “heavy-handed”. I think I appreciate how challenging it must be to make a successful movie about dying. At least, that’s my first impression.

Maybe it’s not about death as much as it is about transience. This idea is repeated throughout. How is it that we deal with the mortality – not only of lives but also of moments and opportunities? The experiences of our lives are colored by how we accept, reject, ignore or embrace this reality.

These are not radical themes. Many stories have tackled this idea. What I love about this movie is not it’s novelty or originality. In stories we can escape into other worlds, but what we find in those places is only what we carry with us. What I find in this movie is a moment to reflect and appreciate the temporary joys of my own life and realize (again) that I’ve been very fortunate. For that I am, as always, grateful.

Up and Out

I was disappointed during my trip to the movie theater last week to see the movie “Up”. This, of course, had nothing to do with the movie itself. Most of us know by now that Pixar has yet to make a bad (or even a really mediocre) movie. For me, “Up” exceeded my usual expectations for Pixar, ranking higher than “The Incredibles” or “Finding Nemo”; it’s roughly on par with “Wall-E”. No, my disappointment was not with the movie, which I am glad to have seen in the movie theater. It was presented in 3D!

By the time the credits had finished rolling, Monica and I were the only two patrons remaining. The only other people in the place were three members of the cleaning crew – impatiently waiting for us to vacate our seats so they could go about their business. I could tell the were wondering why we were still there. The movie was over, right?

Well, no. The movie was not over. The credits were still being presented. In addition to being disrespectful of the people who made the movie, the cleaning crew, and the patrons before them, didn’t seem interested in the creativity that went into creating the credits. Now, I admit the fact that they were not technologically innovative. They took only subtle advantage of the 3D format in which the movie was presented. But those people who walked out when the movie “finished” missed a very clever visual presentation. This wasn’t your simple black screen with white type. They didn’t just dress it up with a nice font. The credits stayed true to both the movie’s theme and visual style. The main credits incorporated some very cute, subtle visual humor. All the credits were dressed up with what one of my former professors would lovingly describe as little tchotchkies and visual detritus from the movie’s design. Unlike many other movies, this crew put thought into it, and I was disappointed very no one else was there to really appreciate it.

Despite the small percentage of viewers who really take the time to look, I hope movie makers will continue to create something interesting out of the movie credits. Perhaps it’s a way to reward those poeple who stay for the whole movie. Perhaps, as with the design of the titles that come at the start, it’s a way to make the information part of the movie itself, rather than (as many people seem to perceive it) as something tacked onto the end that may be dismissed. I admit I used to be like that, but I’m glad I’ve grown a bit. If I had not, I would have missed the wonderful music at the end of “Cloverfield”. I would not have enjoyed the preview at the end of “Matrix Reloaded”. I would not be puzzled by the odd little coda at the end of “Adaptation”.

I wonder what else I have missed. Maybe not much. Maybe nothing. But I’m going to make sure I pay more attention in the future. Just in case.

Watching

Yesterday Monica and I went to see “Watchmen”, the movie based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore. I was only mildly surprised to see that Moore has “V for Vendetta” as one of his writing credits, as that is also essentially a comic book with high aspirations. Clearly, “Watchmen” was in the hands of better artists; the resulting movie is far superior to “V” . Not having previously read “Watchmen”, I went into the movie not knowing what to expect. I was pleasantly surprised to see a movie offers a much greater range than a simple superhero action movie. Simultaneously grounded and fantastic, containing moments representing both the banal and symbolic, the “Watchmen” is a complicated movie and, in all likelihood, does justice to the original novel.

“Watchmen” is what I will describe as “not shy”. It is graphic in every sense of the word, portraying violence and sex without flinching. It is also graphic in it’s visual richness, influenced by the artistry of not only the graphic novel but also the current genre of fantasy movies like “Vendetta”, “The Matrix”, “The Fifth Element”, and “Sin City”. Though the setting of the movie is an alternate-reality 80′s era America, there’s something futuristic about it. The movie is an exercise in contrasts: the retro vs. high tech; good mixed with evil; realistic vs. fantastic. And in the manner of Clint Eastwood’s masterpiece “Unforgiven”, the most of the movie’s characters, both good and bad, are ultimately ambiguous, falling either on both sides of the coin our outside of easy moral classifications. At the heart of the movie is a the profound question of how anyone can save the world from itself, and the ultimate answer is neither expected nor neat. Along the way, the movie explores the unseen consequences of trying to fight evil from the perspective of a group of superheroes who have long-passed the zenith of their crime-fighting careers – like middle-aged batmen and women trying to recapture the old glory.

Ultimately, the movie is not for the faint of heart. It is violent in a way that few ambitious movies dare to be. But to those people whose understanding of the movie will not be distracted by sex and blood, I recommend it.

Clint

I lucked into the opportunity to see Clint Eastwood live at the Apple Store SOHO this week. He was there to talk about his movie “Gran Torino” (which I still need to see) as part of Apple’s series on influential people in the media arts.

It was fascinating to get to see him in person. It was surprising to be reminded how old he is now (78). He grew up in a very different time in our history, and when you listen to him talk about his influences in film-making, they’re all from the 40′s and 50′s – periods I know nothing about (aside from a little war history).

What struck me most was he appeared slightly uncomfortable. Here is a man who may be the most recognizable actor of the last half-century. I suppose when you act you are not surrounded by crowds of people. During the interview, in front of well over a hundred people, he didn’t seem relaxed. I know I personally would not be relaxed, but it was strange to see that in someone so popular, well known and seemingly familiar. I have to remind myself that I don’t know him at all.

Frost

My mother sent me movie passes as part of my Christmas package. Today, my girlfriend and I used those passes to see “Frost/Nixon.” It was all new and interesting for me because the events of the movie happen before I was old enough to remember (in some cases, before I was born). Add to that the fact that I know very little about the history of the Nixon presidency. Most of what I do know comes from jokes and what is considered “common knowledge” but may be apocryphal.

Aside from the great acting, the movie is a very interesting portrait of a powerful person faced with the consequences of having reached too far, become too comfortable with that power. It is also the portrait of a man who is dealing with the twilight of his life and the lack of relevance that comes with it. It didn’t demonize Nixon, which I was thankful for. Despite the perceptions of Nixon expressed by the movie’s characters, the tone of the movie is one of a documentary. In a way it is, at least in part. I don’t know how much of the movie is true; there are certain moments which do appear to be added or edited to satisfy the point or the feel of the movie itself rather than the accurate telling of historical events. But it was fascinating if not completely educational. The makers of the movie certainly grabbed onto a compelling bit of history upon which to make their film. And given the pending exit of George Bush from the White House, it seems relevant to tell this story now. I felt as thought the movie was not shy in making an analogy between Bush and Nixon.

Titles

I saw the new James Bond movie this weekend. Ever since the last movie, I have been interested in what the title sequence would be for this new movie. “Casino Royale” really raised the bar for the graphic presentation. While it was disappointing to see them stray so much from the signature look (I still consider “Casino Royale” an action movie and not a Bond movie) the title sequence (and Chris Cornell’s great music) was an excellent expression of the movie’s tone and content.

In that regard, I think “Quantum of Solace” does well. The titles for this movie are clearly not as excellent as for “Casino Royale”, but that is a high and perhaps unrealistic expectation. They are very good and – important to me – more closely adhere to the ‘Bond brand’ that is familiar. The movie reflects this; it felt more like a Bond movie even as the franchise is being taken in a different direction with Daniel Craig and Paul Haggis. This is not entirely unwelcome. While my personal favorite Bond is still Pierce Brosnan, he was never given great material to work with. They squandered his talent for channeling that James Bond swagger; in “Casino Royale” Bond is referred to as a ‘blunt instrument’, which describes Craig’s Bond well. Brosnan brought a wit and style to the role that has been missing since Sean Connery. But this is a new century and Craig is a great fit for the modern audience.

The music for the title sequence also fit with the style of the movie; they retained the hard rock feel of Cornell’s track by inviting Jack White but introduced an element of soul with Alicia Keys. The result is a good if slightly uneven product that I enjoyed. My girlfriend Monica did not. But, as I pointed out, it’s better than Madonna’s horrible “Die Another Day”.