In this week's episode, Ben, Pat, and Tyler discuss Rob Reiner's 1986 film, Stand By Me.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
The NJNM Podcast: Ep. 9 - Stand By Me
In this week's episode, Ben, Pat, and Tyler discuss Rob Reiner's 1986 film, Stand By Me.
V For Vendetta
I was shocked to discover I haven't written a single word about V For Vendetta since its release back in 2006. I really, really enjoyed the movie back then, and recently re-watched it with a friend of mine who had never seen it. So consider this my very late review.*
V For Vendetta
Director: James McTeigue
Starring: Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving, John Hurt, Stephen Rea
Based on Alan Moore's comic book series of the same name, V For Vendetta takes place in a futuristic dystopian United Kingdom ruled by a totalitarian government. As a terrorist known only as "V" (Weaving) sets plans in motion to bring the power back to the people, he saves the young Evey Hammond (Portman), who becomes embroiled in the plot over the course of a year. Simultaneously, two detectives attempt to find V and, in the process, discover the horrifying cause of their country's current state.
(Spoilers throughout.)
As previously stated, I really dug this movie when it first came out. I found it interesting that a film could balance a quasi-superhero movie (with all of the action and slow motion that comes along with that genre) with the notion of "making you think" by presenting all of these political ideas alongside the action conventions. "But that Guy Fawkes poem they kept reciting was really cool, right?" my younger self would have said. Poems, slow motion, and action aside - what is this movie really about? What political notions would it have us consider, and where, as an audience, do we stand in McTeigue's dystopian world?
Let's first try to ascertain who American audiences are supposed to relate to in this film. The movie is set in the United Kingdom, so right away there's a bit of a disconnect. But countless other films have been set overseas and we have no problem realigning our perception and easily using those other locations as metaphorical stand-ins for the United States. In this film, however, there are multiple references to America basically causing the dystopia and the ultimate downfall of modern society. The entire introduction sets up the film's universe by painting America as the nation solely responsible for England's misery, with a concentration on our "Godlessness" and disapproval of homosexuality as the stepping stones to destruction. So right away, just a few minutes into the film, we're already confused as to where our movie-watching allegiance lies. But remember - this is very clearly a Hollywood movie. It was financed and distributed by Warner Bros., produced by Joel Silver, and written by the Wachowskis. This is not a film aimed solely at a British audience - it's clearly marketed to Americans. So, where does that leave us? Do we move on without any further thought, as my younger self did the first time through? Let's try going a bit deeper.
Moore's comic was written in the 1980's - way before President George W. Bush's War on Terror and the atrocity of 9/11/2001. But the film version should (obviously) be looked at as a separate entity from its source material. V For Vendetta seems content with painting America in a negative light, but then it further confuses our allegiances. The character of V addresses the public in a closed circuit video, explaining all that is wrong with the country. The troubling part comes when V places the burden of electing the totalitarian government on the citizens of the United Kingdom; he says he understands why the people elected Chancellor Sutler - fear. But this critique is not meant solely for the citizens of England - it's also a direct response to the United States and our re-electing President Bush after 9/11.
Regardless of your personal political ideology, this tremendously confounds the matter of association. Now, Sutler and his regime are supposed to be a warning to Americans as to what our country might become if we aren't careful. So which is it? Are we supposed to align with the America as presented on screen - the filthy degenerates "responsible" for the atrocities that have befallen the UK? Or do we identify with the fascist England, wary of its implications of what we might become if led down the wrong path? This concept is further muddled when Detective Finch makes the discovery late in the film that their own government was responsible for the terrors that allowed the Norsefire Party to come into power. After all of this, I can only assume that we're supposed to associate with a combination of the two governments; the metaphors are so mixed, it's hard to distinguish with which side the filmmakers want us to relate.
Along these same lines, it's interesting to note how V, portrayed mostly as a terrorist, is glorified in the film. The phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" seems especially relevant today (the ninth anniversary of 9/11), and that concept is explored to a satisfying degree in V For Vendetta. The film clearly wants us to side with V - he is the hero, after all - but I can't help but notice how much the filmmakers like to mess with our heads here. We're supposed to associate with a culture (either America or the UK, in this case) that despises terrorists and lives in the ashes of their wake, but yet we're also supposed to get behind the ideals of a man willing to blow up buildings to get his point across? This duality is what makes V For Vendetta more interesting than originally given credit for, but also provides the film's greatest logical flaw. I'm not a person that needs my hand held throughout a movie to figure out what's going on, but this film presents too many possible options and not enough concrete answers for the audience to make a valid decision.
But enough of that. Hugo Weaving gives an outstanding performance as V, both vocally and physically. (Although I heard the role originally went to James Purefoy and some of his performance is seen in the final film.) His vocals alternate between frightening and passionate, a "Phantom of the Opera" type living underground, inspired and infatuated with Evey when she enters his life. Natalie Portman totally commits to her character, imbuing Evey with a sense of power and strength that (from what I understand) her comic book counterpart lacks. Her relationship with V is the keystone to the entire movie, and she and Weaving knock it out of the park. Stephen Rea (an actor I'm not terribly familiar with) is totally acceptable as the "hot on the trail" detective stereotype, and does a lot with a character that is used mainly as a spout for exposition.
McTeigue, an assistant director and second unit director on The Matrix trilogy, makes a technologically impressive debut here with his first full length feature. What the film lacks in coherent ideology, it makes up for in style; McTeigue is just as comfortable crafting a scene heavy on "superhero" elements as he is a prodding investigatory police sequence firmly set in the "real" world. I heard his follow-up, Ninja Assassin, wasn't nearly as entertaining as this movie, and I'm hoping that his next project, an intriguing Edgar Allan Poe murder mystery called The Raven, will be a return to form (or even an improvement) rather than cement him in what some might consider Shyamalan territory.
I still like the movie - I think it's probably one of the more interesting comic book adaptations out there - but now that I put a bit of thought into it, I'm unsure as to what specific message it's trying to spread. This review was more to help me work through my particular issues with the film than anything else. I wanted to give it some more thought than just "hey, that movie was cool," and I encourage you to throw any reactions into the comment section. Until next time...
*Although, it would have been really excellent if I had waited until November 5th to write this.
V For Vendetta
Director: James McTeigue
Starring: Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving, John Hurt, Stephen Rea
Based on Alan Moore's comic book series of the same name, V For Vendetta takes place in a futuristic dystopian United Kingdom ruled by a totalitarian government. As a terrorist known only as "V" (Weaving) sets plans in motion to bring the power back to the people, he saves the young Evey Hammond (Portman), who becomes embroiled in the plot over the course of a year. Simultaneously, two detectives attempt to find V and, in the process, discover the horrifying cause of their country's current state.
(Spoilers throughout.)
As previously stated, I really dug this movie when it first came out. I found it interesting that a film could balance a quasi-superhero movie (with all of the action and slow motion that comes along with that genre) with the notion of "making you think" by presenting all of these political ideas alongside the action conventions. "But that Guy Fawkes poem they kept reciting was really cool, right?" my younger self would have said. Poems, slow motion, and action aside - what is this movie really about? What political notions would it have us consider, and where, as an audience, do we stand in McTeigue's dystopian world?
Let's first try to ascertain who American audiences are supposed to relate to in this film. The movie is set in the United Kingdom, so right away there's a bit of a disconnect. But countless other films have been set overseas and we have no problem realigning our perception and easily using those other locations as metaphorical stand-ins for the United States. In this film, however, there are multiple references to America basically causing the dystopia and the ultimate downfall of modern society. The entire introduction sets up the film's universe by painting America as the nation solely responsible for England's misery, with a concentration on our "Godlessness" and disapproval of homosexuality as the stepping stones to destruction. So right away, just a few minutes into the film, we're already confused as to where our movie-watching allegiance lies. But remember - this is very clearly a Hollywood movie. It was financed and distributed by Warner Bros., produced by Joel Silver, and written by the Wachowskis. This is not a film aimed solely at a British audience - it's clearly marketed to Americans. So, where does that leave us? Do we move on without any further thought, as my younger self did the first time through? Let's try going a bit deeper.
Moore's comic was written in the 1980's - way before President George W. Bush's War on Terror and the atrocity of 9/11/2001. But the film version should (obviously) be looked at as a separate entity from its source material. V For Vendetta seems content with painting America in a negative light, but then it further confuses our allegiances. The character of V addresses the public in a closed circuit video, explaining all that is wrong with the country. The troubling part comes when V places the burden of electing the totalitarian government on the citizens of the United Kingdom; he says he understands why the people elected Chancellor Sutler - fear. But this critique is not meant solely for the citizens of England - it's also a direct response to the United States and our re-electing President Bush after 9/11.
Regardless of your personal political ideology, this tremendously confounds the matter of association. Now, Sutler and his regime are supposed to be a warning to Americans as to what our country might become if we aren't careful. So which is it? Are we supposed to align with the America as presented on screen - the filthy degenerates "responsible" for the atrocities that have befallen the UK? Or do we identify with the fascist England, wary of its implications of what we might become if led down the wrong path? This concept is further muddled when Detective Finch makes the discovery late in the film that their own government was responsible for the terrors that allowed the Norsefire Party to come into power. After all of this, I can only assume that we're supposed to associate with a combination of the two governments; the metaphors are so mixed, it's hard to distinguish with which side the filmmakers want us to relate.
Along these same lines, it's interesting to note how V, portrayed mostly as a terrorist, is glorified in the film. The phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" seems especially relevant today (the ninth anniversary of 9/11), and that concept is explored to a satisfying degree in V For Vendetta. The film clearly wants us to side with V - he is the hero, after all - but I can't help but notice how much the filmmakers like to mess with our heads here. We're supposed to associate with a culture (either America or the UK, in this case) that despises terrorists and lives in the ashes of their wake, but yet we're also supposed to get behind the ideals of a man willing to blow up buildings to get his point across? This duality is what makes V For Vendetta more interesting than originally given credit for, but also provides the film's greatest logical flaw. I'm not a person that needs my hand held throughout a movie to figure out what's going on, but this film presents too many possible options and not enough concrete answers for the audience to make a valid decision.
But enough of that. Hugo Weaving gives an outstanding performance as V, both vocally and physically. (Although I heard the role originally went to James Purefoy and some of his performance is seen in the final film.) His vocals alternate between frightening and passionate, a "Phantom of the Opera" type living underground, inspired and infatuated with Evey when she enters his life. Natalie Portman totally commits to her character, imbuing Evey with a sense of power and strength that (from what I understand) her comic book counterpart lacks. Her relationship with V is the keystone to the entire movie, and she and Weaving knock it out of the park. Stephen Rea (an actor I'm not terribly familiar with) is totally acceptable as the "hot on the trail" detective stereotype, and does a lot with a character that is used mainly as a spout for exposition.
McTeigue, an assistant director and second unit director on The Matrix trilogy, makes a technologically impressive debut here with his first full length feature. What the film lacks in coherent ideology, it makes up for in style; McTeigue is just as comfortable crafting a scene heavy on "superhero" elements as he is a prodding investigatory police sequence firmly set in the "real" world. I heard his follow-up, Ninja Assassin, wasn't nearly as entertaining as this movie, and I'm hoping that his next project, an intriguing Edgar Allan Poe murder mystery called The Raven, will be a return to form (or even an improvement) rather than cement him in what some might consider Shyamalan territory.
I still like the movie - I think it's probably one of the more interesting comic book adaptations out there - but now that I put a bit of thought into it, I'm unsure as to what specific message it's trying to spread. This review was more to help me work through my particular issues with the film than anything else. I wanted to give it some more thought than just "hey, that movie was cool," and I encourage you to throw any reactions into the comment section. Until next time...
*Although, it would have been really excellent if I had waited until November 5th to write this.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Uncertainty
Scott McGehee and David Siegel's Uncertainty is an exercise in duality. On the Brooklyn Bridge, a couple flips a coin to decide their plans for the Fourth of July - and the rest of the film cuts back and forth between the two options, allowing us to see what would have happened in both realities. (You may remember the trailer from the now-defunct Just New Movies blog.)
Uncertainty
Writer/Directors: Scott McGehee and David Siegel
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Lynn Collins, Olivia Thirlby
In one "reality," a text card flashes on screen that signifies this half of the story as YELLOW. The color scheme for this depiction leans heavily into the yellow part of the spectrum to give the audience an indication of which option we're seeing - Bobby (Gordon-Levitt) wears a yellow T-shirt the entire time, there are yellow wallpapers, etc. The other "reality" is labeled GREEN, and the same rules apply here - Bobby drives a lime green van and wears green shoes as an indicator. In YELLOW, a lost cell phone causes a series of problems that evolve into the lead couple going on the run from some very pissed off people. In GREEN, the two attend a family BBQ and decide whether or not to keep the child with which Kate (Lynn Collins) is currently pregnant.
This is interesting territory for a movie, but it's not terribly original - films like Tom Tykwer's Run Lola Run and even the little-seen 2003 movie The Beat have explored similar material to much greater effect. Uncertainty never hints at any deeper recognition of what the multiple realities ultimately mean to the characters; unlike the aforementioned examples, this movie plays out with little-to-no overflow between realities and doesn't give a sense of connectivity and importance to the narrative style. Each reality progresses to its individual end, but the characters remain unaware of their counterparts' journeys and don't seem illuminated from the experience. One of the two storylines (I won't spoil which one, in case you end up watching it) even concludes with a shockingly abrupt ending that fails to wrap up massively important plot points which have been building for the entire film.
If you're a fan of Joseph Gordon-Levitt (as I am), then I'd say this is worth your time. He and Lynn Collins - an actress I was almost completely unfamiliar with but whose career is on the rise with upcoming appearances in X-Men: First Class and John Carter of Mars - hold the film together and both give solid performances. The production design gets nauseating at times, with an over-reliance on the yellow and green motifs (so much so that it calls into the question the realism of the world they're creating), and it steps into some strange territory near the end of the film when the YELLOW half starts becoming infused with green imagery for no apparent reason. If you've seen the film and have an explanation for this quasi-color crossover, please sound off in the comments.
There are some aspects to like besides the performances: the camera work is adept, essentially becoming an OCD viewer's dream with a "same-but-opposite" approach to each reality. (Ex: YELLOW shows Bobby running to the right, GREEN shows Kate running to the left, shot from the same height and distance in each.) The film is set in New York and the filmmakers clearly have a love for the city which is translated into the final product. One scene in particular takes place on a rooftop and practically celebrates the skyline in the dialogue. (Side note - Gordon-Levitt is currently filming another New York-set film, this one called Premium Rush. Read about it here.) Olivia Thirlby (Juno, The Wackness) has a very small role, but again proves she's one of the best young actresses working right now.
Uncertainty isn't a fantastic film, and I'm not even going to pretend like it's one of Gordon-Levitt's best. The ending will sour some viewers who prefer loose ends to be securely tied, but it's a stylish piece of work that highlights some solid young actors and tackles a combination of stories we rarely see in the same type of movie. Until next time...
Sunday, September 5, 2010
The NJNM Podcast: Ep. 8 - The Rookie (Guest: Elisabeth Rappe)
In this week's episode, Tyler, Pat, and Ben are joined by Elisabeth Rappe (from Film.com and Chud.com) to discuss Clint Eastwood's 1990 film, The Rookie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)