David Fincher has earned himself a considerable amount of praise (along with a rather rabid following amongst aspiring filmmakers) for his psychological thrillers. With films like Se7en, Fight Club and Zodiac under his belt, it’s safe to say that he knows what the hell he’s doing when he’s trying to mess with someone’s head (hopefully someone will get that Se7en allusion). When most directors find their niche, they tend to stick with it. Zack Snyder had some success with 300, now he’s helming Watchmen, and it’s safe to say that he won’t be making the next Hugh Grant-starring, bumbling British romantic comedy anytime soon. Apparently, for David Fincher, the old saying “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” doesn’t apply.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is not a psychological thriller. It’s not even a run-of-the-mill thriller. The only real mystery of the film is what exactly is making this man age backwards, and that thread doesn’t even drive the narrative! Benjamin Button is, at its core, a love story, and a deeply powerful one at that. Fueled by an enormous performance from Brad Pitt, this movie not only represents a successful venture for David Fincher, but a huge step forward in terms of proving his versatility as an artist.
As a concept, a story of a man who ages backwards is naturally quite interesting, but there’s a major roadblock to overcome in order to ensure that a film like this avoids the “hokey” characterization. The methods for creating a believable rendering of an aged Brad Pitt’s head perched on a young boy’s body must look authentic. Most CG is blatantly obvious, and it’s my contention that obvious CG can ruin a film. Think of the digital gophers that pop up in the latest Indiana Jones flick. If you felt completely abused by those furry nuisances, like I did, then you know what I mean. That being said, the work done by the filmmakers to get the heavily made up Brad Pitt’s face onto the body of a 7 year-old is both remarkable and entirely realistic. This is one of the only times I’ve ever been able to say that the computer generated images in a film are almost indistinguishable from the tangible.
The film itself is truly a masterpiece. David Fincher certainly put all he had into this one, and it shows. Eric Roth’s screenplay is both satisfying and powerful, and Fincher pulls all the right emotional chords at exactly the right moment. The visuals are stunning, and the director’s got a real talent for camera motion and scene composition. He defines the term “fill the frame” without ever crowding it, and it’s hard not to be astonished by what you’re watching. Actually, you’ll be watching for over two and a half hours, but the story is so engaging that you’re rarely aware of it.
Benjamin Button has already generated quite a buzz for itself, and I’m here to tell you that it’s all certainly warranted. There’s hardly anything to critique, and it ranks right up there with Slumdog Millionaire as one of the best movies of not just this year but easily the last several. If for every Scary Movie sequel we were presented with a Slumdog or Button, maybe films like Transformers wouldn’t win Best Movie at the MTV movie awards.
Grade: A
12.07.2008
Slumdog's One In A Million
Consider the following statement: The best film of the year is about an Indian man who goes on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire because he knows the girl he loves will be watching. That shouldn't be right, but it is.
Director Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire easily takes the title of Film of the Year, and possibly the last few years, due in part to its surprisingly fascinating narrative. With a deeply moving story, slick direction, and a brilliant performance by relatively unknown actor Dev Patel, there's an experience felt in the theater that's unprecedented.
Based upon Q & A, a novel by Indian Diplomat Vikas Swarup, Slumdog Millionaire has quite the multifaceted story. Jamal Malik (Patel) is a poor Indian man who is on the verge of winning 20 million rupees on India's incarnation of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. Given that Jamal has come from nothing (a "slumdog"), he is suspected of cheating and is brought into the police precinct for questioning. He is then interrogated and forced to explain himself to the proper authorities, and account for each of the questions he got right the night before.
As Jamal ventures to explicate himself, the audience is shuttled back to certain instances in Jamal's life until we become enlightened as to where he acquired that specific nugget of information. As Jamal sheds some light on each answer, it becomes more and more apparent that the light is deeply ominous all the way up to the pumping third act. Without spoiling the ending, it's fair to say that you surely won't be disappointed.
The story is a dangerous one to tackle, and even though it's both powerful and expertly written, if handled incorrectly, Slumdog Millionaire could have become another cliche-ridden, message-heavy flick that's not worth the increasingly expensive ticket price. Enter Boyle. With the critical acclaim of Trainspotting and 28 Days Later preceding him, he somehow manages to outdo himself tenfold with Slumdog. The flashbacks to the Mumbai slums he uses exude a gritty yet genuine sentiment that borrows slightly from City of God in its near documentary feel. The actual Who Wants to Be a Millionaire sequences and the interrogation scenes provide a staggering contrast between the helter skelter streets of Mumbai by remaining much more static focused, which really drives home the lengths that Jamal has traversed.
Speaking of Jamal, Patel turns in an astounding performance as the film's protagonist, blending wit and sarcasm with the countenance of a survivor of great tragedy. Patel's genuine portrayal of Jamal is crucial to the film avoiding the "hokey" category, as his handling of the role makes him almost universally likeable.
Patel does not provide the only enjoyable performance, however. The entire cast from top to bottom is great (even the child actors playing the younger versions of the main characters), and it makes the incredibly powerful story seem oddly plausible.
There are very few negatives that can be said about this film. The overall story may be slightly predictable, but the ride that is experienced throughout makes it not only forgivable, but nearly unnoticeable. Slumdog Millionaire is so expertly executed throughout that even the credit sequence is more enjoyable than the entirety of You Don't Mess With the Zohan.
A cinematic triumph, Slumdog Millionaire is a must-see for anyone looking to get genuine enjoyment out of a film, because you certainly will. A strange sense of euphoria explodes from the theater as the credits roll, and it's something so rare in film that it would be a crime not to experience it.
Grade: A
Director Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire easily takes the title of Film of the Year, and possibly the last few years, due in part to its surprisingly fascinating narrative. With a deeply moving story, slick direction, and a brilliant performance by relatively unknown actor Dev Patel, there's an experience felt in the theater that's unprecedented.
Based upon Q & A, a novel by Indian Diplomat Vikas Swarup, Slumdog Millionaire has quite the multifaceted story. Jamal Malik (Patel) is a poor Indian man who is on the verge of winning 20 million rupees on India's incarnation of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. Given that Jamal has come from nothing (a "slumdog"), he is suspected of cheating and is brought into the police precinct for questioning. He is then interrogated and forced to explain himself to the proper authorities, and account for each of the questions he got right the night before.
As Jamal ventures to explicate himself, the audience is shuttled back to certain instances in Jamal's life until we become enlightened as to where he acquired that specific nugget of information. As Jamal sheds some light on each answer, it becomes more and more apparent that the light is deeply ominous all the way up to the pumping third act. Without spoiling the ending, it's fair to say that you surely won't be disappointed.
The story is a dangerous one to tackle, and even though it's both powerful and expertly written, if handled incorrectly, Slumdog Millionaire could have become another cliche-ridden, message-heavy flick that's not worth the increasingly expensive ticket price. Enter Boyle. With the critical acclaim of Trainspotting and 28 Days Later preceding him, he somehow manages to outdo himself tenfold with Slumdog. The flashbacks to the Mumbai slums he uses exude a gritty yet genuine sentiment that borrows slightly from City of God in its near documentary feel. The actual Who Wants to Be a Millionaire sequences and the interrogation scenes provide a staggering contrast between the helter skelter streets of Mumbai by remaining much more static focused, which really drives home the lengths that Jamal has traversed.
Speaking of Jamal, Patel turns in an astounding performance as the film's protagonist, blending wit and sarcasm with the countenance of a survivor of great tragedy. Patel's genuine portrayal of Jamal is crucial to the film avoiding the "hokey" category, as his handling of the role makes him almost universally likeable.
Patel does not provide the only enjoyable performance, however. The entire cast from top to bottom is great (even the child actors playing the younger versions of the main characters), and it makes the incredibly powerful story seem oddly plausible.
There are very few negatives that can be said about this film. The overall story may be slightly predictable, but the ride that is experienced throughout makes it not only forgivable, but nearly unnoticeable. Slumdog Millionaire is so expertly executed throughout that even the credit sequence is more enjoyable than the entirety of You Don't Mess With the Zohan.
A cinematic triumph, Slumdog Millionaire is a must-see for anyone looking to get genuine enjoyment out of a film, because you certainly will. A strange sense of euphoria explodes from the theater as the credits roll, and it's something so rare in film that it would be a crime not to experience it.
Grade: A
Going Against the Grain...
This may come as a shock to you, but Daniel Craig (Quantum of Solace, Casino Royale) is starring in a movie this winter in which he’s only shirtless once. That may or may not have blown your mind, but if it didn’t, Edward Zwick’s new film Defiance just might. Starring Craig and Liev Schreiber, Zwick paints a fascinating true story of three Jewish brothers who escape from Nazi-occupied Poland to the Belarusian forest. It’s a feat in itself to make Daniel Craig believable as a Polish Jew, but Zwick doesn’t stop there; the story is both well crafted and expertly translated to the screen. Some may criticize the director for being overly conventional, but why try to distract from a great story by trying to reinvent the wheel?
Defiance tells the true story of the Bielski brothers, who escaped the Nazi occupation of Poland and set up camp (literally) in the woods of Belarus. While in hiding, the brothers decide to enact revenge on those who have wronged them, and eldest brother Tuvia (Craig) takes the biggest step by seeking out the murder of his parents and killing him in cold blood. This turn out to be a major turning point for Tuvia, and he determines that the best way for the brothers to defy the Nazis isn’t to spill more blood, but rather to do the opposite and save as many lives as possible. This puts Tuvia at odds with his brother Zus (Schreiber), who still believes that an eye for an eye is what’s best. The brothers’ once small camp soon evolves into a haven for all exalted Jews, with Tuvia having real trouble denying any of his brethren some shelter. Zus decides he’s tired of this path, so he joins the Russian contingent, abandoning the camp and leaving Tuvia with youngest brother Asael and countless other mouths to feed and protect. The story moves forward to detail the struggles and battles (verbal and physical) that erupt in the brothers’ lives over the next several months.
One of the most obvious differences between Defiance and other films about this subject matter is the presence of humor. In an interview with The Heights, Edward Zwick points out that he intended to honor the Jewish humor that came out of that time period by emphasizing the manner in which these oppressed people managed to cope with their being hunted. The laughs aren’t uproarious or incredibly frequent, but there’s a certain sarcastic element to much of the dialog between the brothers that in many ways makes the characters seem much more grounded and thankfully keeps them from seeming like unrealistic heroes. Additionally, many will be surprised to find out that we won’t see very many Nazis in the course of the narrative, and according to the director, this was quite deliberate. He noted that he always imagined the Nazi regime as anonymous, and that he wanted the antagonist to be somewhat subjective, and it’s certainly refreshing to focus on the infighting and drama in response to the looming villain rather than having everyone unite and immediately fight the regime.
From a technical and aesthetic perspective, Defiance shines. There’s a great amount of imagery to experience in each shot, especially the contrast between the different seasons that we experience in the jungle. The lush and seemingly welcoming woods in the first several months slowly deteriorate and freeze over as winter inches closer, and we begin to see the relationships and general health of the Bielski’s camp start to decay much like the environment around them. All of this builds up to a climactic final gunfight that is one of the best-edited battle sequences in recent memory. The cuts happen in such a way that the scene never once feels like a montage of explosions, but instead like a completely fluid sequence. In many ways, Defiance is one of the most cinematic films of the year, even though the story itself mostly deals with the notion of nonviolence as a form of resistance.
As usual, the film isn’t without a few flaws, but they’re all rather minor. It’s over two hours long, and there are several times where the audience gets slightly lost, but for the most part the film is very comprehensible. It’s pretty clear that the director’s vision was intended to be slightly longer, but for one reason or another it was decided that something needed to be cut. Unfortunately, what was cut was most of the exposition from the first act, so we are left with the first 20 minutes being somewhat rushed and confusing. After that misstep however, the story redeems itself, so the critique is more or less negligible.
With a powerful story, slick editing and a host of imagery, Defiance is a worthwhile adventure for anyone interested in a different side of the Holocaust, or anyone who’s looking to discover that Daniel Craig is actually quite a talented actor.
Grade: A-
Defiance tells the true story of the Bielski brothers, who escaped the Nazi occupation of Poland and set up camp (literally) in the woods of Belarus. While in hiding, the brothers decide to enact revenge on those who have wronged them, and eldest brother Tuvia (Craig) takes the biggest step by seeking out the murder of his parents and killing him in cold blood. This turn out to be a major turning point for Tuvia, and he determines that the best way for the brothers to defy the Nazis isn’t to spill more blood, but rather to do the opposite and save as many lives as possible. This puts Tuvia at odds with his brother Zus (Schreiber), who still believes that an eye for an eye is what’s best. The brothers’ once small camp soon evolves into a haven for all exalted Jews, with Tuvia having real trouble denying any of his brethren some shelter. Zus decides he’s tired of this path, so he joins the Russian contingent, abandoning the camp and leaving Tuvia with youngest brother Asael and countless other mouths to feed and protect. The story moves forward to detail the struggles and battles (verbal and physical) that erupt in the brothers’ lives over the next several months.
One of the most obvious differences between Defiance and other films about this subject matter is the presence of humor. In an interview with The Heights, Edward Zwick points out that he intended to honor the Jewish humor that came out of that time period by emphasizing the manner in which these oppressed people managed to cope with their being hunted. The laughs aren’t uproarious or incredibly frequent, but there’s a certain sarcastic element to much of the dialog between the brothers that in many ways makes the characters seem much more grounded and thankfully keeps them from seeming like unrealistic heroes. Additionally, many will be surprised to find out that we won’t see very many Nazis in the course of the narrative, and according to the director, this was quite deliberate. He noted that he always imagined the Nazi regime as anonymous, and that he wanted the antagonist to be somewhat subjective, and it’s certainly refreshing to focus on the infighting and drama in response to the looming villain rather than having everyone unite and immediately fight the regime.
From a technical and aesthetic perspective, Defiance shines. There’s a great amount of imagery to experience in each shot, especially the contrast between the different seasons that we experience in the jungle. The lush and seemingly welcoming woods in the first several months slowly deteriorate and freeze over as winter inches closer, and we begin to see the relationships and general health of the Bielski’s camp start to decay much like the environment around them. All of this builds up to a climactic final gunfight that is one of the best-edited battle sequences in recent memory. The cuts happen in such a way that the scene never once feels like a montage of explosions, but instead like a completely fluid sequence. In many ways, Defiance is one of the most cinematic films of the year, even though the story itself mostly deals with the notion of nonviolence as a form of resistance.
As usual, the film isn’t without a few flaws, but they’re all rather minor. It’s over two hours long, and there are several times where the audience gets slightly lost, but for the most part the film is very comprehensible. It’s pretty clear that the director’s vision was intended to be slightly longer, but for one reason or another it was decided that something needed to be cut. Unfortunately, what was cut was most of the exposition from the first act, so we are left with the first 20 minutes being somewhat rushed and confusing. After that misstep however, the story redeems itself, so the critique is more or less negligible.
With a powerful story, slick editing and a host of imagery, Defiance is a worthwhile adventure for anyone interested in a different side of the Holocaust, or anyone who’s looking to discover that Daniel Craig is actually quite a talented actor.
Grade: A-
9.04.2008
Topical Thunder
So I'm sure it's a bit late for a review, but I've finally seen Tropic Thunder, and I thought I would weigh in. If I had to sum up my thoughts about this film in one sentence, it would be "take it for what it's worth." As far as movies that take aim at the film industry, Thunder is certainly not the best. If you're looking for a multi-layered, concise, and intelligent jab, don't expect this movie to answer your prayers (if you are looking for that type of movie, check out The Player).
That being said, Tropic Thunder is still a pretty good flick. For what it intends to do, it succeeds. It is certainly inane, obscene and sophomoric at times, but that's the point of the movie. Certain people have declared that this movie is a must-see for film buffs, and it's my contention that they slightly overestimate the depth of this movie. Yes, it pokes fun at the absurdities of Hollywood, but there's little subtlety here, it's almost exclusively an explicit experience.
I can't review this movie without mentioning its saving grace...Robert Downey Junior. The man's dedication to any role that he takes on is almost scary. Say what you will about his penchant for illicit substances, but the guy commits to any role he takes on. I can't believe I'm about to write this, but he actually is convincing as a character actor who is so focused that he actually convinces himself that he is black!
As far as the directing goes, Ben Stiller doesn't do too bad of a job. He's certainly been around movies long enough, and payed a measurable amount of attention to what exactly he needs to do. He certainly did nothing spectacular, but at the same time, he doesn't take an interesting idea and ruin it *cough*cough* Michael Bay. The scope of the setting is impressive, and Stiller certainly does a good job emphasizing the contrast between the jaded actors and the (pun intended) jade jungle.
So, onto the verdict. If you go into this film expecting to be enlightened to the innerworkings of Hollywood and subjected to biting social commentary, you're going to be disappointed. If you go into this film expecting to utterly hate it, just waiting to bash it on your own blogs when you get home, you may be a bit surprised. Your best bet for this one is to buy your ticket having conceded that you're going to laugh at mostly dumb humor, and you're going to likely pee yourself in response to either Robert Downey Junor's character, or the now common-knowledge cameo of Tom Cruise. If you heed my advice, you'll come away at least moderately impressed with what the filmmakers were allowed to get away with.
-Lance? Who's Lance?
8.28.2008
The Curious Case Of Quentin Tarantino
So as I sat in my kitchen, going to town on some serious midnight snackage, I happened on something that reminds me of why I want to be a filmmaker. I flip on IFC, and what do I stumble upon but the opening scene of Reservoir Dogs, oh how luck befalls us. For those of you who have not seen the movie, I will spare you my hack attempt at breaking down anything written by Mr. Tarantino, but I still do implore you all to watch it, even if you've seen it "a million trillion fuckin' times" (yes that's a quote from the movie).
Now, back to my rant of the night. The reason why the opening sequence of this movie can inspire me to keep plugging away at this stuff is because the mark of a good filmmaker, at least to me, is the ability to take any subject matter that you find personally intriguing, and make it as interesting to the audience. I can think of few examples that can compare to this cold opening. In a sense, Quentin Tarantino has made a run-of-the-mill conversation that ranges from interpreting a Madonna song to the ethics of gratuities into a completely engaging experience. The conversation itself is nothing terribly insightful (although his take on what "Like A Virgin" is really about can be a bit hard to digest), but the way in which Tarantino so early on exposes us to the nature of each character makes it incredibly easy to become absorbed by the scene.
I'm definitely not the first one to praise ole Q for his knack for interesting dialog, but I propose a slightly different take one precisely WHY his interactions are so fascinating. Quentin Tarantino is the master of building a complete profile of a character in his film by the time their first scene finishes. This is what makes his dialog so captivating: through clever writing, he can show you exactly what each character stands for in an indirect way that makes it completely believable. Take Mr. Pink. From the moment he begins his rationale for his protesting to tip the waitress, you know exactly what kind of person you're dealing with. Mr. Pink is a calculating, eerily rational, and brutally honest man. He's proud of his contentions, and cannot be told he is wrong by anyone. We figure this all out before he even admits to most of this later on in the film, and all he was talking about was why he won't tip the waitress! This technique is definitely subtle, because otherwise the entire sequence would just be filed under "exposition," but Tarantino is clever. He weaves the backstory of his characters into their dialog, often times never directly addressing it. This, to me, is great filmmaking, because Tarantino is clearly fascinated with these sorts of people, and I now find myself completely invested in what each and every one of these hitmen have to say. Obviously, the scene is shot exceptionally as well, but for me personally, Tarantino's ability to develop a character in 5 minutes of dialog is an extremely rare and venerable talent.
-You gonna bark all day, little doggie? Or are you gonna bite?
Now, back to my rant of the night. The reason why the opening sequence of this movie can inspire me to keep plugging away at this stuff is because the mark of a good filmmaker, at least to me, is the ability to take any subject matter that you find personally intriguing, and make it as interesting to the audience. I can think of few examples that can compare to this cold opening. In a sense, Quentin Tarantino has made a run-of-the-mill conversation that ranges from interpreting a Madonna song to the ethics of gratuities into a completely engaging experience. The conversation itself is nothing terribly insightful (although his take on what "Like A Virgin" is really about can be a bit hard to digest), but the way in which Tarantino so early on exposes us to the nature of each character makes it incredibly easy to become absorbed by the scene.
I'm definitely not the first one to praise ole Q for his knack for interesting dialog, but I propose a slightly different take one precisely WHY his interactions are so fascinating. Quentin Tarantino is the master of building a complete profile of a character in his film by the time their first scene finishes. This is what makes his dialog so captivating: through clever writing, he can show you exactly what each character stands for in an indirect way that makes it completely believable. Take Mr. Pink. From the moment he begins his rationale for his protesting to tip the waitress, you know exactly what kind of person you're dealing with. Mr. Pink is a calculating, eerily rational, and brutally honest man. He's proud of his contentions, and cannot be told he is wrong by anyone. We figure this all out before he even admits to most of this later on in the film, and all he was talking about was why he won't tip the waitress! This technique is definitely subtle, because otherwise the entire sequence would just be filed under "exposition," but Tarantino is clever. He weaves the backstory of his characters into their dialog, often times never directly addressing it. This, to me, is great filmmaking, because Tarantino is clearly fascinated with these sorts of people, and I now find myself completely invested in what each and every one of these hitmen have to say. Obviously, the scene is shot exceptionally as well, but for me personally, Tarantino's ability to develop a character in 5 minutes of dialog is an extremely rare and venerable talent.
-You gonna bark all day, little doggie? Or are you gonna bite?
8.18.2008
The Proverbial Cherry-Buster/A Few Words on British Directors
Wulp, here we go. The inaugural blog post; I better not screw this one up. As stated in the description, this particular blog is (likely) going to be devoted to my thoughts on the state of film. I'm not entirely sure how much that entails at the moment, but for the time being, I suppose my posts will be best described as "rants." Feel free to comment for yourselves, go ahead and disagree with me! I'm probably wrong anyway.
So let's get started, and what better way to kick off a movie blog page than with an analysis of my great respect for two directors from the U.K....wait, what? Yep, my first order of business is to dole out my carefully calculated man-love for both Christopher Nolan and Edgar Wright.
If anyone has no idea who I'm talking about, at least one of those names should ring a bell.
Christopher Nolan is the highly-acclaimed director of the two Batman reboots, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Before taking on the caped crusader, Nolan had already established himself in the psychological thriller realm with 2001's Memento and 2006's The Prestige. I'd imagine that, given the heart attack-inducing popularity of Dark Knight, enough people have IMDB'd the flick and at least accidentally stumbled across his name.
As far as Edgar Wright is concerned, if you don't know who he is, you likely know his movies. He's helmed the cult hit Shaun of the Dead, as well arguably 2007's best comedy, Hot Fuzz. If you're a male between the ages of 16 and 25 (oh shit! I just dropped a demographic on yo ass!), or you spend any considerable amount of time watching Comedy Central, you've likely seen Shaun of the Dead.
Let's start with Señor Wright, because I'm sure everyone (including yours truly) has read about everything related to the BadDude ad nauseam anyway. So why this praising of Edgar Wright? Why am I posting about him in the same vein as an Oscar nominee? I offer you the simplest of answers: the dude knows his shit. What I mean by that is slightly more than "he's a good director," for me, knowing your shit means that you are conscious of your influences, and also that you make it an effort to create a true experience for the viewer. For the purposes of this analysis, let's consider Shaun and Hot Fuzz. The former is a comedy homage (don't call it a spoof) of classic zombie movies, most notably those of George A. Romero. I'm not going to spend time nitpicking, but just head over to imdb.com and look at how many references to other zombie movies are stockpiled in this movie. These references are of a different breed than most. All too often, comedic movies make references to material in the form of a sophomoric blending of pop culture references slapped onto a background similar to a recent movie (sorry, Scary Movie, Date Movie, Epic Movie, etc.). What Wright does, however, is pick a genre of film that he has great respect and admiration for, and actually CRAFT A COHERENT PLOTLINE that fits into the vein of the films he's calling out to. Shaun and HF have their own unique stories, stories that aren't simply derivative of the rest of the genre. As a contrast, Meet The Spartans is nothing more than another vehicle for more fart jokes and Britney gags.
Now, I'm definitely not the first person to point this stuff out about Edgar Wright, but it seems to me that a lot of people are glossing over the fact that the dude can fucking direct! Whether it be his use of intense quick cuts of uninteresting action (I never thought I'd declare that a sequence in which a drunk man takes a piss in the toilet as "cool" but Mr. Wright, you make me do strange things), or the fact that he really understands dynamic camera movement and angles, the guy has done his homework, and crafted a style that simultaneously does something new while calling upon the best of his predecessors. One of the best parts about his style is the way he transitions between scenes, along with the way he makes a lot of his cuts. He's got a real handle on the use of whip pans and crash zooms, and whenever he makes some tricky transition, it never seems like he's just doing it because it looks cool. One example: check out Hot Fuzz, and more specifically the end of the scene where Sgt. Angel gets the boot from the London Bobbys. Aside from the great arrangement of that scene, pay attention to how he transitions from that scene to the crime investigation. Yes, it's just a flash bulb transition, but he adds extra flair to it by setting up Angel in a portrait-esque frame, then flashing to a tight shot of someone taking a photo at the crime scene. Yeah, I know that's subtle, but I'm a fucking dork, if you haven't noticed by now. Little stuff like that is what can make or break a movie, it's all about having the audience feel absorbed, and Mr. Wright, you've got that down.
Okay, on to Christopher Nolan. This will probably be a bit more brief (you're welcome), but I just wanted to point out some stuff. First of all, he's an unbelievable writer. Anyone who's at all interested in screenwriting should take the time to analyze one of his scripts. He's one of those filmmakers that makes a flick that you watch multiple times not just because you're entertained, but because you know there's some shit you missed on the first go-round that warrants a second look. Remember the first time you saw Fight Club? And you thought about popping that DVD right back in, hitting play, and seeing how early on it was made clear that (spoiler! Shield your eyes if you've lived under a rock for the past 10 years!) Tyler Durden was just an alter ego? Yeah, he makes flicks like that. If you haven't seen Memento, and I mean this in all seriousness, it is imperative that you either rent, buy, or pirate(well, maybe not pirate) the shit out of that movie right now!
As a director and as a writer, Nolan inserts little nuggets of foreshadowing into his films with such precision that he can manage to turn a superhero movie into a psychological thriller. The most recent example that comes to mind is the recent buzz over the next villain in the Batman saga. Nolan's made such a reputation for himself as a cerebral and intricate filmmaker that he's got people analyzing each and every scene, hoping to pull out the one subtle hint at the next baddie for the franchise. I seriously would not be surprised if I were to overhear someone speculating that the next villain in the series was going to be Iron Man (yes, Iron Man) because the new Batsuit in this film has an iron-reinforced bi-weave. Christopher Nolan's that good: he's now got the world convinced that in each scene, he's fucking with you. My hat's off to you, Mr. Nolan, because as of now, I'm convinced that the next villain is going to be the Black Mask, because why else would a random bank manager in the first scene A) be played by William Fichtner of Prison Break, who commands the screen too much for a 5 minute role, and B) exclaim something along the lines of "do you know who you're stealing from?" and not being killed by the joker? That's just me though, congrats Christopher Nolan, you're officially in my head.
Phew, that was a monster of a post. Thank you to anyone who sat through all that rambling. Hopefully you'll come back for more
-Jog on!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
