Rapid Response: Reservoir Dogs

As far as debuts from notable directors go, Quentin Tarantino’s “Reservoir Dogs” is up there with the finest. For other famous American directors today, Scorsese, the Coens, Coppola, Malick, Nolan, Spielberg and many more, may have had good if not great first films, but “Reservoir Dogs” is so dripping in the style that would govern all of Tarantino’s future films that is impossible to forget “Reservoir Dogs” in a discussion of them.

From his opening scene of an ultimately mundane and irrelevant conversation about Madonna’s “Like a Virgin” and the merits of tipping, we still get a good sense of the kind of dialogue Tarantino is keen on, but more importantly a sense for the characters. Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi) is a very good example of this in the opening scene. He doesn’t throw in a buck. He has principles that go against the norm. But let someone tougher, like Joe (Lawrence Tierney), pressure him a bit, and he’ll bend his position and hide.

If you knew ahead of time that “Reservoir Dogs” was a sort of gangster Shakespearean drama, you probably could’ve guessed Mr. Pink would be the one to survive at the end. Continue reading “Rapid Response: Reservoir Dogs”

Solaris (1972)

The introduction was given by IU President Michael McRobbie. He’s a bit of a celebrity and authority figure on campus, so it was a bit of a surprise and a treat to hear him introduce “Solaris.”

But the real reason it was a surprise is because “Solaris” is not a movie you select lightly. If you have seen it, it is likely not the only movie you’ve seen like it. Directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, no director ever demanded more of our patience and few films were as challenging and obtuse as his.

“Solaris” was considered the Russian answer to Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey,” a valid comparison given their proximity, their “plots,” their story telling, their breathtaking, other worldly visuals and their enormous themes. But as McRobbie spoke about the film for roughly 10 minutes, he compared Tarkovsky more to Robert Bresson and Michelangelo Antonioni than Kubrick.

I said to myself, here is a man who knows his movies. Continue reading “Solaris (1972)”

Tower Heist

 

It’s probably not a mistake to feel somewhat robbed after “Tower Heist.”

Brett Ratner’s movie is too rigid and bland to be a good comedy and too goofy and tame to be truly thrilling.

We learn a lot of mundane details about the inner workings of a New York building that is essentially Trump Tower, including security policies, elevator codes and its many tenants.

Why we have to know so much about a building of all things is frustrating when “Tower Heist” refuses to develop its characters or even begin to get comically creative. Continue reading “Tower Heist”

Rapid Response: Dirty Harry

Well you just gotta ask yourself one question: Why am I watching “Dirty Harry?”

Truth be told, my roommate picked it by chance and I was instantly sucked in.

It follows the beat of a number of renegade cop movies, but it follows many of the beats, cliches and tropes that it created. Harry Callahan’s dialogue is just too badass to just be relegated to standard genre fare, and Clint Eastwood so embodies the role that you really do feel lucky watching him work. “Dirty Harry” certainly wouldn’t be as interesting without Clint, and you couldn’t have a franchise without him.

But suffice it to say, there are enough strong elements throughout “Dirty Harry” that help it stand up on its own. It gives a good indicator of how much differently, and arguably better, they made movies at the peak of the American New Wave in the early ’70s. Continue reading “Rapid Response: Dirty Harry”

Killer of Sheep (1981)

“Killer of Sheep” is quite unarguably the greatest student film ever made. I wonder if he got a B on it.

Charles Burnett made this film in the early ’70s when he was completing his film thesis at UCLA. He knew at the time he was very unlikely to become a Hollywood filmmaker. For a black, lower middle class student without any connections in the industry, he took up independent cinema and immediately defined himself as the epitome of the American indie director.

His first feature, “Killer of Sheep,” was a plotless black and white collection of vignettes recreated from his observations growing up in a poor black neighborhood. Produced, shot and edited all by himself, Burnett creates a distinct visual style in his film, one that is gritty, but not without clarity and awareness. It is an aesthetic not unlike the people he depicts, and in this way he envisions authentic human beings striving to endure and persevere in the face of poverty, but worst of all, the mundane and the ordinary.

Burnett believes that this film views humanity as a moral people with basic social and existential concerns through everyday life that allow us to endure. He makes socially oriented films that slam race on the table and yet will rarely be seen by the people who they are actually about.

In an interview, he described himself and his films as a wall with graffiti written on it. To me, this is his way of saying his films are bold, sometimes tough to look at and often ignored, but subtle in their cultural significance and beauty.

All throughout “Killer of Sheep” I got this impression. Here is an unknown masterpiece that captures a truly American slice of life with simplicity, a distinct dialect and authentic recreation of daily life in the ’70s and even a sense of humor. He uses non-actors and tells a story unconventionally, yet he ponders big questions. He asks through his characters’ daily jobs in the kitchen and in a disgusting slaughterhouse “What does it take to be a man or woman in this place?” “What does it take to truly have a life?”

These are gigantic themes, but unlike many indie directors like him, Burnett’s work is never polarizing. As he views the mundane work of these black families, he sees them as anything but beautiful, but they could hardly be described as ugly either. He peppers these vignettes with comical visual queues and lighthearted ragtime soundtracks that encourage a sense of perseverance and human endurance. There are shocking images in “Killer of Sheep,” yes, but the elegance of a husband and wife dance scene that does nothing but convey a perfect sense of human decency with a hint of hidden sadness certainly outweigh the pain.

Critics have lauded “Killer of Sheep” as one of the best American films ever made. It’s social significance as a film that considers class as an issue of perspective, one that draws allusions to the myth of Sisyphus, one that documents an unheard segment of race in America or one that serves as a time capsule to urban ’70s America give it a weight that critics will admire. But regardless, here is a touching film that is amusing but sad at the same time. It gives nightmares, but it even gives hopes and laughs all through a non-traditional story.

“Killer of Sheep” has the perfect, quaint beauty you often don’t see in any film, let alone one made by a student.

Fall Movie Preview (November and December)

2011 is such a promising year for film, I devoted a film preview to all the movies of just November and December.

Don’t think I forgot about you November and December. Just because you don’t have two Oscar bait movies starring Fuck Yeah Ryan Gosling doesn’t mean I’m not excited for all the pedigree films you have to offer.

Here are the end-of-year movies that can now demand my attention since the quite strong September/October I wrote about last time is over.

November 11

J. Edgar (11/9)

Leo working with Clint on the political biopic of J. Edgar Hoover is enough of a sale for me, but “J. Edgar” is also penned by the Oscar winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black (“Milk”) and co-stars Armie Hammer, the breakout star from “The Social Network” who was so memorable as both of the Winklevi.

Melancholia

Lars von Trier’s unfortunate Nazi comments have practically erased “Melancholia’s” positive buzz from Cannes. Kirsten Dunst is supposed to be brilliant in a pessimistic but elegant sci-fi about a wedding on the day a planet is set to collide with the Earth and end mankind.

Into the Abyss

The state of Texas executed Michael Perry on July 1, 2010. After “Grizzly Man” and “Cave of Forgotten Dreams,” Werner Herzog has immortalized Perry in his latest documentary that explores death and why we kill. Continue reading “Fall Movie Preview (November and December)”

Rapid Response: The Palm Beach Story

Preston Sturges’ “The Palm Beach Story” remains sharp and biting in its sly parody of other Old Hollywood Screwball Comedies like it.

The most self-aware of all the Classic Hollywood directors is Preston Sturges. Making your work meta and self-conscious is one of the most modern things you can do on TV and in the movies today, despite the fact that not all of Sturges’ films have aged as well as those of some of his peers.

His film “The Palm Beach Story” is so knowing of the time period it exists in and the films that were popular in its day that although it remains as sharp and as biting as ever, the audience has changed and is less familiar with the screwball comedies Sturges is poking fun at.

From the opening credits Sturges toys with his audience. A couple has an obvious meet cute, she’s seen tied and trapped in a closet, and he’s running to the alter before a frazzled and confused looking priest before a set of intertitles announces, “And they lived happily ever after… Or did they?” Is this a movie we need to have seen? Will this summary flashback be critical to the understanding of the movie?

Of course not. But everything in these images looks pulled from some mediocre screwball comedy Hollywood had been churning out in droves. It’s Sturges’ way of winking to his audience that although this movie isn’t going to look or feel different than any other popular genre movie like it, this movie knows better. It knows Hollywood leans on the crutches of its obscenely attractive leads and stereotypical character actors needlessly inserted for comic relief. “The Palm Beach Story” will do the same, but there’s an added layer of depth and observance here that everyone seems to know. Continue reading “Rapid Response: The Palm Beach Story”

Rapid Response: Scream

Some people like to guess the way a movie is going to end, unraveling the mystery and naming the killer before the characters do. It can be a fun way of engaging with a movie.

But sometimes, don’t you kind of hate the guy that tells you what’s going to happen next?

“Scream” is a movie that has it both ways.

I remember how immensely popular the movie was (although I must’ve been a few years removed because the movie came out in 1996 when I was only 6, and that’s very young). It was scary, shockingly gory, clever, self-aware and featured a simple, creepy and iconic villain that instantly became a Halloween costume staple.

Today, my generation remembers “Scream” as a sort of cult relic from the ’90s (“Why are you carrying a cellular phone, son?”), embodying all the best things about modern horror movies while providing a much needed throwback to ’70s and ’80s horror classics that arguably hold up better for horror fans than the torture porn films released today. All the while, it stays one step ahead of the audience and seems to be winking back at us every step of the way.

But “Scream” is winking so much it looks like it has an eye twitch. The famous “Do you know the rules” scene in which Jamie Kennedy explains the dos and don’ts of staying alive in a horror movie to me feels very forced. It’s Wes Craven’s act of showing his own hand, toying with our expectations such that he can yet another twist at the end.

Obviously this is all cheeky and self-referential, but by this point we get the joke. To be standing in a video store (what’s that?!) and claiming that “It’s all one great big movie” sounds like Craven screaming, “Look at how self-aware we are!”

The fact that it’s meta and self-aware shows why “Scream” has aged well in the 21st Century, because although it is very knowledgeable of horror movie cliches and formulas, “Scream” is not precisely a movie for horror movie buffs but for people who are simply familiar with the genre.

But beyond that, there are some stylish and suspenseful murder sequences that hold up un-ironically, most notably the opening scene with Drew Barrymore. It’s a good reminder that a horror movie can have a sense of humor and self-awareness, but it must be genuinely scary first.

Debunking Silent Film Myths

Many silent films are considered old and dated despite a number of misconceptions and a lack of viewing options to watch all these classics.

The last and biggest hurdle to overcome to becoming a real lover of cinema is learning to appreciate silent films.

Stick enough violence or action in a movie and you can get anyone reading subtitles. Show them “Singin’ in the Rain” and they’ll be able to watch any musical ever made. Watch a movie timeless enough and you’ll forget that it’s in black and white.

But silent films are different. They’re a hard sell for a number of reasons, and there are a few myths and cultural problems to address before we notice a change.

Debunking silent film myths

Myth #1: Sound Movies are Better

The biggest misconception about film is that it was once seen as nothing more than a novelty, and only later did it become art.

Anyone who believes that transition happened between silents to talkies is wrong.

Of course sound and dialogue is a good thing. Movies would not be the same if we had been denied the clever dialogue of modern wordsmiths like the Coen Brothers, Quentin Tarantino, Aaron Sorkin and more.

Rather, silent films hardly told stories the same way as talkies, even to the point that storytelling had to be reinvented with the introduction of sound.

But this form of silent storytelling was not primitive or inferior.

The best directors of the silent screen were gifted at telling a story through purely visual means, minimizing intertitles and composing moods through facial cues and striking shot placement.

Consider the chilling images of “The Passion of Joan of Arc,” the cinematic ballet of any of Charlie Chaplin’s slapstick, the mesmerizing first-ever montage of “The Battleship Potemkin” or the simple love story behind “Sunrise.”

I can’t think of more elegant, poetic or even easier ways of telling any of those stories, and I certainly can’t imagine how words would help. Continue reading “Debunking Silent Film Myths”

The Thing (2011)

“The Thing,” a prequel to John Carpenter’s overrated horror favorite, lacks even the paranoid tension or ominous silence of that 1982 version.

“The Thing’s” idea of cabin fever is a lot of people standing around and pointing flamethrowers at one another.

This prequel to John Carpenter’s overrated horror favorite lacks even the paranoid tension or ominous silence of that 1982 version.

Rather, the new “Thing” is just another bloody, frenetic monster movie that begins when an alien leaps out of a block of ice in an Antarctic science base.

The American and Norwegian researchers’ fears are generated not by conflicts of identity but simply of what’s around the next corner.

Although done entirely in CGI rather than in innovative makeup special effects, “The Thing” is as gratuitous as its source material in terms of bizarre monsters and deaths.

And although Shakespeare didn’t exactly write Carpenter’s film either, “The Thing’s” screenplay is painfully dumb and obvious, parroting the most basic of dramatic conflicts.

It refuses to even copy Carpenter’s memorable blood testing scene and instead finds its leading lady shouting at her companions to open their mouths.

It’s the sort of thing you hear when an already silly film gets worse.

2 stars