MoMA: "Tim Burton"

I'd been eagerly anticipating this exhibit the second I heard the announcement. Yet I'd been too busy with work and moving to get to the museum before today.

Anyone who figures that Wednesday is a less crowded day would be completely wrong. I guess it's a testament to Tim Burton that he can bring in the masses on a weekday afternoon. Unfortunately, it made it difficult to focus on the actual exhibit. Getting swept along by the crowd with security guards constantly yelling "NO CAMERAS!!! TURN OFF PHONES!!!!" sort of diminished the effect.

Despite all the annoyances, it's an astounding collection that doubtlessly proves that Tim Burton is a unique visionary. Each generation has its defining artist, like Warhol of the 60s, and I'd be proud to think that Burton would be of mine. Along with a few others such as Michele Gondry, he manages to stand out and have a distinctive aura to his work. Especially in our media saturated culture where seemingly everyone can make their voice heard, Burton's uniqueness is all the more impressive.

Having seen his efforts throughout my life, it's easy to take for granted that Burton keeps producing. The fact that some of his later, more recent work hasn't been as good further dilutes his impact. Hopefully the upcoming Alice in Wonderland will have Burton's mojo back in force, which is probably why the MoMA timed this exhibition when they did.

Still, if Burton never created anything after The Nightmare Before Christmas, I would have still listed him as one of my most favorite and influential filmmakers. That film, along with Edward Scissorhands had a big impact on me. I could also count Batman, Batman Returns and Beetlejuice as lifelong favorites, but those first two had a particular strong grip on me.

I think it's because those seemed to realize Burton's vision in its most pure form. Looking at his sketches throughout the exhibit made me realize how much of my own style was mirrored in what I saw in Burton's movies, which is probably why I took to him so intensely. Odd quirks and tendencies that I had in my doodles and drawings such as tall, skinny, elongated figures or scribbly texturing or warped perspectives were all common in Burton's work as well. He definitely had a more twisted mind and was able to more fully realize his art. Thus he's the celebrated genius and I'm... a blogger.

The exhibit is also a great looking glass for his body of work. Rather than experiencing it all in real time like we have, we're now able to compress the work and observe the flow and let his trademarks emerge.

Black and white are obviously crucial elements, as well as his melding of the protagonist and antagonist. Jack from Nightmare and Edward Scissorhands embody a monster who is the story's hero, while Beetlejuice centers around a hero who is actually a monster. You can see why he was attracted to doing Batman. It also dawned on me that Sally from Nightmare could've been a close relative of Burton's Catwoman. His Penguin could've also been born from the sketches that led to Nightmare.

While the original was panned, I think Batman Returns stands up much better to the passage of time. Much of that has to do with the Burton stylization that was infused into the movie. The city of Gotham looks nothing like in the first film, but is definitely of Burton's world. The latex Catwoman costume also helps the repeated viewings.

The chance to see some of his work up close is a true gift. Peering inches away from Jack Skellington heads or getting to see the pen marks in Burton's sketchbooks or stare up at the actual sandworm jaws is something that any fan of his should get to experience.

I just hope the crowds die down so I can go back and savor the exhibit more fully.

And a last word of advice: MoMA membership. You'll spend more money, but you'll save about an hour of your life from standing in line into the exhibit.

"New York, I Love You", I like you but I don't love you

Perhaps it's not fair that I judge this film. I feel so close to the source material for the movie that it's hard to not have preconceived notions of what it should be. Then again, maybe that's why I feel as if I know what I'm talking about.

Like "Paris, je t'aime","New York, I Love You" is a collection of short films based on and in the city of New York. Or should I say Manhattan because only one of the segments is set in one of the other boroughs. And the people worth showing seem to almost exclusively be rich, white people.

To me, that's one of the crippling flaws of the movie. New York is a city swathed in diversity, not just racially, but also economically and ideologically. But here we see a gentrified Asian (who happens to be a hooker) or another Asian girl who only serves to be fetishized by a white guy.

Whereas the Paris installment was wonderfully diverse in its subject matter and approach, this film rarely strays out of it's comfort zone. It's as if the filmmakers were drawing inspiration not out of the city but of what they've seen on "Sex and the City".

The actors and directors all seemed too self-aware. Thus the effort at creating random, chance encounters comes off as contrived. Hayden Christensen's character pick-pocketing Andy Garcia's character only to court Andy's girlfriend resulting in the two guys pick-pocketing each other again was too intricate and perfect of a mobius strip to not have been written out to happen exactly that way.

Another scene that had me rolling my eyes was when two smokers outside of a restaurant interact when the beautiful woman looks over to the disinterested man and kicks off a conversation with "You know what I love about New York?"

Uuuuuugh! When does a conversation like that happen except in a movie touting what it loves about New York?

The one segment that really worked for me was of the elderly couple in Coney Island. Their bickering and banter rang true to me, and it was refreshing to see a setting not in the middle of Manhattan.

The short that attempts to subvert the predefined roles is the Natalie Portman directed story about a Hispanic male nanny and his little girl. Another effort at cross pollination of races also involves Portman but the effect is dulled by the overly dramatic and sappy revelation.

But these highlights were too little and too late.

During the film, I kept waiting to see parts of the city that I consider to be the genuine fabric of the New York experience. Where were the Bronx, Queens, Staten Island, or even Harlem! Where were the street vendors and subway performers? When has a cabbie ever expressed any interest in your profession? Where were the masses of hipsters crowded in a pizza parlor at 4am? Where were the Puerto Ricans playing dominoes outside their buildings? Where were the insane bike messengers? Where were the restaurants where each table was speaking a different language than the next? I even missed the Park Slope stroller brigades. Where was the freaking Brooklyn Bridge???

In the end, the film to me was a good attempt and a safe, fuzzy view of a small slice of the city. But it failed to dispel any preconceived ideas or convey any genuine experience of New York.

Movies

Star Trek
Okay, I admit that I enjoyed this flick. My dad was really gung-ho about seeing it, in IMAX no less. It was a good, fun movie that treated the existing canon with some reverence while being unafraid of putting it’s own spin things. I’ve discovered that casual viewers liked it much more than the fans. There were definitely parts of the plot that made no sense to the point of insulting my intelligence. And maybe that’s the biggest crime against the fans, who were always drawn to the brainier aspects of the shows.

Wolverine
My cousin was really gung-ho about seeing it, and I wish I could go back in time to punch him in the face for it. Insanely stupid, and saddening to know that it was a blockbuster hit. Sigh.

Frost/Nixon
Wow. I started it with a friend who basically apologized in advance, saying it was probably going to be slow and boring. Yet I found it to be a great, interesting story, with superb acting. I’ve always had a soft spot for History and really got into the story. It showed Nixon in a new light for me, and reaffirmed my belief that politicians, no matter how slimy they seem, are often very charismatic and charming people when seen up close.

Man on Wire
Like Frost/Nixon, what could’ve been a relatively straight-forward and dull account of an event, was expertly portrayed. There was tension and suspense (sorry no tight-rope walking puns intended) to the manner in which the film unfolded.

Up
Even in a tight financial situation, I couldn’t pass up seeing a Pixar movie. As usual they not only deliver, but manage to amaze me with emotional storytelling. The actual plot and action portions didn’t exactly impress me but the sheer amount of emotion that Pixar managed to invoke within me caught me by surprise.

Manhattan/Annie Hall
I finally finally saw these Woody Allen movies and have to say that I missed out by not seeing them years ago. I enjoyed Annie Hall more, particularly Diane Keaton’s luminous performance. I feel primed to see Whatever Works now, but am worried that the criticism of Woody Allen’s filmmaking decline will be much more noticeable to me after seeing these two great films.

Examined Life

The IFC Center is currently showing a documentary showcase of several modern philosophers called Examined Life.

Filmmaker Astra Taylor does a good job of adding kinetic energy to the stream of (essentially) lectures by putting each subject in a public area, mostly around New York. Topics of philosophy touch on consumerism and ecology, but the threads are mainly connected by the idea of meaning (or lack thereof) in existence and the individual’s connection with society.

Although certain theories such as Social Contract are alluded to, Taylor manages to steer clear of getting mired in a historical survey of philosophical thought. That frees her to let the subjects focus on their own modern ideas.

The film succeeds in keeping the speakers focused, without diverging on too many tangents. While it shows that the filmmaker has the skill to converge it all into a tight film, it’s hard not to feel like there wasn’t enough meat to the exploration. Each person had 10 minutes to get across their entire philosophy, when it's easy to see how they could’ve gone on for hours and hours. Thus Examined Life comes across as an overview of ideas, without being able to really explore the depths or details of those ideas. I suppose that’s not a knock on the film but more an observation on the limitation of the format. Taylor herself admitted to the amount that had to get cut out.

Afterwards, my friend wondered aloud if the people in films just talked endlessly about philosophy. My guess would be yes, but I took issue with some of the subtle allegations in the film that there is no middle ground in between being a deep thinking, cerebral citizen of the world and the mindless, uncaring, consumerist automaton.

While waiting for the showtime, my friend and I were drinking beers talking about plans for our next pub crawl. Is that not okay? Do we have to be dissecting the nature of man every hour of every day? I love philosophy and examining our nature, which is why I thoroughly enjoyed this film, but I don’t feel compelled to have to do that exclusively. I take enjoyment in mindless, stupid things as much as deep, thought provoking matters. I think it’s in our nature to have those dichotomies and juxtapositions.

One of the topics that I enjoyed the most was Cornel West speaking that there is no definitive goal or meaning in life, and what that means for our concept of “failure”. And while each philosopher had his or her own concept of “meaning”, whether there is one or not, they seemed to agree that we are social creatures who have an intrinsic need to interact.

As an only child who has always had strong loner tendencies, it made me wonder about my own views towards the nature of society. I’ve come to whole-heartedly believe that we need that interaction and contact to live “meaningfully”. Living in New York City, I can’t help but be constantly exposed to people. I wondered what my inclination are towards people I meet or strangers on the street. Do I automatically have trust and respect in those I don't even know?

Several of the companies I’ve worked for have a philosophy of making sure you do your work on the assumption that other people are lazy, slow, incorrect or dumb. Expect that clients will not give you the correct information, or predict that the printer will be late in fulfilling the order. That inherent mistrust for others seemed awkward for me. Although there were instances which proved that theory true, I have a feeling that those negative, paranoid thoughts had much to do with my unhappiness at those jobs.

My thoughts also led me to my parents, who more than anyone I’ve ever known, believe that the default inclination of human beings is to be good. They put trust and faith in people to points which make me uneasy. Yet my mom will still clutch her purse with a deathgrip at restaurants, even upscale ones. It reminded me again of our often contradictory thinking.

Not sure where I was going with the end of this post, but the film got some of those mental gears turning, which is the point of the film, and why I enjoyed it so much.

But Coraline in 3-D was also pretty awesome.

Addicted to drug(shows)

I’m deeply entrenched in HBO’s The Wire. I’ve just finished the third season which isn’t too bad since I started a few months ago. I’ve been trying to plow through the series as quickly as possible, which isn’t to say I’m not enjoying the story. In actuality, the show is as engrossing and impressive as the accolades would have you believe.

It’s just that I feel as if my free time is scarce as it is. I haven’t even tried to add up how much time five seasons of an hour-long show is consuming out of my life, and it’s probably best not to know.

Also, I learned my lesson with The Sopranos which I watched at a leisurely pace of years in between episodes. Needless to say I was lost as to what was happening several times. “Wait, I thought that chick was whacked last season!” “When did that guy get made??”

Last week, I noticed that one of my roommates had purchased the first season of Weeds and left it in the living room for us roommates to watch. Naturally, I need another television show to occupy my time. After viewing a few episodes, I noticed how jarring it was to go from one drug show, The Wire to another, whose tone and viewpoint was in such contrast. The Wire is all about an unflinching depiction of the misery and corruption within the ecosphere of drugs, where even the good guys are flawed and capable of evil things. Weeds goes about drugs in a much more saccharine and light-hearted way. Addicts are friendly, successful family guys; rival dealers “threaten” each other by dinging cars with pennies; and the drug suppliers offer fresh baked cookies.

I find the contrasts enthralling. I noticed a similar relationship in movies like The Matrix which treat guns in a nonchalant manner. Throughout the movie, bullets are whizzing by, guns are whipped out and discarded, people are blown to bits, and we the viewers watch with giddy amazement. Then, a movie like American Beauty will feature a single gun, fired once, and the gravitas of it deeply affects all of the characters in the story. It’s amazing how people are able to take similar subjects and wield them in drastically different ways.


Back to The Wire, which benefitted from my trip back to my parents’ house for the holidays. I was able to sit through a pile of episodes in those few days. My parents even sat down to see what the buzz was all about. My dad, having missed out on the first 25 episodes was completely lost. Through him, I realized that over the course of the series, the character roster had grown to easily over 20 and plot threads dated back to the very first episode. The Wire is definitely not a show you can just casually watch, which while is more demanding on the viewer, also results in richer payoffs in the story.

My mom’s reaction was much more interesting. She pointed out how everyone is bad, and the whole story is so bleak. Why would people want to watch such a depressing show? Why don’t people like happy stories that make them feel good? I sort of laughed it off, but she has a point. Why are we so much more interested in drama and conflict? Shakespearean tragedies, unrequited love, depictions of war... We can’t get enough.

I’m thinking, who wants to watch happy people in love? Everyone hates seeing people like that. Look at all the shows that got dull and unpopular after their leads got together (also known as the Moonlighting effect, or for us younger people maybe the X-files effect). The only show that seems to be capable of bucking that trend is The Office, and even then, it’s being treated very gingerly and Jim and Pam have been pushed to the background much more than in previous seasons.

Still, I don’t think we’re always just focused on the bad, horrible things. There are plenty of happy, feel-good love stories out there. I consider myself a romantic most of the times. But damned if I don’t enjoy a good story of suffering. The Godfather and it’s epic demise of Michael Corleone’s soul? So great.

For now, I’m trying to end the run of The Wire soon. I’m expecting amazing things. Terrible, awful things. But amazing nonetheless.

Back to the Future

I just Netflixed a wonderful documentary, The Future We Will Create, about an annual event called TED which gathers together some of the world’s smartest and most innovative minds to share their ideas and inventions.

Predictably, some of it traverses into the realm of techno-geeky such as information graphics and user interfaces (interestingly showcasing the touch-technology that would become famous in the iPhone and Surface).

But what became really inspiring was how the convention selects three participants to pitch a “wish” and then see if everyone can come together to make those wishes a reality. It was impressive to see how every wish was an unselfish act of humanitarianism, which was the driving force behind this gathering. Every person highlighted was trying to make the world a better place, from Al Gore’s global warming agenda to Larry Brilliant’s goal to create a worldwide infrastructure to prevent and contain outbreaks of illnesses.

Currently, we are all inundated with such bleak, negative imagery such as war, terrorism, corruption (political and corporate), celebrity gossip, etc. that is was so nice to catch a glimpse of optimism and unabashed virtue. TED is an amazing forum for the world’s brightest to gather, trade ideas, collaborate to try to cure illnesses, educate the masses, house the poor, and generally make our lives better.

Personally, it was humbling to see such great minds on display. I’d always done well in science and math but I realized that I was not a scientist by nature. I may not be working to cure cancer, but it’d be nice to find a way to steer my career into something more beneficial to people. I’m certainly not daft enough to think that my photography or designs or whatever will save the world, so I’ll have to think of other ways to contribute.

For now, I can take some solace in the fact that I’m doing my best to not make the world worse off. Since I don’t drive a car, don’t use plastic bags, recycle, and barely use my A/C, I’m curious as to what my actual carbon footprint is these days.

The Professor and the Madman

Wow. The Dark Knight was one of the few movies in recent years that had excited me enough to warrant me seeing it on opening day. That anticipation was paid off in spades.

Heath Ledger was transcendent in his role as the Joker. His interpretation and depiction of the insane villain was one of the most enthralling I’d ever watched, which makes his passing all the more tragic. Sadly, before this I’d never paid much attention to him as an actor. Working with Mel Gibson in The Patriot sort of condemned him for me.

The Joker has always been the definitive adversary to Batman. I once found that puzzling. Here you have a hero steeped in dark, serious, noir stylization, yet he gets paired with a (frankly) hokey concept villian. Think about it: the “world's greatest detective” faces off against a man with a giant, red-lipped grin in a purple suit using killer hand-buzzers and acid spewing flowers?

Batman has been developed over the decades into a meticulous strategist, utilizing technology and science to overcome anyone he faces. He’s bested seemingly more powerful characters, even Superman when such clashes occurred.

So I had assumed that the Joker’s pairing with Batman as an unfortunate result of the campy tone that dominated the 70’s comics, culminating in the Adam West television series.

It wasn’t until I read the graphic novel, Arkham Asylum, that I began to understand the Joker’s potential as a valid antagonist. Even while purchasing the book, the book store employee commented that this was the first story that ever made her frightened of the Joker. I had only been drawn to the book because of it’s artistic, collage styling and poetic narration which was completely different than the typical comic fare.

The story places Batman, trapped in the insane asylum where all of his captured villains have broken free and taken over. The Joker was featured sparingly, but just enough for me to realize that the guy was seriously homicidal and insane.

Which is why he is the perfect foil for Batman, the Yin to Batman’s Yang. The Joker has no rhyme or reason to his actions. He breeds in chaos and madness, not for money or power or comic book typical world domination aspirations, but simply for chaos and madness. He is the complete antithesis of Batman, the detective who believes that there is always an answer through science and logic.

For a well done documentation of the Joker’s many incarnations check out this write up on Comic Book Resources.

As for the rest of the movie, I will agree with other reviews that this is one of the best comic book movies ever made. Unlike X-men or Spiderman, this movie is steeped in realism. There’s no need to suspend belief so that men can cling to walls or shoot laser beams out of their eyes.

Although I felt the last act started to get convoluted and faltered a bit, the movie as a whole was gripping. I felt tense with anticipation throughout the whole film. There were a few gripes here and there, but minor. I wasn’t a huge fan of Maggie Gyllenhaal but she was light years more tolerable than Katie Holmes.

Aaron Eckhart's portrayal of Harvey Dent was well done. I enjoyed the build up of his character and how it mirrored Batman's role in Gotham. The filmmakers seemed to fully understand how his role poetically fit in with the theme of the story. I was thinking that they were building up his character for the next sequel so was surprised that it was paid off in this film. Maybe because of that expectation, I felt that it was a bit rushed and shoe-horned in. The development of Dent’s story was well handled but I think that the result was a letdown and not executed as perfectly as it could have been. The main antagonist of the film was the Joker and it was obvious to me that this hurt Two-Face’s tragic resolution. I applaud the filmmaker’s ability to intertwine the two villains’ stories though.

It was a great match of villains story-wise. Two-Face’s back story is so explicit that it took nearly the entire film to depict. Whereas the Joker had no real insight into his progression. As another masterful move, the filmmaker’s heightened each character by contrasting them with each other. Two-Face has always been propelled by his origin: a great hero that has fallen so far into evil. The Joker's motivations are based on madness that he needs no history, and in the many decades since his introduction, still has no definitive origin.

There will be the inevitable comparisons to all of the previous Bat-films. I have to say that as a kid, I loved Tim Burton's movies, but can admit today that they haven’t aged well at all. The visual style he created still appeals to me, especially the depiction of Gotham City so I kept wanting to see parts of it in Nolan’s films. But I also realize that the current films are much more grounded in our reality and that a realistic city backdrop fits in visually. Danny Elfman’s score in the Burton films is still iconic Batman for me. Otherwise, Nolan’s films surpass the previous attempts in every way. I didn’t even bother with Batman and Robin so can’t comment there.

The story with The Dark Knight is still Heath Ledger’s amazing performance, which will unfortunately be forever linked with his tragic death. If he winds up getting nominated for an Oscar (which I think he should) I can imagine there will be chatter about it only be spurred on by his passing. That will be very upsetting because I can’t recall in recent history such a powerful and mesmerizing performance.

Bravo, Heath.

Review: Son of Rambow

Last night I got to catch an advanced screening of the British comedy, Son of Rambow. I had no idea what to expect, even after seeing the trailer, but I have to say it was one of the most enjoyable movies I’d seen in a while.

The story centers on two boys who become enamored with Rambo: First Blood and set out to make their own version of the movie. The two were so effective in drawing me into their world. The journey was a bit surprising at times, but never at all unbelievable. Or boring; I laughed out loud throughout the movie. And I’m quite happy to finally discover a film that is chocked full of quirkiness that doesn’t evoke a comparison to Wes Anderson.

Watching these two boys run around and let their imaginations flow freely really struck close to home with me. I kept recalling my summers and weekends romping around my neighborhood with my best friend, role playing as whatever cartoon or movie we were currently obsessed with. After seeing Top Gun, we’d swoop around as if we were fighter jets. After Ghostbusters, we’d lug giant backpacks with garden hoses. And even during a rather intense Ninja Turtles fixation, we’d don green sweats, cloth rags for eye-masks and carry ninja weapons rigged out of PVC pipe.

The obsessive doodling over every possible surface also resonated strongly with me. I’ve had more than a few instances of teachers stopping their lessons to march towards my desk and rip the paper out of my hands to keep me from drawing and pay attention. Even in college I had class notes that were indecipherable due to the amount of sketches jammed into every inch of white space on the page.

I have a hard time imagining people coming out of this movie without smiles on their faces. Everyone should check out this movie.

Anderson-esque

Due to the daunting financial commitment of a night out at the movies, I make it a point avoid the theaters at all cost. Plus Netflix is just so great. But lately there have been too many films out that can’t seem to be passed up.

Persepolis was amazing. There Will Be Blood deserves every bit of praise it’s getting. Everything from the art direction, to Daniel Day Lewis’ performance, to Jonny Greenwood’s score was pitch perfect. There was a sense that this story was a sprawling epic, while somehow never losing the intimate scope. I still haven’t caught the Coen brothers’ No Country for Old Men yet, despite universal raves from everyone.

While I enjoyed Juno, I think some of the praise is a bit overblown. Nominated for Best Picture? And Best Actress? Really? Not many of my friends even liked the movie. The most common remarks seem to be along the lines of it being a bad imitation of a Wes Anderson film. It made me wonder about how any movie that displays any bit of quirkiness gets pegged as Wes-Anderson-esque. I recall the most scathing critique of Napoleon Dynamite’s director described as a "poor man’s Wes Anderson". Ouch... but kind of true.

It also made me wonder how that must affect Wes Anderson himself. If it influences how he makes his films. I see how artists could become recognized for a signature style and then fall into the trap of it defining their work.

I must admit to not being too fond of Anderson’s last two films, although The Darjeeling Limited fared better than The Life Aquatic in my mind. I started to get the sense that his movies began to be dictated by people’s expectations of what they were supposed to be. They seemed to be dumbed down versions of his earlier work. Granted these films haven’t been subjected to insanely high number of viewings that I allowed for Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums. Rushmore is also one of my all-time favorite movies so there’s a lot to live up to.

Still, his movies have always retained an amazing visual style that he’s also known for. Just about every frame of his films is immaculately composed. They could truly pass as paintings.

Perhaps it’s the content of the movies that is beginning to wear thin for me. Anderson has a knack for using consistent elements throughout his career. The most obvious being the reuse of particular actors, but he’ll also re-employ visual and musical elements. (I was disappointed to find out that his collaborations with Mark Mothersbaugh and Kumar Pallana ended after The Life Aquatic.) Anderson is an obvious fan of the Kinks and the Rollings Stones who have graced almost every soundtrack so far.

More importantly, he has used each movie to explore similar themes and subjects.

There are significant father issues in each movie. James Caan’s Mr. Henry in Bottlerocket wasn’t a biological father to Owen Wilson’s Dignan but Dignan was desperately seeking the approval of the older figure. Schwartzman’s Max Fischer had to overcome the shame he felt towards his father’s profession, but also developed a father-son relationship with Bill Murray’s Henry Blume. The Royal Tenenbaums (TRT) examined the father theme more overtly with the entire family dealing with the negligence of Gene Hackman’s character. In The Life Aquatic (TLA), Owen Wilson’s Ned was seeking out a relationship with his father Bill Murray as Steve Zissou, and the death of the father in The Darjeeling Limited (TDL) caused the three sons to undertake a soul searching journey.

Death is also a driving force in the stories. The death of Zissou’s best friend, Esteban in TLA spurred him towards a revenge quest. Royal’s supposed terminal illness plays an important role in reconciling the family. While Owen Wilson wasn’t technically in Rushmore (RM), his presence as the deceased Edward Appleby was felt by each of the characters. And I’ve already mentioned the effect of death in TDL.

Another recurring element in the stories is the seeming reversal of roles between the younger characters to the older characters. The elders are often seen giddy and child-like, while the younger characters are mired in sadness and restraint. Royal Tenenbaum was the epitome of the man-child, while Max Fischer can be seen as the ultimate example of a child wanting to be an adult. Each of the Tenenbaum children had some sort of debilitating psychological conflict, while in Anjelica Huston’s mother figure, you could practically see the butterflies in her stomach as she experienced a kiss with Mr. Sherman. In RM, Herman and Rosemary were experiencing a blooming love, while Max and Margaret’s encounters were composed of doubt, sadness and unrealized desire. Max’s younger friend, Dirk, portrayed an even older persona as a stoic, wise friend. Huston’s character in TDL was the one running off while her sons forced themselves into the painful therapy of their relationships to each other.

The most interesting thread for me is the water theme which is explored subtly in RM but is pushed to the obvious forefront in TLA. In RM, there are several water elements that mark the storyline, such as the inclusion of aquariums (both in Rosemary’s classroom and Max’s plan for a world-class aquarium), the Jacques Costeau book, Edward Appleby’s death by drowning, Max’s last name being ’Fischer’ (or fisher), or one of my favorite scenes: Herman cannonballing into the pool and remaining underwater in the fetal position. The little boy swimming around him like a singular sperm punctuated the idea of Herman being reborn at that moment.

And that’s the whole appeal of Anderson films. There’s depth and a great attention to details, creating interesting and developed characters, interesting dialogue and beautiful visuals. Yet he’s been covering the same ground for a long time. It’s beginning to become monotonous and almost self-cannibalizing. Each time around is less interesting and also less developed.

There were several moments in TDL that made me groan with the explicitness. When Owen’s character, Francis, began removing bandages to reveal his injuries and proclaim "I guess I still have some healing to do." he was obviously referring to more than physical scarring. A little too obviously. Also in the end, the brothers chase after a train and dump their luggage, I had to remark to myself "Oh okay I get it, they’re letting go of their ’baggage’ now." These things just didn’t feel like they’d fly in Rushmore or The Royal Tenenbaums.

Don’t get me wrong, I still love all of these films. And to be Wes Anderson and have every non-traditional character-driven film come out have to be compared to him, is saying something about the impact and significance of his work. I just hope his work doesn’t become a parody of itself.

Addendum: Look, someone else has Anderson on the brain. Linky

Review: Persepolis

To anyone who has the chance to catch Persepolis, I highly recommend this film. I know that many people will dismiss this movie because it’s animated and that the visual style is so simplistic, but I’ve already read several reviews agreeing that the fact that it’s animated heightens the ability to tell such an engaging story.

The film follows Marjane ‘Marji’ Satrapi growing up in Iran during times of massive political and cultural upheaval. The story is able to constantly stay focused on the human element but still manages to keep the audience up to speed with all of the relevant historical events. I could see how the duty of having so much exposition could easily swallow up the intimate story, but the necessary insight never seemed long or dry.

The animation was wonderful and had a clear stylistic direction. It was easy to get immersed in every little detail, from the cigarette smoke to the amorphous black shapes of the oppressive nuns.

It still amazes me how humans can so easily decipher a representation of the human form or face, no matter how simplified or abstracted. Look at the Simpsons who are very simplified, exaggerated caricatures. Yet we can read a sad or mad expression from a simple change in the curve of their giant eye-balls or an added line in their brow. The same goes for the characters in Persepolis. The style is simple but deliberate. Even subtle shifts of mood can be easily interpreted.

Another comparison that comes to mind is Pixar. I love their style and am constantly amazed by their lifelike renderings of backgrounds and objects. But their “actors” are always abstracted in a cartoonish way. You’d think that watching a character with a giant chin and stubby legs standing in a completely life-like setting would seem awkward. But that juxtaposition is what Pixar has established as their visual style, which they do very very well.

In contrast, every element in Persepolis seems perfectly born within it’s world. Everything fits in and looks like it belongs.

But as much as I’m a fan of animation, the story is what really shines in this film. Similar to what makes Pixar so brilliant, this film never loses it’s emotional core. I don’t go into movies looking to have every emotion tapped. I hate hearing commercials where some critic raves “I laughed, I cried...” Still, with this film, I felt as if I was guided through every possible emotion. It was easy to laugh at Marji’s childish innocence and antics, feel the dread of the ever-increasing persecution, relate to the literal floating off the ground in the throes of love, and tense up at the frustrating sense of helplessness as the world seemed to collapse into self-destruction.

The main characters were portrayed as fully fleshed out humans rather than generalized caricatures. The story wasn’t afraid to deviate from the portrayal of the protagonist as infallible. The scene of her as a child convincing her friends to chase down a boy and threatening to stab him with rusty nails was kind of scary if you really think about it. Though it made the story much more acceptable rather than viewing it under rose-colored glasses like some other biographies. Marji was energetic and loving, but also selfish and depressive. She had a fighting spirit but could wither under the rejection of others.

Persepolis looks like it’s limited to select theatres, which is a shame because it should be one that everyone sees. Alas, instead we get to choose from How She Move and National Treasure 2.

I will say that there are some damn good movies out lately. There Will Be Blood was amazing.

Persepolis site and trailer

Car sick

I just finished watching a documentary, Who Killed the Electric Car, which chronicles the creation and ultimate end of General Motor’s EV1: a completely gas-free, road-tested, already-manufactured, zero-emissions electric car.

I was surprised to find out that someone (a major car manufacturer, in fact) had solved the issue of oil dependency and put a huge dent in our source of carbon emissions.... several years ago.

That sense of surprise quickly gave way to frustration as I watched the story unfold of how oil companies, government (state and federal), and car companies (including GM itself) put all their might into crushing the propagation of this miracle technology.

It was sobering to see a small group of inventors, advocates and loyal consumers with a genuine desire to do some good in the world get swallowed up by selfish, short-sighted money moguls.

I’m sure this film was created by people who are quiet partial to the EV1 side, so take the info with a grain of salt. But after a lifetime of being force-fed the views of Big Oil and those fellas in Detroit, it’s worth hearing a bit of the other side’s perspective for once.

And g.w. bush somehow managed to make me loathe him even more; quite a feat.

Netflix it and judge for yourself.

Spider-Jerk

(The following rant contains spoiler info...)

So I just finished watching a rather disappointing Spiderman 3. Maybe my expectations were too high, but I honestly tried not to get too hyped about it.

I’m not going to go into a full review, but one thing particularly bothered me...

So Peter Parker gets full of himself goes to show off in front of his girlfriend while she’s at work, humiliates her, beats up some guys trying to come to her aid, and then actually hits her! Later on, he waltzes right back into the same bar, she hugs him and all is forgiven. (Cue end credits.)

That’s great for the movie, I guess, since we’re all on Spiderman’s side.

But try to think about if this scene happened in real life. If I was a coworker or friend and found out Mary Jane took the creep back, I’d be thinking, “The stupid bitch just took back that future wife-beater?! Has she no self-respect?”

I’m sure everyone knows some girl who dates “an asshole” who she constantly defends as a nice guy. Don’t we all end up dismissing her claims, thinking that she’s blinded by some mysterious need to cling on to the guy and that she’s better off ditching him ASAP?

Even if the guy acts like a cool person around other people, even if he never acts out of line again, even if he’s swinging around and pulling people out of flaming buildings, wouldn’t we all still have a hard time erasing the perception of him as “that dickhead who hits chicks”?

Maybe I’m too unforgiving of a person. But I know plenty of people who have had the same reaction to friends’ boyfriends. I’m thinking, once a wife-beater, always a wife-beater. So if in Spiderman 4, Peter Parker goes back to his abusing ways, Mary Jane better not come crying to me.

HOT GIRL HOT GIRL HOT GIRL HOT GIRL (oh yeah and some movie about cops and mobsters)

One of the better flicks I’ve seen in a while is Infernal Affairs, a Chinese production that was the basis for Scorsese’s The Departed.

The movie was well crafted, had big name Chinese actors, and a great tense moments, but apparently that wasn’t good enough for the film’s promoters.

Check out the cover of the DVD packaging, which features a gun-toting girl in a tight outfit... that doesn’t appear in the movie at all. Oh and the guys in the background? Those are the two “stars” of the film.

Sadly, this cover coupled with the cheesy name was destined to cause this movie to be passed over on the shelves of Blockbusters as some low grade B-movie. But luckily, given the new attention due to The Departed, there’s been a rerelease with a much more respectable cover image.

I’m interested to see how Scorsese has adapted the story. But judging from the reviews, he likely did a damn fine job.

Although I will say that I lost a lot of respect for Cameron Crowe’s Vanilla Sky after seeing how much was directly lifted from the original, Abre Los Ojos.

Rage Against the Martini

Here’s your weekly What-The-Hell?! news: I just found out that Chris Cornell of the groups Soundgarden and Audioslave (formerly Rage Against the Machine) is the performer of the current Bond title song.

There was plenty of head scratching when Daniel Craig was cast as the next Bond and the producers have baffled everyone again with this selection (and personally more so). Ok, ok, so the reviews of Craig as Bond have been pretty good so I’m intrigued now.

I loved Soundgarden and RATM, but Audioslave has largely been a disappointment for me. So I guess I shouldn’t get too worked up, but it makes me wonder if I’m getting to the age when all the heroes of my youth are turning into corporate commodities. What’s next? Pearl Jam doing Gap commercials?

Crash course

I just want to take a second to say that the movie, Crash, is the fucking worst movie I’ve seen in a long, long time. Talk about over-dramatization and the largest ensemble of annoying characters ever.

I’m still engrossed in the TV show, Lost, though. I’m almost caught up on the second season. It’s impressive how the show can continue to be so tightly scripted and have such high production values. Although they just keep piling on the dangling plotlines and I’m getting annoyed at how so little gets resolved. I know that as an ongoing TV show they need to drag the storylines out, but come on, throw me a bone here!

It’s official

I bought my ticket to an opening day showing of the last Star Wars movie, Revenge of the Sith, which felt akin to renewing my Certificate of Geekiness. What’s worse is that I’ve seen every one of the movies on opening day (if you count the re-release of the original trilogy). A few friends and I even skipped high school to go see the re-release of the Empire Strikes Back, so I guess that makes us some kind of thug-nerd hybrid.

What is it about these movies that makes all guys like them? I’ve never met a guy who didn’t enjoy Star Wars on some level. Of course there are varying degrees of fanaticism. Okay so my girlfriend found out that I downloaded the Clone Wars cartoons to get more back story which leads up to the last movie. Much ridiculing ensued.

But like anything in life, whenever you think you’ve taken something to the ultimate level, you can always find some other soul who one-ups you. Take for example, opening night of the re-release of the first Star Wars movie. People were dressed up as characters (from Luke to very obscure characters) and acting out parts of the movie while the audience sat and waited with toy lightsabers in hand. But the most frightening sight was that someone had actually come as the Death Star. Yeah, not a character in the movie but the big planet. This guy wore a black body suit with a giant grey sphere enveloping his head. He had also glued hundreds of little x-wings and tie fighters on his person, all flying towards his globular headpiece. My friends and I, instantly dropping down on the scale of nerdiness, could only react with a slack-jawed stare. I could insert about fifty Star Wars nerd stereotype jokes here but I think that this says it all.

It’s a humbling experience, which keeps it all in perspective for me whenever I think I’ve gone too far with my obsessions, be it Gomez, Apple Computers or whatever else. I can always feel better about myself by picture the Death Star guy.

And no, I am not dressing up for the premiere next Thursday.

inCredible

Peter Sanderson has some interesting insights in his continuing column, Comics in Context, about the new Pixar movie, The Incredibles and its continuation of super heroes as modern metaphors towards humanity and society. Gone are the clear cut roles of superhumans doing good deeds. They now deal with everyday problems, midlife crises and discrimination. In this latest example, a super hero is sued by a rescued man trying to commit suicide. No longer are bystanders ecstatic and grateful. Instead, they're grumbling and resentful.

Pixar is not the first to take a stab at the deconstruction of a hero. Alan Moore's The Watchmen is a seminal piece dealing with retired heroes and how they cope. Stan Lee's Marvel evolved the view of superheroes in the sixties by giving them everyday problems. His Spiderman was an outcast and a geek who resented having such responsibility with powers. The Hulk was a reinvention of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in that a man was a imprisoned by an out of control persona.

Perhaps the most powerful cultural allegory created by Stan Lee is the X-Men. Being born with powers, making them different, was reflection of racism and discrimination. The mutants risk their lives for a society that hates and fears them. They constantly struggle with what they do and why they do it. One of their greatest enemies is a group of robots called the Sentinals, created by the regular humans to catch and kill mutants. Their arch nemesis, Magneto, is fueled by hatred towards humans born out of his experience in a concentration camp during the Holocaust, perhaps the most extreme example of racial hatred. Ironically, Stan Lee had no grand scheme when he created the X-men. He was simply looking for a way to sidestep the growing difficulty in explaining how super heroes gained their powers. Spiderman was bitten by a radioactive spider, the Hulk and the Fantastic Four were immersed in gamma rays; it was an easy excuse to just say that some of the costumed fighters were born with super abilities.

Like the Lee and his X-men, Pixar may have not forseen the cultural implications created in its characters. Maybe they were just looking for an entertaining story. They end up bringing to light the struggles that people have today. Whether working crappy jobs they hate or hiding who they are for fear of difference, we are shown how these characters are unhappy and strained and supressed. Sanderson writes that it's similar to artists not using their natural abilities.

The dilemma is not always external. Some of them are very personal. Batman is constantly on the edge of falling into darkness. He has no superpowers but dons an alterego do deal with his deep psychological problems. Superman, the iconic blueprint of what a hero is has lamented that he needs Clark Kent and that he'd go crazy if he had to be Superman all the time. Spiderman has always fought with the burden of being a hero and has multiple times cast away his costume. But there is always something that draws him back, a responsibility. Not even the villians are cookie cutter anymore. Magneto straddles the line of good and evil. He is even friends with the X-men's founder. The show, Smallville added a wrinkle to the Superman/Lex Luthor relationship by making them best friends before they grow up to be bitter enemies.

Many shrug off comics as a childish pasttime, but people are starting to take notice that there is tremendous potential in the writing and the characters. These adventurers are used to reflect ourselves, albiet in a more romantic, exciting way. Under the capes and tights, the message is for acceptance of yourself and others around you.

Cloy Story

Leave it to a floundering megamillion corporation to destroy any sense of quality in one of its most beloved products. As CNN reports, Disney is in the initial stages of production to begin a second sequel to its hit, Toy Story. The first fully computer animated full length film was conceived and created by Pixar, with Disney more or less distributing it. As Pixar has grown, both in stature and financially, they've tried to break off from Disney's hold. Now with only one film left to give Disney under their agreement, Pixar will be on its own, leaving Disney with a gaping void. As per contract, Disney has complete ownership of whatever Pixar has created. Like leeches, they're going to now suck out all of the vitality and sacredness of whatever they can.

When Toy Story 2 was announced, I was very skeptical. None of Disney's sequels have been anywhere near up to par with the originals. Not only that, even the theatrical released animations were starting to show serious degradation of quality and originality. Fortunately, Pixar's utter commitment to a solid story and further advancement in animation led to a great continuation of the story.

Who knows, maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised again. Maybe Disney will pull off some of that magic that it's been sorely lacking in the past decade. Then again, given the company's reputation of exploitation, money mongering and lack of self-respect, I'm not holding my breath.