Slowly building out my profile. Interesting process this, really examining yourself and your interests/favorites/etc. I find the older I get, the more sharply defined they get. I can more specifically tell you what my favorites books were from my high school years now than I could have, say, 5 years ago.
The downside of this, I would think, might be that ossification of personality that happens as people grow older. Lord, I hope that is not what is happening here. I'd like to keep a certain elasticity in my outlook on life.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Farewell, My Lovely (1975) and Chinatown (1974)
[img]http://www.group22.com/employees/scott/coolshite/images/ChinatownPoster
.jpg[/img][img]http://www.group22.com/employees/scott/coolshite/images/Marqu
ee.jpg[/img]
This weekend I went to see a double feature of
[url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072973/]Farewell, My Lovely[/url] (1975)
and [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071315/]Chinatown[/url] (1974).
Chinatown was up first. This is about the fifth time I've seen it and third
time on the big screen. I love this film. Set in the 50's, it is a film noir
story starring Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway and directed by Roman
Polanski, his last film in America. Robert Towne won an Oscar for Best
Original Screenplay for his script.
"Los Angeles detective Jake Gittes is hired by a woman claiming to be a Mrs.
Mulwray to spy on her husband. Shortly after Gittes is hired, the real Mrs.
Mulwray appears in his office threatening to sue if he doesn't drop the case
immediately. Gittes pursues the case anyway, slowly uncovering a vast
conspiracy centering on water management, state and municipal corruption,
land use and real estate, and involving at least one murder." [www.imdb.com]
The location shots and cinematography are beautiful. It really gives you the
sense and feel of Los Angeles in the 30's. It's sad to see the locations and
realize that only thirty years later many of them are not there anymore.
The script is tight and spare. There is not a lot of wasted dialogue. Towne
leaves it up to the audience to connect the dots. With Polanski direction,
the viewer is able to piece together many of the plot twists just slightly
ahead of Gittes.
Once you get over the shock of seeing a slim and young Jack Nicholson [not
quite as shocking as his age in The Raven, but even so...], he is truly
delightful to watch. The dialogue is snappy and Nicholson plays it with just
the right amount of sarcastic anti-establishmentarianism.
I am not particularly fond of Faye Dunaway's portrayal, but John Huston as
Noah Cross, her character's father, more than makes up for it. The sense of
power and authority he radiates every time he's on screen just about
squeezes every other actor out of frame. I could eat it up with a spoon.
Five stars. Highly recommended.
Unfortunately, seeing Chinatown first just served to point out all the flaws
in Farewell, My Lovely.
The movie is based on the Raymond Chandler book of the same name and is considered to be the movie version most faithful to the text. However, the story is obviously cut to fit the 95 minute running time and feels rushed. Having not read the original novel, I can’t say for sure that all of the twists and turns of the plot were as telegraphed as the movie, but I suspect not. The dialogue wasn’t bad, for noir-style dialogue. Very reminiscent of the snappy back and forth you’ll find in Sin City, but like most hard-boiled crime fiction dialogue, it just falls onto the floor and lays there like a dead fish if you don’t have the proper delivery.
Robert Mitchum is perfectly suited for the lead role of Philip Marlowe. All he really needs to do is wander around the movie looking tired and down and out. Really, no one does the basset hound look like “Mitch.” Everyone else must have taken their cue from him, though. I can’t point to a single member of the cast that made the slightest impression on me. Jack O’Halloran had less emotional range playing the hulking ex-con Moose Malloy than Richard Kiel as Jaws in Moonraker. Don’t even get me started on Harry Dean Stanton as the quick to anger corrupt police detective.
The entire film looks to be shot on the back lot of the studio. There are a couple of location shots, but as soon as a character steps inside, we’re back on a set. It looks as if everything was filmed with one static camera. One character will say their dialogue and then it cuts to a shot of the other actors reaction.
It’s not that I didn’t enjoy the film. To me it’s just light entertainment and fun to watch Mitchum [the only enjoyable part of the film]. Basically, it has more in common with a made-for-TV movie that a feature film.
Three stars. For Robert Mitchum fans only.
.jpg[/img][img]http://www.group22.com/employees/scott/coolshite/images/Marqu
ee.jpg[/img]
This weekend I went to see a double feature of
[url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072973/]Farewell, My Lovely[/url] (1975)
and [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071315/]Chinatown[/url] (1974).
Chinatown was up first. This is about the fifth time I've seen it and third
time on the big screen. I love this film. Set in the 50's, it is a film noir
story starring Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway and directed by Roman
Polanski, his last film in America. Robert Towne won an Oscar for Best
Original Screenplay for his script.
"Los Angeles detective Jake Gittes is hired by a woman claiming to be a Mrs.
Mulwray to spy on her husband. Shortly after Gittes is hired, the real Mrs.
Mulwray appears in his office threatening to sue if he doesn't drop the case
immediately. Gittes pursues the case anyway, slowly uncovering a vast
conspiracy centering on water management, state and municipal corruption,
land use and real estate, and involving at least one murder." [www.imdb.com]
The location shots and cinematography are beautiful. It really gives you the
sense and feel of Los Angeles in the 30's. It's sad to see the locations and
realize that only thirty years later many of them are not there anymore.
The script is tight and spare. There is not a lot of wasted dialogue. Towne
leaves it up to the audience to connect the dots. With Polanski direction,
the viewer is able to piece together many of the plot twists just slightly
ahead of Gittes.
Once you get over the shock of seeing a slim and young Jack Nicholson [not
quite as shocking as his age in The Raven, but even so...], he is truly
delightful to watch. The dialogue is snappy and Nicholson plays it with just
the right amount of sarcastic anti-establishmentarianism.
I am not particularly fond of Faye Dunaway's portrayal, but John Huston as
Noah Cross, her character's father, more than makes up for it. The sense of
power and authority he radiates every time he's on screen just about
squeezes every other actor out of frame. I could eat it up with a spoon.
Five stars. Highly recommended.
Unfortunately, seeing Chinatown first just served to point out all the flaws
in Farewell, My Lovely.
The movie is based on the Raymond Chandler book of the same name and is considered to be the movie version most faithful to the text. However, the story is obviously cut to fit the 95 minute running time and feels rushed. Having not read the original novel, I can’t say for sure that all of the twists and turns of the plot were as telegraphed as the movie, but I suspect not. The dialogue wasn’t bad, for noir-style dialogue. Very reminiscent of the snappy back and forth you’ll find in Sin City, but like most hard-boiled crime fiction dialogue, it just falls onto the floor and lays there like a dead fish if you don’t have the proper delivery.
Robert Mitchum is perfectly suited for the lead role of Philip Marlowe. All he really needs to do is wander around the movie looking tired and down and out. Really, no one does the basset hound look like “Mitch.” Everyone else must have taken their cue from him, though. I can’t point to a single member of the cast that made the slightest impression on me. Jack O’Halloran had less emotional range playing the hulking ex-con Moose Malloy than Richard Kiel as Jaws in Moonraker. Don’t even get me started on Harry Dean Stanton as the quick to anger corrupt police detective.
The entire film looks to be shot on the back lot of the studio. There are a couple of location shots, but as soon as a character steps inside, we’re back on a set. It looks as if everything was filmed with one static camera. One character will say their dialogue and then it cuts to a shot of the other actors reaction.
It’s not that I didn’t enjoy the film. To me it’s just light entertainment and fun to watch Mitchum [the only enjoyable part of the film]. Basically, it has more in common with a made-for-TV movie that a feature film.
Three stars. For Robert Mitchum fans only.
300
If you don't want spoilers, don't read this blog. :)
I saw this movie twice just to feel like I formed an adequate critical opinion of it, outside of the hype. I'll admit, the first time I saw it I didn't like it very much. The more I described it to friends and family I didn't have many bad things to say about it, but still had a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe it was the fact that I saw it late at night after a long day's work, big dinner and two Gin and tonics. In any case, by the time the final battle sequence started I was tapping the armrest and heaving big sighs waiting for the credits to roll.
I determined that I had to see 300 again in completely different circumstances to see if that might change my opinion. So the following Saturday I went to an afternoon showing by myself. First off, let me that there were no less that four children under the age of 10 around me with their families. Now, I am far, far, far from prudish, but seriously, what is wrong with these parents that they would bring young children to see this film? From the writhing Oracle covered in a sheen of sweat on her naked body to sex scene with King Leonidas taking his queen doggystyle to the massive amounts of dismemberments and decapitations, this is not a movie for young children. Sorry, but it's true.
I'm a fan of Frank Miller's work and own pretty much everything he's written for comics, so I read the original series of 300 comics. I remember at the time that I thought the art and coloring were beautiful, but I wasn't overly fond of the story. The movie did an excellent job of capturing Miller's artwork on the screen and even better did justice to Lynn Varley's palette from the source material.
I have to go with the majority in agreeing that the visual effects were just about the best I've seen. The green screen effects were almost seamless with the actors and sets. Almost. There are a couple of scenes that the compositing is obvious, but they are so few and so minor if you aren't looking very closely, you wouldn't notice.
I wish the makeup effects were up to the same level. While they did capture Miller's character designs from the comics near perfectly, to me they looked blatantly like rubber prosthesis. This s not something I would really hold against the filmmakers; I was caught up enough in the story to suspend disbelief for the sake of the story. I was only mildly let down.
Overall, I felt 300 was well-acted, but truth to tell, it's not a script that is filled with much emotional depth. Like much of his work, including the noir
The story goes that Frank Miller spent years researching the Spartans and the battle at the Hot Gates in preparation for writing and drawing 300. I guess that's why it gets to me that in the scene where he is parlaying with the messenger from the Persians, King Leonidas refers to the other Greeks dismissively as "Philosophers and boy-lovers."
I know that I'm the only one I've spoken to that this line bothers, but I just can't get over it. It's such a blatant revisionist line put in there just to support the supposition that the Spartans are real men. They were flagrant pederasts. You could easily have taken out that comment and have Leonidas refer to the other Greeks as philosophers and farmers or some other non-militaristic profession. He says basically the same thing when his troop encounters the Athenians during the march to the coast. Aside from being an unnecessarily offensive line, it's an outright lie about Spartan society. It's a minor thing, but it bugs me.
When the movie opens and we hear the voice over my first thought was, "Oh no…" I'm not a fan of the voice over. Usually they are not done well and are generally used to cover up gaps in the narrative that should have been evident in the film if it was well-made. In this case, however, I thought they did an excellent job bringing it back to the storyteller addressing the Spartan troop. It managed to get a lot of exposition out of the way and while at the same time feeling like an organic part of the movie.
All that being said, what I feel the movie suffers from is an emphasis of style over substance that at times threatens to overwhelm the film. Zach Snyder seems to have fallen in love with altering the film speed. It's like the abuse of the crash zoom in Ghost Rider.
If you took out all of the slo-mo sequences in this film, maybe it would only run 60 minutes. When used effectively, slo-mo can emphasize the emotional underpinning of a scene. There were moments when Snyder used this technique masterfully. In particular, there is one of the last scenes in the film wherein the storyteller stands in the field of wheat and informs the queen of the death of King Leonidas. It's a beautiful scene as the soldier turns and walks away and the queen looks down at her son. It captures so many emotions at once; her sorrow, a feeling of hope as she looks on the boy, melancholy of seeing her husband reflected in their son, the sense of duty as the soldier turn, his mission done, to return to his troops.
Now contrast this with an earlier scene when the queen is following her on through the marketplace. After he turns to run away, the scenes kicks in to slow motion as she passes through a series of blankets hung out to dry, emerging to find the older senator waiting for her at the fountain. There is reason for this scene to be slowed. That is not the only scene that suffers from this abuse, but certainly, to me, the most egregious. Snyder falls on this film-making trope far too often and I think the film suffers for it.
Then there is the stylistic choice to frame all of the action with running the film at half n speed, then jumping to one and a half speed, then back to half speed. This is effective once or twice, specifically when King Leonidas kicks the Persian messenger down the well and in the first battle sequence when the Spartans break out of their shell and charge into battle. Once again, though, Snyder overuses the technique to the point that, although beautifully choreographed and rendered, the fight scenes become tedious.
There is one specific scene that I think should be re-cut to make it more effective. In the final confrontation with Xerxes, the voice over kicks in and describes him dropping his shield, then his helm and as we see King Leonidas doing exactly that. Then we are treated to a glimpse into his head with a montage of images of
The problem with this scene is that the gap between the first voiceover and then the payoff is too long. If the montage was moved in front of the king dropping his shield and helm, the audience would be lead to believe that rather than make the same decision he had at the beginning of the film, he had decided finally to submit. Then the call for attack, the throw and the narration would have more impact because the audience would be completely duped into thinking the opposite.
Okay, so aside from my rant about the audience, here's what I thought of 300. It's okay. Not the best film I've seen, but not close to a bad film. Zach Snyder did a good job, but I think he still reflects too much of his music video roots by depending on camera effects to fabricate emotion. Would I own the DVD? Yes, absolutely.
Notes from the Bus Stop
As I walked up to the corner of
He was a big one. A Chunky boy. Two bucks fifty at least. Maybe more like 300. So I made eye contact and nod my hello as is my habit when I'm walking. As usual, I had my headphones on and this generally limits the interaction to a nod and a smile. As luck would have it, that wasn't the end of it. Bad luck, that is.
"Hey, buddy!" he called out as I tried to scoot by on the sidewalk.
I popped out one of my earphones.
"Yes?"
Then he launched into this spiel.
"I'm trying to get a new law passed. I'm starting a petition –"
He started shuffling with the sign and I saw some folded pages behind it. I cringed thinking that I'm about to be asked to sign on to some list. Then I saw that he had a sizeable hardback book that he's holding and reading while working.
"Yeah, I want to make it so the government will start a program that'll get guys to workout. You know, get exercise. At the gym or whatever. So everybody can look like that –"
He points to a copy of Muscle and Fitness magazine lying on the grass nearby. The bodybuilder on the cover is in ridiculously good shape. Six pack abs and zero percent body fat.
"It'll all be taken care of. People will come and pick you up, drive you to the gym. There'll be trainers and people to work out wit with you. Then they'll drive you home after it's done. And the whole thing will be subsidized by the government.
"I mean, who wouldn't want to look like that. Who wouldn't want to be able to walk around all the time with their shirt off? You'd look good and feel good about yourself. And healthy. Women would be more attracted to you and you'd probably get laid more!"
I just smiled a big smile as I took a step back.
"Sounds like a great idea. Good luck with that!"
With another smile and a wave I continued walking to the bus stop and he went back to flipping the sign.
Monday, July 23, 2007
My Top 5 Favorite Pirates
5. Patrick McGoohan as Dr. Syn, The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh, from the "Disneyland" TV-Series, circa 1963. Though not technically a pirate, he was still a smuggler and an anti-establishmentarian. I remember a lot of long boats and tri-corner hats. Plus the sackcloth hood that he wore scared the crap out of me as a kid.
4. Errol Flynn as Dr. Peter Blood in 1935's "Captain Blood." Does it get better than Flynn and Basil Rathbone dueling on the deck of a tall ship?
3. Captain Thomas Bartholomew Red played by Walter Matthau in Roman Polanski's 1986 film "Pirates." I always come back to the final scene of Matthau sitting on his pirate throne precariously balanced in a long boat as it is rowed into the sunset by Frog, his young French companion.
2. Long John Silver played by Robert Newton in "Treasure Island" (1950), the sequel "Long John Silver" (1954) and the TV series "The Adventures of Long John Silver" (1955-1959).
1. My favorite: Tommy Lee Jones as Captain Bully Hayes from 1983's "Nate and Hayes." This is my favorite swashbuckler/pirate movie. If you want to see how to properly do a high-seas romantic triangle, this is it. Miles O'Keefe as the straight-laced, missionary turned swashbuckler is the perfect foil to Jones' rogue captain. All this and it was shot in and around Fiji and New Zealand so the settings are beautiful and exotic.
Honorable mention goes to Jesse Jane as First-Mate Jules in "Pirates" (2005) from Digital Playground. To be honest, though, I can't really remember much of dialogue... Or the plot...
4. Errol Flynn as Dr. Peter Blood in 1935's "Captain Blood." Does it get better than Flynn and Basil Rathbone dueling on the deck of a tall ship?
3. Captain Thomas Bartholomew Red played by Walter Matthau in Roman Polanski's 1986 film "Pirates." I always come back to the final scene of Matthau sitting on his pirate throne precariously balanced in a long boat as it is rowed into the sunset by Frog, his young French companion.
2. Long John Silver played by Robert Newton in "Treasure Island" (1950), the sequel "Long John Silver" (1954) and the TV series "The Adventures of Long John Silver" (1955-1959).
1. My favorite: Tommy Lee Jones as Captain Bully Hayes from 1983's "Nate and Hayes." This is my favorite swashbuckler/pirate movie. If you want to see how to properly do a high-seas romantic triangle, this is it. Miles O'Keefe as the straight-laced, missionary turned swashbuckler is the perfect foil to Jones' rogue captain. All this and it was shot in and around Fiji and New Zealand so the settings are beautiful and exotic.
Honorable mention goes to Jesse Jane as First-Mate Jules in "Pirates" (2005) from Digital Playground. To be honest, though, I can't really remember much of dialogue... Or the plot...
People are fake.
Today has NOT been a good day. Actually, it hasn't been a great week to tell you the truth, but today has left me feeling... Well, I'm not sure how I feel. Numb. More than a little pissed off. Depressed. Betrayed. God, that sounds so histrionic.
There's this woman that I worked with. I've known her for about 3 years now as a co-worker. She's smart, sardonic, artsy, left wing, etc. I have a lot of respect for her and really like her [Not that way. She's married]. I've always considered her a friend. She's the only person in the Studio that I bought a Christmas present for. I've also picked up little things over time that I thought she might like, as I do with many of my friends.
However, I've noticed over the past few months that she's become more distant, almost resentful. There hasn't been anything I could point to and say, "This is when it started." She just puts in her earphones and when I do try and talk to her gives me this look as if to say why are you bothering me. She also spends a lot of time away from her desk, which is next to mine, talking to people on the other side of the Studio.
Personally, I chalked it up to the way people's natures wax and wane. I've occasionally asked other friends in the Studio if she's mad at me for something and they've all said not that they know of. She's certainly never said anything to me about it.
I am friendly with my co-workers. If I've got nothing to do I'll ask anyone if they need help on anything. I regularly take out the trash if it's full. I'll ask how they want this file prepared, where they want another file saved, if they prefer something done a certain way that makes it easier for them. I'm no angel, of course, but I make an effort to smooth the pavement for everyone.
Well, last week, on Wednesday, we're at lunch and I'm sitting next to her. I turned to her and said, "Hey, thanks a lot for doing that capabilities page yesterday." [Don't worry about what that means, it's not central to the plot.]
She sarcastically says, "Yeah, right."
So I say, "No, no, I'm serious. Thanks."
She replies, turning away dismissively, "Uh huh."
I had just had it. I said, "Fine, I'll never thank you for anything again, then."
Not the most adult approach, I'll admit, but I was fed up. I talked with my brother/boss about it later in the evening and he tells me that she has confided in him that, "Sometimes Scott says stuff that pisses me off."
What stuff? No idea. She didn't tell him. Nor has she ever said anything to me about it.
I have no idea what to do with this information. I can't stop saying whatever it is because I have no idea WHAT it is. I can't modify my behavior to be more amenable because I don't know what causes the friction in the first place. So, in the face of a complete lack of knowledge, I figured I would just reserve any conversation with her to work-related items, as necessary.
As a result, I've only had two occasions to talk to her since then, both of which included our project manager. So now she has decided that I'm not talking to her at all, I'm only talking to and through our project manager and that I'm being petty and hurting the workflow. She complained to our project manager and asked my brother/boss to have a talk with me. Seriously.
Stephen [brother] and I had a talk about it and I expressed my frustration at the whole situation. She gets upset at things that I've said, but doesn't tell anyone what those things are [work-related or personal?] and now complains that I'm not talking to her at all. In the midst of this, Stephen told me she said that I say things that hurt her feelings. Also that she's been resentful of me for a long time now. So much so that when I ask if she needs help on anything she says "No" automatically just out of spite.
And I had no idea.
This person who I thought was a good friend, who I have a heck of a lot of respect for, can't stand me. It completely pulled the rug out from underneath me.
I'm running it over in my mind to figure out what I've done or said that made the train go so far off the rails. How could I have been so blind to her anger, or is she just a really, really good actress.
Poor Stephen, all he wants is for us all to get along and for the Studio to be a pleasant place to work. But honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about her going forward. Not very kindly right now. I've got this knot of negative emotions sitting in my gut like a rock.
Meh. People suck.
There's this woman that I worked with. I've known her for about 3 years now as a co-worker. She's smart, sardonic, artsy, left wing, etc. I have a lot of respect for her and really like her [Not that way. She's married]. I've always considered her a friend. She's the only person in the Studio that I bought a Christmas present for. I've also picked up little things over time that I thought she might like, as I do with many of my friends.
However, I've noticed over the past few months that she's become more distant, almost resentful. There hasn't been anything I could point to and say, "This is when it started." She just puts in her earphones and when I do try and talk to her gives me this look as if to say why are you bothering me. She also spends a lot of time away from her desk, which is next to mine, talking to people on the other side of the Studio.
Personally, I chalked it up to the way people's natures wax and wane. I've occasionally asked other friends in the Studio if she's mad at me for something and they've all said not that they know of. She's certainly never said anything to me about it.
I am friendly with my co-workers. If I've got nothing to do I'll ask anyone if they need help on anything. I regularly take out the trash if it's full. I'll ask how they want this file prepared, where they want another file saved, if they prefer something done a certain way that makes it easier for them. I'm no angel, of course, but I make an effort to smooth the pavement for everyone.
Well, last week, on Wednesday, we're at lunch and I'm sitting next to her. I turned to her and said, "Hey, thanks a lot for doing that capabilities page yesterday." [Don't worry about what that means, it's not central to the plot.]
She sarcastically says, "Yeah, right."
So I say, "No, no, I'm serious. Thanks."
She replies, turning away dismissively, "Uh huh."
I had just had it. I said, "Fine, I'll never thank you for anything again, then."
Not the most adult approach, I'll admit, but I was fed up. I talked with my brother/boss about it later in the evening and he tells me that she has confided in him that, "Sometimes Scott says stuff that pisses me off."
What stuff? No idea. She didn't tell him. Nor has she ever said anything to me about it.
I have no idea what to do with this information. I can't stop saying whatever it is because I have no idea WHAT it is. I can't modify my behavior to be more amenable because I don't know what causes the friction in the first place. So, in the face of a complete lack of knowledge, I figured I would just reserve any conversation with her to work-related items, as necessary.
As a result, I've only had two occasions to talk to her since then, both of which included our project manager. So now she has decided that I'm not talking to her at all, I'm only talking to and through our project manager and that I'm being petty and hurting the workflow. She complained to our project manager and asked my brother/boss to have a talk with me. Seriously.
Stephen [brother] and I had a talk about it and I expressed my frustration at the whole situation. She gets upset at things that I've said, but doesn't tell anyone what those things are [work-related or personal?] and now complains that I'm not talking to her at all. In the midst of this, Stephen told me she said that I say things that hurt her feelings. Also that she's been resentful of me for a long time now. So much so that when I ask if she needs help on anything she says "No" automatically just out of spite.
And I had no idea.
This person who I thought was a good friend, who I have a heck of a lot of respect for, can't stand me. It completely pulled the rug out from underneath me.
I'm running it over in my mind to figure out what I've done or said that made the train go so far off the rails. How could I have been so blind to her anger, or is she just a really, really good actress.
Poor Stephen, all he wants is for us all to get along and for the Studio to be a pleasant place to work. But honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about her going forward. Not very kindly right now. I've got this knot of negative emotions sitting in my gut like a rock.
Meh. People suck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)