|
Connect with Facebook
|
By Collin, on May 10th, 2011
The Greatest Films #10: Grave of the Fireflies
 Watch this movie in subtitles, always get the original performance.
Background:
Like most of my favorite Japanese films I came across Grave of the Fireflies through my Japanese cinema course in college. I was hoping to get in an easy class that I could sleep through and focus more on my own movies.
It ended up being the most fulfulling class I’d ever taken in school. Most people followed my plan and never showed up for screenings, but they missed out on greats like, Late Spring, Sansho the Baliff, Double Suicide, Ikiru, Harakiri, and, of course, Grave of the Fireflies.
You’ll likely never see a movie so heartbreaking. It pulls no punches in its execution and allows no escape from tragedy. Shindler’s List is light affair in comparison. It wiggles through all our built-in defenses and penetrates deep into our most primal human desire: To protect children. Yes, more awful tragedies have affected children, but never have the factilies of animation, design, performance, atmosphere, and storytelling, been employed for such a emotionally devastating film experience.
 The cute factor.
What it is about:
In one of the greater human injustices in human history Americans would incendiary bomb cities filled with innocent women, children, and men. Japan, made up primary of wooden buildings, was set ablaze. Huge portions of the population were wiped out. What would have become a war crime or topic for debate quickly took backseat to the more shocking and audacious decision to drop the atom bomb not once, but twice.
I remember vividly Robert McNamara, in the great documentary The Fog of War, saying his commanding officers were worried that if they lost the war they’d be tried as war criminals for the fire bombings. Wherever you come down, and it must be that firebombing was wrong, this movie will convert you. It is a simple story of two children orphaned by the war and who struggle to survive in Kobe, Japan.
 The haunting final shot of the film.
Why it is a great film:
One of the most profound human stories of all time just happens to be an animated movie. The movie is adapted from the book by Akiyuki Nosaka and there are live-adaptations, but Grave remains one of the great movies of all time. Why?
Well, first off it was produced by undeniably the greatest anime studio in filmmaking history, Studio Ghlibl.
Second, animation frees it from the “wow” factor of the special effects. If Spielberg, a great director, were to make the movie it would feature spectactular sequences of action and pleasurable visuals. The movie thankfully side-steps this issue by making the cartoon effects unremarkable and functional.
Lastly, I think it works because Anime has the innate “cute factor” or kawaisa. Setsuko seems all the more innocent and human, therefore, making the enemies all the more dangerous and vile.
The great tragedy of the movie, and a piece of information you should knowing going in, is that it is true story about Akiyuki Nosaka. His character obviously dies in the first moment of the movie, but a more heart-tugging realization is that his death is only figurative. He was never able to forgive himself for what happened. The final shot of the film is profound in its meaning, as well as being transparent in its theme: These things still haunt modern Japan, as well as the rest of us.
-Collin
By Collin, on April 4th, 2011
The Greatest Films #9: Curious Case of Benjamen Button
Background:
David Fincher’s most famous movie, Fight Club, is on many people’s favorite movies list. I still think what the movie was supposed to be about, how it was executed, and the eventual interpretations of it, are all a little murky, but still, its an awesome flick. It is supposed to be a critique of male machismo and materialism, frankly I have no idea what it is, except that it is pretty fucking good.
Moreover, I never considered Fincher one of the greats until Button. With this movie, he proved to everyone his greatness. Most people had already made this conclusion when he made Zodiac, but for some reason that flick just didn’t click with me.
What it is about:
Anyone who has ever seen Forrest Gump will recognize the general structure of the movie is very similar to Button. (same writer Eric Roth) Button’s premise, of a boy growing up backwards, is fairly famous by now. The film opens with Daisy, already old, telling her daughter about a love affair she had when she was young.
Like Gump, the film doesn’t seem to really have a particular direction or obvious climax. As in, I had no idea how it was going to end. That isn’t to say that it is a twist-ending, I’m just pointing out that the movie is more about the journey than the destination.
The focus of the film is on Benjamen Button who is physically old when he is born and grows younger – which is weird. He falls for a young girl Daisy and ends up loving her his entire life. It takes a long time for them to grow to the same age physically and mentally and it isn’t until then that a relationship flourishes.
Why it is a great film:
With such a premise this movie surely could have been totally corny. It uses its science-fiction/fantasy elements, not to abuse a built-in audience, but to consider existential ideas. Many felt freaked out by the awkward pedophilic suggestions, but I never got the connection. Button has, from what we can tell, a physical disability. He is actually a boy when the two first meet. They’re the exact same age, just look physically different. Moreover, what the movie is about I don’t even think Fincher would be able to place exactly. Most of all, I think it is about the passage of time and that we are inevitable victims of mortality. While Fincher’s Social Network, another great film, was fast paced and energetic with its technique, Button is mediative.
 When Daisy and Button finally get together there is a powerful feeling that these moments are fleeting. Like all our relationships, the end is coming soon, or at least too soon than we’d like. This is not a cynical view that the movie the takes. It is not Kubrickian. Instead, it is a Japanese view . Mono No Aware I think its called, which is a sensitivity to ephemera. At the end of the movie Fincher does something that some hailed as genius and others as unnecessary. I think A.O. Scott even used the word superfluous. I know Fincher made the right choice. Yes, the rest of the movie movie was trying to avoid such overt imagery or devices, but as I always say, when it comes to symbolic devices, you can never be too obvious.
 If the movie seems too dark or too depressing for some people, I suppose that is their problem. The final shot is bittersweet in its meaning: That the flow of time and passing cannot be stopped. That people long to be able to turn back the clock. Though Benjamin doesn’t have temporal differences from our own, he feels the physical effects and pains of aging different than others. However, other than his physical disabilities, he is not unlike anyone else in his mental maturation. That his relationships don’t work out and that his life is a mystery filled with episodic loneliness and fleeting pleasure only makes the film more universal. It is one of my favorite movies of the past five years and with Fincher having just made Network, I think he is proving he one of the true masters of the past two decades.
-Collin
By Collin, on March 30th, 2011
The Greatest Films #8: The Exorcist
Background:
This isn’t so much a background but a “since then”. Since The Exorcist I can count on my fingers how many American movies that actually can be classified as scary. Silence of the Lambs and some Lynch movies come to mind. But other than that American movies are products of fanboy gore and misogyny. Now let me be honest, for the most part I love gore flicks…it is how I got into movies, but I’d never take the position that I was actually scared by them.
Movies that are celebratory of gore can’t really be scary at the same time. Just like my argument that movies which are celebratory of violent war can’t be sad at the same time…but that’s another article all together.
The Exorcist stands firmly as one of the scariest movies of all time. It came right on the cusp of the slasher-genre boom and America has had a lot of trouble actually making a scary movie since. While the rest of the world is having a horror film renaissance of sorts, America’s major horror hit is a PG-13, low-budget, ghost movie shot on video.
Hmm.
What it is about:
If you don’t know, here’s a quick crash course: An actress (Ellen Burstyn) begins to notice bizarre behavior from her daughter, which quickly turns into paranormal behavior. At the same time a priest in the area is having faith issues but is called upon to investigate the bizarre behavior in case she is possessed.
Why it is a great film:
First off, it starts with Linda Blair as Regan. Most directors offered a project like this would say that its impossible because it’s based around a child performer. Sure, there a lot of special effects and voice manipulation, but at the end of the day Regan is the villain.
I forget that. One of the most effective monster/villians of all time was played by a thirteen year old girl. This is the most important thing to take away from the movie.
 Next is Ellen Burstyn. The movie would never have worked without her giving weight to a performance that could have shlocky. Her screams and emotional devastation seem genuine. She has little to do with the outcome of the film besides hunting down a priest to do the exorcism, but she is the weight that holds down the movie as it slowly makes it way toward the final scene. Lastly, the final scene might be one of my favorite of all time, but what makes the film work is everything leading up to it. A lot of people my age consider The Exorcist a slow film – they might have a point. Director William Friedkin’s career never again reached the influence he had in the very early seventies. His two films French Connection and The Exorcist transformed their respective genres. However, in the final scene of Exorcist he created one of the great set pieces of all time. This is not to take away from the rest of the movie. He placed much of the action of the film in the last few minutes, he had to lean on things like film technique, music, performance, and great writing, to carry the film in an effective way. If the movie was just stale for an hour and half and then he pulled out the last scene, the movie would be unwatchable.
-Collin
By Collin, on March 24th, 2011
The Greatest Films #7: L.A. Confidential
Background:
L.A. Confidential‘s loss to Titanic is, in my opinion, one of the biggest upsets of all time. Titanic was, indeed, large and epic, but L.A. Confidential was one of the best movies of that decade.
The only reason L.A. is not more widely discussed as a great film that got fucked at the Oscars is because a more legendary occurrence happened the next year in 1998 with the whole Shakespeare in Love/Saving Private Ryan debacle. I’ve actually never seen Shakespeare in Love, and I actually really don’t like Saving Private Ryan all that much, but I’m pretty sure I know which film is better…
What it is about:
The movie is complicated so I’ll only try to go over the plot in a rudimentary way.
The plot takes place in L.A. during the 1950s. It juxtaposes one side of Hollywood which is a glorified, glitzy Hollywood with the other side, which contains hookers, crooked-cops, drugs, and tabloid journalists.
People who are more familiar with the pulply, noir, Hollywood period will probably get this movie more on a satirical level, but I don’t watch those movies.
A cop Edmund Exley, played by Guy Pearce, is convince he’s going to be better than his father who was a legendary police officer. Alternately, enter Bud played by Russel Crowe, who is a bad ass crooked cop, but has something else to him. Then on top of that, there is Jack Vincennes, who is a smooth talking cop who is a consultant on a cop T.V. show and sells leads to tabloids.
The movie begins in a seemingly aimless fashion – a risky decision for Hanson. Most movies have to have the inciting incident happen by the fifteen minute mark. L.A. waits ’til around the thirty minute mark – not unlike China Town. Then the Night Owl killings happen. Everything in the movie revolves around what happened that night, who was involved, and how the characters respond.
Why it is a great film:
Curtis Hanson made a masterpiece. A perfect movie. It could be the best movie of the nineties next to Natural Born Killers and Goodfellas. It is a film-noir but updated into a modern thriller. The movie is a labyrinthian whodunit and its pleasures come not from the action or plot revelations, but instead from the character arcs and the relationships that form in response to conflicts and situations.
Bud and Exley are sworn enemies and when they befriend each other at the end of the film it doesn’t feel contrived. It feels like a real bond has formed between them. Also, the film focuses around the concept of justice and what it means to each one of them. Each member of the trio wants justice done to people who are bad, but all seem to have strayed from that goal due to crime, celebrity, or pride.
The film is also famous for introducing the world to two great actors: Guy Pearce and Russel Crowe. Both were teetering on the edge of fame at the time.
Pearce and Crowe were fundamental to this movie working. First off, Pearce needed that golden boy/perfect cheekbones look, which he had. But, he needed something else too. Exley needed an edge. There are moments were Exley teeters on the brink of madness and it works.
Crowe needed the exact opposite. He needed to be grizzly and fierce, but with a twinkle of good in his eyes – an element Crowe has taken into many of his roles.
The film ends in one of my favorite action scenes of all time. It is a bunker down and fight the bad guy scene. The guns fire loud and realistically. The action happens in front of the camera and the audience knows exactly who is where and why. These days god only knows what that scene would look like edited together. Fast editing is not always better.
L.A. Confidential is a great flick and deserves to be hailed as one of the classics of the nineties. Hopefully Hanson will try to make something equally as good sometime before he retires.
A+/5
-Collin
By Collin, on March 23rd, 2011
The Greatest Films #6: Jaws
Background:
 So Steven Spielberg was a talented young dude who hadn’t made his break-out movie yet. He was young at the time, only a year or two older than I am now and was handed the keys to the production nightmare that was Jaws.
I shouldn’t even bother mentioning that the production process was a fucking nightmare, going way over budget and over schedule. Spielberg thought he’d never work again.
Luckily for him the movie was released in this new, crazy way. Many point to Jaws as the movie that invented the “blockbuster”. This wasn’t just because it was so good that people just had to see it, but because it was one of the first movies to be released everywhere at once. Weird right? Most movies were released slowly. A few cities here and there until they were released nationally.
What it is about:
Everyone knows the so…a big fucking shark is attacking people on an island in New England.
Why it is a great film:
I’m always a bit apprehensive about fellatiating Spielberg’s skill because he’s so universally crowned the greatest director of all time. He’s definitely the most mainstream and certainly the most successful, but the best? Well, I think out of all his movies Jaws kind of proves he’s got the technique to warrant many of these claims.
I never really understood Jaws until I was really into movies. It seems so simple at first glance. Like some of the greatest movies ever made my Spielberg, it is a B-movie made into an A movie with great music, great characters, great acting, and, most of all, Spielberg’s spot-on visuals.
After watching it again for this article I noticed something that never really struck me before: Jaws is really funny. More than anything I found myself laughing. Sure, it is a thriller. But, somehow through all the thrills, uncanny theme music, and POV shots, I always found myself laughing my ass off. Richard Dreyfuss’ character Hooper is fucking hilarious. The scene where he bursts in uninvited with wine and begins eating Chief Brody’s meal is funny every time. Not just because its a funny situation, but because everyone knows that guy and it makes Hooper a more realistic character by doing so.
The scene on the beach where the young boy is killed is my favorite of the movie. Students of film should break that scene down shot-by-shot and analyze it. The way Spielberg uses people walking in front of the camera to cut away. The way the editor builds the tension of the scene by putting shots together at a certain speed and pace. Tarantino mentioned why he loved movies in an interview with Charlie Rose and said he loves movies when music, editing, visuals, and acting all come together in a magical way. Many scenes in this movie are like that.
You can watch this movie on Netflix streaming right now!
A/5
-Collin
|
Recent Comments