Saturday, December 12, 2009

How serious do you want to be?

Ethan Coen and Joel Coen at the 2001 Cannes Fi...Image via Wikipedia
A Serious Man: A Seriously Fine Film


Asher Goldstein

2 months ago
Comments (0)

Flag this This past weekend, I was one of the many audience members who flocked to see the Coen Brothers' newest outing A Serious Man. The film, in limited release, managed to pull in an impressive $41,918 per screen average. As this second weekend of release comes upon us, so does my chance to get myself out to the cinema and once again see this eye-thumbing look at what is nothing less than an existential American nightmare.



The film follows a middle class Jewish college professor who finds himself at odds with every element of his life: his kids are repulsively irreverent, his job is thankless, his neighbors pay him little respect or attention, and his over-bearing wife gives him gut-checking notice that she is leaving him for one of their family friends. He is the prototypical helpless American male--weighed down by the social constructs that supposedly give a sense of anchoring to our society.



The story is told deftly by the Brothers Coen with the masterful aid of ever impressing cinematographer Roger Deakins, whose concise camera work and lighting illuminate a carefully constructed world that brims with life thanks to the always fantastic work of costumer and production designer Mary Zophres and Jess Gonchor, respectively. So in short: this is a damn good movie, one whose story is told way more than adequately and with a highly attentive technique of craft, both from the below the line crew and the films performers alike. That said, what struck me most--and, as it seems, most people I've spoken to--are the ideas presented throughout.



Frankly speaking, to an extent this is a very Jewish, and more specifically American Jewish, film and at the same time, not one whatsoever.

I've read that the film is supposedly likened to being the "most personal" of the Coens' work as there are clear references to what need be nothing but their own autobiography speaking (if the filmmakers, who were raised in a Jewish household, grew up in one that were Catholic instead, their main character would surely find the testaments of his priest being as ridiculous and confusing as our hero’s Rabbi).



Of the folks I've spoken with, many have been frankly offended by what they've seen, generally for religious reasons. The film is set in the world of a tightly knit Jewish American community and observed with a sharply satirical eye--suggesting that the wholesome, wisdom-seeking tradition of Judaism can be just as faltering and plainly useless as many of the other traditions that are observed in this world of ours. At the film's heart, the writers are inherently suggesting that human beings are subjected to a world that is nothing but suffering-inducing, harrowing, and uncaring. Furthermore, any attempt to explain or fashion some sort of wisdom from the dire events that fill our lives will inevitably either cause one to fall to the chains of ignorant comforts (religion, and moreover, human constructions of family, home, love, occupation) or will send one off into a fit of panicked desperation until we find strength in the idea that it is all essentially meaningless. Religious, and cultural for that matter, traditions are ridiculed as useless distractions and the only "out" that said practices get occurs in one scene, in one movement, in one shot for that matter. Such an instance infers that while faith and other such constructs are generally time and soul wasting, they do provide for our meager-selves a way to experience catharsis and allow humanity to come together, giving us reason to seek the shelter of one another, even if shelter is rooted in nothing more than the stuff of make believe.



Cheery, no? The somber ideas presented are lightened by the darkened comedy that fits well into the canon of these fine auteurs, though because of its heavy, heavy references to American Judaism, it could be a bit difficult for wider audiences to find the same attraction as they did to the masterful No Country For Old Men. In short, if you are either a fan of the Coen Brothers or are simply one who enjoys thought-provoking cinema, this is certainly not one to pass up. In my eyes, this film belongs alongside the work of other existentialist authors and artists. It certainly firms up my belief that Camus or Hardy would be proud to see the Coens added to their ranks any day.



The Coens lended their filmmaking abilities to this commercial spot for the Al Gore's Reality Coalition, which seeks to spread the truth about so-called "clean coal" technologies and how this moniker is nothing more than an oxymoron. For more info on the truth behind "clean coal" visit the The Reality Coalition's website. Take Action Learn more about The Reality Coalition, an organization the Coen brothers support.


Enhanced by Zemanta

A Serious Man

SANTA MONICA, CA - JANUARY 07:  Actress Marisa...Image by Getty Images via Daylife
Coen Brothers.........If you get the chance Goooooooooo!
Enhanced by Zemanta

Avatar The Movie

NEW YORK - JULY 27:  An Arnold Schwarzenegger ...Image by Getty Images via Daylife
Is James Cameron's Avatar 'the future of movies'?


James Cameron's Titanic was the biggest hit in history - but Avatar and its 3-D technology could be 'the future of the movies'. No pressure, then, says William Langley.



By William Langley

Published: 6:33PM GMT 12 Dec 2009



Comments 0
Comment on this article



Link to this video For the past few years, Hollywood has conducted its business to the unsettling sound of hundreds of millions of hard-to-come-by dollars whooshing into the giant maw of James Cameron's new sci-fi epic, Avatar. As a director, the 55-year-old brings to the movies some incontestable advantages – and a couple of reasons why, if you were thinking of employing him, you might not want to rush the decision.



One is a fondness for monstrous budgets, which admittedly furnish his films with impressive casts and bleeding-edge special effects, but cause long-term sleeping difficulties for studio executives. The other is a troublesome mixture of insecurity and absence of tact.





Related Articles

Is Avatar an attack on the Iraq War?

Avatar: review

Avatar: first review

James Cameron says Avatar a message to stop damaging environment

Yellow Submarine to be remade by Disney

Avatar movie: history of 3D cinema"Let us join together in silence in memory of the 1,500 people who died when the ship went down," Cameron said upon collecting his Best Director Oscar for Titanic. "… and now, let's party until dawn!" Irritated that Arnold Schwarzenegger had gone sightseeing in Washington DC during the filming of True Lies, he thrust his face an inch from his leading man's and bellowed: "Do you want Paul Verhoeven to finish this mother------?"



For better or worse, Cameron has been quiet since the release of Titanic in 1997. Perhaps too quiet. Although the film went on to become the biggest box office hit in history – with a global take of $1.8 billion – it presented the director with the problem of surpassing it with something even bigger.



That something has now arrived. Avatar is a computer-effects-heavy 3-D space fantasy, set 125 years in the future, about a disabled US Marine, Jake Sully, who is sent to Pandora, a moon of the distant Centauri star system, to find supplies of "unobtainium", an energy-rich mineral. Upon arrival, Jake discovers a world of beauty and innocence, populated by 10-foot-tall, blue-skinned beings called the Na'vi, whose peaceful existence the humans proceed to rock.



Cameron first hatched the story 14 years ago, but found that the technology needed to realise it didn't exist. The new digital 3-D system solved the problem; indeed, powerful voices in Hollywood, including that of Steven Spielberg, have predicted that the results are so immersive that the film and technology represent "the future of the movies", while cinemas have been scrambling to convert to the new format.



The reviews have been generally favourable. "The most expensive and technically ambitious film ever made," reports the influential Hollywood trade magazine Variety, "James Cameron's long-gestating epic delivers unique spectacle, breathtaking sights and narrative excitement." The rival Hollywood Reporter cheers: "As commander-in-chief of an army of visual-effects technicians, creature designers, motion-capture mavens, stunt performers, dancers, actors and music and sound magicians, Cameron brings science-fiction movies into the 21st century with the jaw-dropping wonder that is Avatar."



Cameron pays unusually close attention to reviews. When Kenneth Turan, the highly regarded critic on the Los Angeles Times, exercised his right to dislike Titanic – a "hackneyed and completely derivative copy" of the classic Hollywood romance – Cameron went ballistic, penning a furious rebuttal in which he denounced the review as "the vitriolic ravings of a bitter man… the worst sort of ego-driven elitism".



Why such sensitivity? In a long, choleric interview in the current edition of The New Yorker, Cameron – clearly still seething over the affair – appears to suggest that the critics had it in for him, and were confounded when Titanic was a hit with audiences. "We were branded the biggest idiots in movie history," he fumes. "They were just sharpening up their knives so they could really take the film apart. Then they couldn't. So ---- them. ---- 'em all."



Those who seek to explain Cameron's irascibility and thin-skinnedness point – as he does himself – to his working-class background and ingrained suspicion of the way the movie industry operates. "I try to live with honour," he says, "even if it costs me millions of dollars and takes a long time. It's very unusual in Hollywood. Few people are trustworthy: a handshake means nothing to them. They feel they are required to keep an agreement with you only if you are successful."



He was born, one of five children, in Kapuskasing, a small, mostly French-speaking town in Ontario, Canada, where his father worked at the local paper mill. When he was 14, he went to see 2001: A Space Odyssey, Stanley Kubrick's sci-fi masterpiece, and became fascinated by the kind of hyper-realistic visual effects the film pioneered.



A few years later, the Camerons moved to southern California, where James – with no educational qualifications – took a succession of lowly jobs, first as a factory machinist, then as a truck driver, and later as a model-maker at a film studio.



An incurable workaholic (he claims to have worked on Avatar for 18 hours a day, seven days a week, for two years), he rose rapidly as a designer of sets and special effects. Then, in 1984, he got his first directing break with The Terminator, a low-budget thriller starring the barely comprehensible Schwarzenegger as a rogue cyborg, which earned an extraordinary $78 million.



The film's unexpected success marked the end of Cameron's deference to studio bean-counters. His sequel, Terminator 2, was the first movie to cost $100 million; Titanic was the first to cost $200 million; and the budget for Avatar is believed to have exceeded $300 million.



Critics occasionally suggest that the green stuff covers up flaws which other filmmakers wouldn't get away with, but it's hard to deny that Cameron has delivered value for money. Then again, it isn't only critics who find him tough going. He has been accused by the Screen Actors Guild of mistreating casts with his punishing routines and combative approach, and Kate Winslet has declared that she'd need an unusually large fee before working with him again. Five wives – the current one being actress Suzy Amis – testify further to the challenging complexities of his personality.



When Titanic won 11 Oscars – the most since Ben Hur – Cameron declared himself, before a billion viewers, to be "King of the World". Those who winced at the display should have realised that he was only getting started. With Avatar, and the 3-D age it could usher in, he's aiming to be Master of the Universe.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Clint and rugby don't really mix.....

John CarlinImage via Wikipedia

Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon in Invictus If Invictus (Warner Bros.), Clint Eastwood's inspirational sports biopic about the victory of the South African rugby team during Nelson Mandela's first year in office, had been made by any other director, it would be regarded as a tedious, unfocused, underplotted movie with a single strong selling point: The casting of Morgan Freeman as Mandela. Not the performance, the casting. No one else alive is as well suited to play the great South African leader. Freeman uncannily resembles Mandela, he imitates his accent convincingly, he radiates a benevolent aura of righteousness—but when does Morgan Freeman not radiate a benevolent aura of righteousness? What ought to have been the role of Freeman's career is instead less of an acting challenge than Driving Miss Daisy. Freeman-as-Mandela is an actor all dressed up with no place to go—at least, nowhere we didn't already know he was headed.



Yahoo! Buzz FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSETrue-life sports movies always work against the same disadvantage: Win or lose, the outcome of the game is known in advance. The only way to make the audience care is to somehow get us inside the heads of the people who were experiencing the triumph in real time. Eastwood goes to great lengths to explain why the 1995 World Cup championship was so important to South Africa: Only a few years out of the apartheid era, the nation needed a common cause for blacks and whites to rally around, and the national team, the Springboks, had historically meant nothing to black South Africans except being a symbol of segregation and oppression. Maddeningly, the movie never manages to make the championship matter to us.



Invictus, which takes its title from a Victorian poem that Mandela clung to as a source of hope during his 27 years in prison, takes one of the most genuinely inspiring moments in modern history and turns it into a high-minded plod. Every character is defined solely in terms of his (or her—but there aren't many significant hers on the premises) degree of racial nobility. Every line out of Mandela's mouth is a platitude: "Forgiveness is a powerful weapon" or "In order to build South Africa, we must all exceed our own expectations." As Mandela discusses leadership techniques over tea with the captain of the Springboks, François Pienaar (Matt Damon), both men agree on the importance of leading by example. But all either one does is lecture. "The rainbow nation starts here," Mandela scolds his bodyguards, who are prickly at first about integrating their ranks. Handing out beers to his dispirited team after a loss, Pienaar encourages them to drink up with these heartening words: "Taste it? That's the taste of defeat." Must the task of healing a divided nation fall exclusively into the hands of humorless goody-two-shoes?







It would seem hard to botch the inherently suspenseful events of the 1995 World Cup championship game, in which the underdog 'Boks fought their way back from a tie to win in an overtime squeaker. But though this film contains plenty of rugby—for viewers congenitally indifferent to sports, a lifetime's worth of rugby—Eastwood never gives his audience a basic grounding in how the sport works. For those not already in-the-know, the rules of the game remain as perplexing as those of Fantastic Mr. Fox's whack-bat. What exactly is accomplished in the scrum? What's a drop goal, and what does it mean to win a game on one? And what are the strengths and weaknesses of this particular team, other than the obvious fact that they go from playing badly to playing well after a training montage? A great sports movie—North Dallas Forty, Rocky, Breaking Away—gives its characters athletic personalities: Who's cool under pressure? Who's a choker? Who's phoning it in? Aside from Damon's Pienaar, who is himself little more than a resolute slab of muscle, the Springboks barely get personalities, period.



As a non-South African, I can't speak to the accuracy of the movie's racial politics, but they feel insultingly vague. A feel-good montage scored to a pop song that brags "I'm colorblind" smacks of self-congratulation, and the frequent paeans to equality and justice have an abstract, civics-class quality. The movie's only real suspense comes early on in a subplot about racial antagonism in the ranks of Mandela's security staff, but the Springboks' victory seems to wash all these tensions away in a rush of bonhomie. Invictus, based on a nonfiction account by John Carlin, posits Mandela's embrace of the national rugby team as a visionary moment of governance, but the movie never pauses to consider the question that must have dogged the president at the time: What if the 'Boks hadn't won the game?




Enhanced by Zemanta

Damon risked wrath of Eastwood for Invictus reshoot - Yahoo! News UK

Damon risked wrath of Eastwood for Invictus reshoot - Yahoo! News UK
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Scrooge, the banker!

Yet in the era of global financial crisis and multi-billion-dollar fraud, Jim Carrey believes Dickens's tale about how the miserly Ebenezer Scrooge learns to change his ways remains as relevant today as ever.




"I think it's a very pressing story nowadays, too," said Carrey, the star of Disney's re-imagining of the classic, released in North America on November 6. "I think stories get told at times when they're supposed to be told."





Related Articles

Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin to host the Oscars

Jim Carrey and Colin Firth talk about A Christmas Carol

Snow in Cannes? Christmas in May?

Peter Pan, Richmond Theatre; A Christmas Carol, Rose Theatre, Kingston - review

Monday's BBC iPlayer choices

Financial crisis: We should turn to Charles Dickens in hard times, not just Little Dorrit"Scrooge is the first corporate scumbag. The unloved scumbag. So, in this time when all our constructs are breaking down because of greed, this story is so pressing," Carrey added.



"Everybody loves a good transformational story. You know, somebody who sees the light, who finally finds out what's important in life. And, this is one of the greatest ones ever written."



Just like the character of Scrooge, Carrey was confronted with a vision of his future during the making of the film.



But while Scrooge's insight came via the spooky Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, Carrey's own premonition was entirely due to his appearance after the 3D movie's special effects wizards went to work.



Instead of the familiar 47-year-old face known to millions in hits such as Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and Bruce Almighty, Carrey said he was left staring at the spitting image of his father.



"When I saw the movie, one of the first things I said when I saw the first close up of Scrooge is, 'my family is going to have a heart attack, because that is my father,'" he said.



"It's unbelievable. It's really a look into the future for me. Not the long chin and the long nose, but the look is what I'm going to look like when I'm old," Carrey added.



Disney's new take on the classic is the latest in a long line of adaptations of the beloved 1843 novella, with the first screen version coming more than a century ago with in the 1901 British short Scrooge.



The new film sees Carrey play the bitter, money-grabbing Scrooge as well as the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come.



The film, also featuring Robin Wright Penn and Gary Oldman, is directed by Oscar-winner Robert Zemeckis.



Zemeckis, writer and co-director of the phenomenally successful 1985 hit Back to the Future, said the story of Scrooge "might be the greatest time travel story written in the English language".



"It's fabulous... definitely this story influenced my own time travel stories," he said.



Like his groundbreaking 2004 hit Polar Express, Zemeckis uses performance capture technology to bring Scrooge and other characters to life, where each actor's movements are filmed and fused with animation.



For Carrey, the technique meant he and other performers were acting blind, with only a vague idea of what would actually end up on the screen.



"For an actor, there are certain aspects of the technology that are so exciting and amazing creatively that you can't wait to see what it turns into," he revealed. "For an actor, there are extra challenges. You have to create the ambiance and the belief in your surroundings in your head.



"I can't wait to do the process again. Watching it, you never know where it was going to go. You have to go through months of panic, not knowing and then slowly you start to fall in love with it. 'Oh, my God, look what they've done.' It's unbelievable."


Enhanced by Zemanta
The new movie , A "Christmas Carol" with Scrooge is a terrific,  film best watched in 3D for its incredible effects. When Dickens wrote the original his imagination knew no bounds - this film works on that principle involving the movie-goer in an adventure of sound & sight.


Enhanced by Zemanta