Saturday, January 31, 2009
Six String Samurai
Ed Wood
In this celebration of the proclaimed “worst director ever”, Burton has found that character depth and connection are better substitutes for quirky aesthetics. True, the film is littered with Burton’s twisted perceptible fingerprints, but rather than concentrate on overbearing visuals, Burton has offered something different in Ed Wood -- well rounded characters. Granted, he had luck with the story and the characters as their tale is a true part of cinematic history, but his pension and empathy for the rejected has never been stronger.
Coming from a background of rejection himself, Burton’s connection with outcasts and oddities has always been the drive behind his films, and for the first time since Edward Scissorhands, these people actually fit in with their surroundings. A wide-eyed visionary with a passion for angora and women’s underwear, an elderly morphine addicted horror-film legend with a covet for the glory days, an apathetic scream queen hostess with pencil drawn eyebrows and an intimidating bust line -- these are the people that belong in a Tim Burton film. His universe makes for a perfect playground for such uniqueness.
Credit for this feature cannot be given to Burton alone. The reunion with Depp has created a brilliantly lovable protagonist, and Landau gives a heart wrenching performance as the washed up Bela Lugosi. Together, they create a duo that is as originally perfect as any I have ever seen. The supporting cast including a gender confused Bill Murray and a impatient, fame seeking Sarah Jessica Parker only enhances the connection between audience and character. These weirdos are as lovable as they are charismatic.
At it’s heart, Ed Wood is a story that reminds us that our dreams are worth following. We may lose faith along the way, especially after what may seem like endless rejection from unappreciative annotators, but we can’t crumble into a pile of self-loathing. We must not compromise our character or who we are as imaginative beings in order to satisfy the masses. I can’t think of too may other directors that are as familiar with this concept as Tim Burton. Even though this should be the film that he is remembered for, it won’t be. It’s too solid of a movie. And even at it’s weirdest, it never reaches that forseen level of obscurity we have come to anticipate from such a director. No, at best, Ed Wood will be a nice piece of trivia for future generations. Which is unfortunate for Burton because he won’t ever receive the credit he deserves as a serious director. His continuance to see how far he can stretch people’s tolerance for the strange and abstruse will always be compared to his earliest efforts. And when he does give another solid performance as a character driven director, people will only recognize the film’s lack of aesthetic curiousness.
Quantum of Solace
In the early years of cinema there was a Russian filmmaker by the name of Lev Kuleshov who set out to prove the usefulness and effectiveness of film editing by juxtaposing images together and recording audience’s emotional reactions. The audience brought their own emotional reaction to the sequence of juxtaposed images of a man inter cut with different objects such as a bowl of soup, a coffin, etc. Although the man’s expression never changed, audiences swore up and down that his mood changed with each inter cut picture. Quantum of Solace takes this basic principle of montage and waves a large middle finger at it.
Luckily, the entire movie isn’t saturated with rapid editing; just the action sequences. In this ridiculous show of visual ADD, it is difficult to bring your own emotional reaction to what you’re seeing. Not to mention the fact that the geography of the scene becomes quite confusing. I just saw an axe go through a foot, but who did that foot belong to? Not only does this style of editing detach you from the scene, it reminds you that you are watching a movie. It’s hard to become fully engaged in Quantum’s story or characters.
Spastic action edits aside, Quantum of Solace has a lot of potential to go down in history as one of the better Bond films. It has everything in line to make a successful Bond film including explosions, high speed chases, tongue and cheek humor, sexy Bond girls, and a global domination conspiracy. Our hero, on the other hand, has become a bit one dimensional. Unfortunately for Bond fans, 007 has become a superhuman shell of a character whose basic motivation of revenge is never truly justified (especially in the final scene where his efforts lead him to an encounter with the source of his heartache). The last piece of his fallen love is discarded in the snow not as a symbol of forgiveness or growth, but rather a symbol of his newly acquired apathy. He has thrown away his last chunk of humanity.
After Casino Royale, the opportunity to flesh out the Bond character was hanging by unprotected string. All Forster and Craig had to do was cut it down. I don’t blame Craig for not taking the chance to make 007 a empathetic character, but I do blame Forster for not being able to deliver a believable Bond. I don’t want James Bond to cry, I don’t want him to become overwhelmed with emotion, and I don’t want him to stop banging broads with no attachment whatsoever. I do however, want some sort sparkle of an actual human being in Bond’s perfect blue eye. Just a hint of humanity. That way, when he’s blowing up buildings and drinking like a fish, I can root for a man worth rooting for.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Hellboy II: The Golden Army
With such a great set up with the first Hellboy, and fresh out from the most impressive work of both his and cinematographer Guillermo Navarro’s collective careers, there’s nowhere to go but up with this new installment in the Hellboy franchise. Wonderfully paced and brilliantly shot, Hellboy II: The Golden Army, feels at times like more than your typical “extract your brain upon entering the theatre” action film. True it isn’t without it’s flaws, but even those are cleverly masked. Flashbacks revealing the premise (a somewhat arguably lazy plot device) is told through a cleverly choreographed show of stop motion animation, and a sappy scene in Hellboy’s most vulnerable moment happens at the feet of one of Del Toro’s more frightening and beautiful monsters to date (Jones' Angel of death).
A language barrier accounts for some overly enthusiastic cheese, but Del Toro’s “isn’t this cool?” attitude works so well within the Hellboy format. His need to explain to the audience what is hip makes for some ridiculous puns and slow motion camera work, but whereas this habit hurt previous efforts, these fingerprints fit perfectly inside Big Red’s universe.
On the subject of message, Hellboy II: The Golden Army offers no solution to the problem it addresses. The human race has been the bane and suffering for mythical beasts and paranormal beings since the beginning. In their pride and never ending thirst for power, they have become numb to destroying both the beautiful and frightening. Whereas sometimes bringing up the problem is enough in itself, this time around it would have been nice to be given something other than an overwhelming sense of self loathing when the finger was pointed at man. Now I feel terrible for destroying the things that I used to be afraid of. Especially when the scary things are this pretty.
All in all, this film is a solid piece of action cinema thanks to its director and its director's choices. Rather than follow in the footsteps of the overwhelming wave of simpleton "comic book" directors, Del Toro refuses to adhere to the confines of a graphic novel. Hellboy II is a film, and he treats it like such. Comic book rules don't apply here. This is an entirely different monster. And for this monster, it's OK if you leave your brain inside its cavity when you watch it.