Thursday, September 2, 2010

Strong and Dry

Winter’s Bone starts out with a laid back Missouri porch tune that relaxes you into your seat; and from that point on, it never lets you go. By the time it was over, I was humming Ray LaMontagne tunes in my mind, feeling the evening breeze splash over my hair.
     Set in the heart of the Ozark woods, Winter’s Bone follows seventeen-year old Ree Dolly(Jennifer Lawrence), who is struggling to care for her family. She soon finds out that her vanished father has put their land on jail bond, and sets out to find him. The story that follows is a pocket epic, sprinkled with deception, and driven by Ree’s downbeat determination to unravel the mystery surrounding her father. She meets strange characters, all of whom are a part of a circle of drug dealers, and journeys deep into the forest, though she returns home at the end of every journey. In the time when she is not investigating, she is teaching her little siblings to survive; how to cook, how to shoot rifles, how to hunt, how to be respectful, when to hold on, and when to let go.
        Writer/Director Debra Granik’s vision for this film takes flight with a clean crispness that blends the majesty of the Ozarks’ rolling plains with the snarling tree branches of its forests. Sound mixer James Demer’s emphasis of the trail mix of dirt and gravel crunches keeps the audience trudging along the same path as Ree, and adds a base to the dry atmosphere set up by Granik. Though the story is an epic at heart, it is told with the same inflection and grace as a lullaby before bed.
           There are many unspoken words and off-stage events in Winter’s Bone. Ree’s father is never seen, but the ambiguity of his character informs the twist and turns in the investigation. His past actions leave Ree with furious enemies and devoted friends, all of whom are hesitant to help or stop her.
    Jennifer Lawrence turns in an on-point interpretation of the passive-aggressive Ree, anchoring the film with a performance most actors will envy. She butters Ree with a rich country smoothness that ends in the serrated blade of her gritty determination. Her hawk-like stare freezes the audiences in their seats.
          I’ve never lived in the country before. The closest I’ve ever been are sleepovers at friends’ houses from Elyria to Chesterland(Ohio). At times, I wonder why I used to make the journey out there so much, even though it cost me a hefty share in gas and energy. It’s because there’s something peaceful out there, a closeness that city folk don’t really experience until everything around them is quiet(which is rare). Once you journey through the woods, be it on foot or in a car, you never come out the same. Some of the greatest stories ever told have been told at least partially in a forest. Granik’s film is as much about the Ozark woods as it is about Ree.
        The characters in the story reflect this. They are as close-knit as the trees, letting that closeness guide their common sense. The cast plays their roles passively, substituting drama with juxtaposition that highlights the intricate workings of their strained but hospitable relations. Though some of the names, like Teardrop and Thump, will certainly make any city viewers laugh, the culture that is reflected in every shot is bare-boned and voluntarily vulnerable, daring the audience to judge it.
        Overall, a simple, steady little tale about the Ozarks and its “bread and butter” natives.  

         Ciao. 

"Inception(Christopher Nolan's guide to being a professional Confused Man)"

At first, I feared "Inception" as yet another action movie with a mindfuck twist. Reviews from everybody started pouring in, and my fears were confirmed; this film was "amazing", "thought-provoking", "mind-numbing", "complicated"; basically a piece of shit with flashing neon lights. I sighed in grief. Another "Lost".
     Weeks went by. The ratings skyrocketed. Fan reaction swelled. A buzz electrified the air. The film was adored by people who thought they would hate it, loved by those who thought they would love it. I sighed in frustration. Another "Lost". Yet, due to my incessant desire to critique all things that are hyped, I found myself being pulled towards the film anyway. I finally snapped, and went straight to the theatre after work one day. I made sure to prepare myself as a critic, meaning under no circumstances would I allow myself to get so sucked into the film that I would stop looking at it with a critical eye. With that prepared, I marched into the theater.
     For those of you who are anticipating me saying that my efforts proved fruitless, you will now be disappointed. I never once got totally sucked in. "Inception" is a brilliant movie, enthralling in its own way, and probably the best film I have seen in a very long time. That being said, I hope your disappointment with me is not as great as my disappointment was with this film.
        "Inception" is the story of long time dream-invader and all around confused man Cobb(Leonardo DiCaprio) who is hired/blackmailed by corporate head Saito(Ken Watanabe) to invade the mind of even bigger-corporate heir Robert Fischer(Cillian Murphy) and perform an Inception on him. An Inception is when an expert Extractor(basically a professional Confused Man) enters deep into the mind of a...uh...client and plants a foreign idea into that person's subconscious via the client's dreams. If successful, the Inception will be accepted by the subconscious of the client and forever change him. The act of Inception(god, this sounds like a porno) is an almost impossible process, so it is rarely ever performed. During the Inception mission, Cobb is haunted by the locked-up memories of his dead wife, Mal(Marion Cotillard).
        "Inception" is soft science fiction trying hopelessly to be hard science fiction. For those of you unfamiliar with those terms, hard science fiction is technologically driven writing, the type of SF that is geared solely towards technology and its influence on society. Most hard SF writers were engineers of some kind before they started writing, therefore they naturally write like an engineer would. They do develop characters and explore themes, but the tech and ideas are always front and center. "2001, A Space Odyssey" is a great example of hard SF. Soft science fiction is science fiction that has numerous romantic undercurrents. "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" and the entire "space opera" sub-genre are perfect examples of this. Soft SF uses science fiction as an excuse to write about other things. The writing is usually about modern day society with a twist. This is what "Inception" was, and is why I found the film incredibly disappointing.
      "Inception" has a plethora of big, brain-teasing ideas. Behind these ideas are the technologies that execute them, technologies that are interesting in-and-of themselves. Unfortunately, Nolan never bothers to shine the spotlight on any of them. For example, every single time Cobb and his team jump into somebody's mind, they have to use a mysterious-box-with-blinking-lights. What this box does besides that is never even hinted at. Unless I'm mistaken, the box is never even given a name. Does it contain the built dream they all fall into? Does it save the dreams like a computer?
      Another piece of technology that has a serious personal connection with the characters are their totems---small objects which the dream-team(haha get it?) keeps on their person at all times to remind them that they are in a dream. These objects are unique to their specific carriers, and each one is chosen carefully. After their introduction into the film, they are promptly never seen again(save for Cobb's which is used more as a symbol of his guilt than a totem).     
      The architecture of the dreams gets the biggest shrug of all. In the beginning, Cobb takes on a young design student by the name of Ariadne(Ellen Page). Ariadne's job is to design the architecture of the dreams that Cobb uses to fool Robert Fischer. There is a sequence in which Cobb's partner Arthur(Joseph Gordon) explains the technique behind building a dream to Ariadne. She catches on quickly(as her archetype always does in these films) and is soon an unrivaled expert at the craft(bet you didn't see THAT coming did you?). But after that tutorial sequence is over, dream architecture is swept under the rug and forgotten. The audience sees Ariadne fiddling with cardboard models for one scene and then "shazam, dreamland is ready!" How she transitions from cardboard models to imagination and illusion is never shown, nor how she saves her work for later.
        Had the love story never been in the film, Nolan would have had more time to better explore the workings and capabilities of all these different technologies. I don't know about the rest of the audience, but I couldn't bring myself to give a shit about the relationship between Cobb and Mal. Yes, it was touching at times and might even be a tear-jerker to some, but I found the entire love story to be an anvil that weighed the film down.  
       This is where Christopher Nolan's genius goes sour. From the matrix of memories in "Memento", through the fire of chaos in "The Dark Knight", to the borderless majesty of dreams in "Inception", Nolan has always demonstrated a remarkable connection, understanding, and love for the ideas he presents. He takes pains for them, demands gracefulness, and explores their different textures, colors, and feelings, all while keeping his work smooth and flowing. His ideas are sharp and clear in his mind, and are thus sharp and clear on-screen. They are brilliant by themselves; so why kisses and flowery love stories are more important to Nolan I will never understand. He robs his own work.
         Liked it for the rush, disliked it for its choices, understood its message clearly, and am mixed about it overall. "Inception" has brilliant ideas, a delectable setting, and a clever scheme, all of which is then dashed against the rocks of yet another movie love story; in other words, the-same-bullshit-as-usual-that-could-have-been-amazing.

Ciao.

LOST---The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: 6 Finale!

In a perfect world, LOST would have ended with a sledgehammer-to-the-skull so thrilling that the government would have to legalize marijuana just to deter people from choosing to bash their skulls with sledgehammers instead. Alas, this is not a perfect world, and LOST did not have a sledgehammer ending. Nevertheless, a relatively feasible amount of closure was reached…with an equally proportional amount of plot holes. 

The Good: 
1. Frank Lepidus is man I would sincerely share a joint with at a party one day. His survival skills and instincts border on the superheroic. 

2. One million internet dollars for all those who caught the “Christian Shephard” joke before the finale. 

3. As cheesy and corny as it is, the church ending is nice. It was a celebration with those characters whose contributions to the show were major, and while it leaves a rather unsavory taste in the mouths of those who were expecting more, a simple ending only proves that the most important part of any story is the journey, not the result. 

4. Ding-dong, the Smoke monster’s dead! 

The Bad: 
1. Oh, the gaping plot holes and unanswered questions. First up: why the fuck would Ben want the island to himself? He needs to preside over a society. He’s pretty useless if he doesn’t. 

2. The very ending itself is a frock stitched with mystery as to what the fuck the sideways universe is supposed to be. I always thought it was just a history of what would have happened if the plane hadn’t crashed. I didn’t think it needed to be anything special to the main storyline. In that way, the ending really disappoints. 

3. After all of Jack’s hardship and intense fighting, Kate is the one that pretty much kills Smokey? I mean, 4,815,162,342 points for teamwork, but that was supposed to be Jack’s kill---in total. Instead, he just got to kick him over a ledge. Why does Kate always have to ruin everyone else's moment? Boo! 

4. "This little light of mine/ I'm gonna plug-it-with-a-rock/This little light of mine/I'm gonna plug-it-with-a-rock/This little light of mine/It will always shine/Go ahead/Take-the-rock-out/But you'll dieeeeeee (unlessyou'reDesmond)." Seriously, the LOST writers have great ideas, but what was the point of the light other than to be a convenient plot device? If the island is as important as Jacob says it is(you know, keeping all the bad stuff in), then why build a way to destroy it? 

The Ugly: 
1. I haven’t seen the alternative endings to the show yet, but I’m hoping they all end the same way and just take different avenues to get there. I say that because if I find out that they are three completely different endings, I’m going to rant and be very mad again; after all, the writers have been telling us for years now that they already knew how it was going to end from the start. 

Answers: 
1. The island exists to keep bad spirits away. All it needs now is a night light; then it could---OOOOOOOOOOH! .....Check. 

“LOST: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Series Wrap-up” coming soon…(brought to you by the Dharma Union of Slug-Hunting Tiny Cats) 

Ciao.