Grinding Out Sausages

I enjoy almost all of the movies I see. And I generally find about half of those to be good movies - films I recommend to people. But only once or twice a year do I see a movie that I like so much that I am re-inspired and firmly reminded why I choose to be a feature filmmaker.

The films in this category are not necessarily the ones that I think are the best movies ever made. Instead, they have some magical combination of writing and execution that strikes a personal chord with me (e.g. The Princess Bride, Groundhog Day, The Shawshank Redemption).

I am unusually fond of the "Gilded Age" and have been for as long as I can remember. Films set in Europe between 1880 and 1915 hold particular appeal for me. I love the aesthetic of that period - the technology, the costumes, the etiquette, etc. Add to that superb acting from Ed Norton and Paul Giamatti, two of my favorites, and a script that is clever and elegant and suspenseful and light, all at the same time, and it's easy to see why The Illusionist is one of my favorite films of the year.

Posted by Mark at 1:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

My friend Scott has posted his diatribe against people who sit through the end-credits of movies. Several of his "film snob" friends (myself included) strongly disagree with him, which makes for a rare debate via blog comments. Hopefully you'll weigh in:

http://writingrobot.com/?p=70

Posted by Mark at 4:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Last night, Jen, Manish and I saw V for Vendetta. My first thoughts were that this film was going to under-perform, especially since we were seeing the 8:00 show opening night yet there was no line outside. (Inside was a good-sized crowd, although not the sell-out I was expecting.)

The movie, however, was amazing. I wasn't familiar with the graphic novel, but I loved the world and the characters the film set up - a very cool update on the fascist future dystopia genre and reminiscent of Orwell's 1984. Natalie Portman is brilliant - just like in Closer, whenever she's on screen, the film is at its best.

There are plenty of not-so-subtle references to the current political climate and leaders, complete with Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, and our own anti-V, W.

But I think it'd be easy to make too much of that. Just as when 1984 was first published in the late 40s, readers saw every character as a thinly veiled WWII figure. I think the real point is that fascism isn't going anywhere and we must maintain a constant vigil against our govnernments and ditto-heads.

It is just too easy for people to surrender their individual liberties as soon as their fear level gets high enough. And it's human nature, at least as a first reaction. (After all, who in the middle of the LA Riots wasn't relieved when the national guard arrived and implemented a city-wide curfew?)

But the real danger comes when politicians try to prolong this state of fear and emergency so that they can keep their unlimited power. Our current administration and its supporters are obsessed with emphasizing that we are at war and reminding us what the current terror alert level is and that the enemy is out there lurking.

This too is nothing new. The McCarthyites did it during the early cold-war. Or as Big Brother put it, "Eastasia has always been at war with Eurasia."

The entire notion of a "War on Terror" is absurd and dangerous, just like a "War on Poverty" or a "War on Drugs".

Posted by Mark at 11:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Last night, Tabitha and I hosted an Oscar-watching party. We ended up with 19 people in our living room, which was a lot of fun.

Despite the naysayers, I think Jon Stewart was the best host yet. The awards themselves were tame and enjoyable as usual.

Although I think Philip Seymour Hoffman is a brilliant character actor, I was disappointed that Joaquin Phoenix didn't win. He may have picked some lame scripts in the past ("Swing Away, Merrill"), but like his dead older brother was quickly becoming, Joaquin is a movie star.

I think everyone agrees that the biggest surprise of the night was Best Picture, the producers' Oscar that I hope to win someday. I imagine most people were surprised that Brokeback Mountain didn't win, which as you know I was glad about. But I was surprised that neither of my top two films won.

My friend Mark always says that Best Picture should be called Most Picture, since the movie that usually wins is simply the biggest production or the film with the grandest theme. He uses this to explain why movies such as Titanic or Gladiator win.

But I love huge movies. And I think there should be an award for Best Production (the original name for the Best Picture Oscar). This year, the film that I think clearly embodies the most picture principle was Munich, and it didn't win a single award.

Posted by Mark at 12:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

The Academy Awards are next Sunday. And like the past 15 years, I'll be watching them on TV. I've come close to attending twice before, but that's another story. For now, I'll continue to offer my thoughts from the peanut gallery:

2005 was a decent year for movies. I don't think any of this year's films will become classics, but on the other hand, there were a lot of very good movies. And all of this year's nominations are better than some past winners like The English Patient or American Beauty.

If I were voting, my order for Best Picture would be:
Munich
Good Night and Good Luck
Crash
Capote
Brokeback Mountain

I think the only film that doesn't belong in the list is Brokeback Mountain. I believe it was only nominated because that is the politically correct vote. I'd be thrilled if a gay-themed film really was the best picture of the year, but Brokeback is a small movie with solid performances that is actually a bit dull. A very good movie, just not one of the five best of the year.

Here are the films I wish had been nominated instead:
Walk the Line
Match Point
The Constant Gardener
A History of Violence
RENT
Syriana
In My Country

Below this tier, these were my favorite films of the year:
Memoirs of a Geisha
The Merchant of Venice
Me, You, and Everyone We Know
The 40 Year Old Virgin
Wedding Crashers
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
Oliver Twist
North Country
In Her Shoes
Bee Season
The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohia
March of the Penguins
Hustle & Flow
Chronicles of Narnia
Harry Potter 4
Kingdom of Heaven
Wallace & Gromit
Mr. & Mrs. Smith
Elizabethtown
Batman Begins
Charlie & the Chocolate Factory
Red Eye
Flightplan

And to be complete and fun, these were the films where I really wanted my time and money back:
Domino
Star Wars 3
King Kong
Lord of War
The Island
Pretty Pursuasion
Hitch
Be Cool
Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy
Layer Cake
Zathura
Aeon Flux
The New World
War of the Worlds
The Bad News Bears
Fantastic 4
Waiting

Posted by Mark at 7:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Tabitha, Jordan, and I finally saw A History of Violence tonight. My friend Mark had invited me to several advance screenings last summer, but watching the newest Cronenberg film just never seemed that high of a priority.

But I should've gone. Because it is quite good. Viggo Mortensen, Ed Harris, William Hurt, and newcomer Ashton Holmes all give amazing performances. The shots are steady and cinematic - none of the extreme close-ups and frenetic editing that plague so many movies. The story - apparently based on a violent graphic novel - is simple and unfolds smoothly. Which is nice, since as Jordan points out, given the source material, in the hands of lesser directors, this could easily have turned into another Sin City.

Posted by Mark at 12:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Last night, Tabitha and I went to the AFI/ArcLight screening of The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio.

The story is charming and the movie entertaining - a bit reminiscent of the book Cheaper By The Dozen fused with 1950s Americana and kitsch.

I went because I'm a huge fan of Julianne Moore. After Far From Heaven and The Hours, she is clearly the go-to actress for portraying the 1950s housewife-as-emotional-prisoner-of-conscience. (Woody Harrelson is quite good as well, although the ten kids are mostly forgettable except for Tuf, who was originally the story's protagonist.)

After the screening, AFI did its requisite Q&A with writer-director Jane Anderson and surprise guest Woody Harrelson. Jane mostly waxed about finding the inner-Buddha in life and her characters, so this Q&A was no less anticlimactic than usual. (Although Woody was funny and self-deprecating, and Jane did reveal that Robert Zemeckis was originally set to direct and she only got to make her feature debut because he couldn't stomach the idea of working with all those children.)

Posted by Mark at 5:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Aleem, Jenn, and I just saw The Constant Gardener. I'm glad it lived up to my expectations, despite the lame title.

For several weeks I've been telling friends to go see it as soon as it opens, even though all I knew about it is that it's set in Africa and stars Ralph Fiennes...oh yeah, and is directed by the guy who made CITY OF GOD.

(Actually, given that, this film has a much more traditional plot than I was expecting. A smart and delicate thriller. Guess I should've realized that it's based on a John Le Carre novel.)

Meirelles is a very visual filmmaker. The sensual cinematography and disjointed editing reminded me that the best movies are more than just compelling plots performed on screen. Story is paramount in my view, but I shouldn't forget that movies are a fine art that owes as much to photography as to the stage.

On the other hand, a few times I thought the imagery montages were a bit indulgent and over-the-top...so it's a fine line.

Anyway, it's a fantastic movie.

Posted by Mark at 2:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)