Detachment (2011)

Promotional still from the movie

Over the holiday weekend, I had the pleasure of seeing "Detachment." The film is directed by Tony Kaye, who is best know for his Oscar nominated film "American History X." This film stars Adrian Brody, Christina Hendricks, Lucy Liu, James Caan, and newcomer Sami Gayle.

The story is that of a long term substitute teacher, Henry Barthes, portrayed by Brody. Henry is a very disconnected person who seems like he has little to no feelings for those around him. He is the lone caretaker of his ailing grandfather, and experiences flashes back into his traumatic past. Somehow he ends up taking in a young girl who was prostituting herself near his apartment building, his aim to help get her back on her feet and off to a youth rehabilitation center. Henry's personal story is the main focus of the film, although it was marketed as a feel good story about a high school substitute that makes a difference in a failing school. His experiences in the high school where he subs is the backdrop for the rest of the issues his character faces. A good portion of his realizations occur while at school, although they focus mainly on his own personal endeavors.

I had been very eager to see this film for a long time and I really enjoyed it. I found that it took an interesting approach to what could otherwise be skewed as a feel good high school film. It presented real life issues in a very bleak light and expected the audience to be able to handle what they saw. Because the directed took this approach, it became apparent that the director was trying to bring a realistic feeling to the film. The realism did not feel forced, but natural. I believed that the issues covered in the film were issues that teenagers and adults face on a regular basis. It also intrigued me how the characters took each issue and personally dealt with it.

One example is one of the girls in Henry's English 10A class. Meredith is a girl who was bullied constantly, an artistic girl who liked taking photos, but was a disappointment to her parents. She wished to go to art school but her parents dashed her dreams, instead continuously berating her for being different. She turned to Henry, who felt burdened by her and unsure if he could help because he felt very similar feelings of emptiness, and so when she felt she had no one else to turn to, she killed herself.

This movie did not play with the emotions of the audience. It gave to viewers exactly what it promised; a bleak vision of a lower middle class high school and the children and adults whose lives center around the school. I give this film an A-.

Midnight Cowboy (1969)

Promotional still from the movie

"Midnight Cowboy" is a film directed by John Schlesigner in 1969. It stars Dustin Hoffman as Ratso and Jon Voight as Joe Buck. I entered the viewing of this film with absolutely no information on it. I was aware that Dustin Hoffman acted in it, but the plot eluded me, so upon my viewing I was pleasantly surprised at what I found.

It is a story of a over eager "cowboy," Joe Buck, who desperately wants to make money. He abandons him job in Texas and moves to New York City to become a male hustler. Joe is naive and unexperienced in the field he wishes to enter, so once he arrives in the Big Apple, he is in for a rude awakening. He is easily taken advantage of by his first customer, and then a slimy Ratso cons him out of $20. He is left penniless and on the streets, resorting to desperate measures to earn any sort of money. Eventually Joe and Ratso reunite and plan to make Joe into an irresistible male companion for all the lonely New York women. The duo never seem to have any success, and them film ends with Ratso's tragic death, leaving the viewer feeling unfulfilled. 

I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I was very excited when it turned out not being about a cowboy on a horse in the middle of the desert. Instead it tackled some very serious topics, such as the modern condition of a society and how difficult it is to become successful in the wake of the late 60's with all the forces of nature pushing you towards failure. Joe Buck is fighting against an infrastructure that has been in place for decades and it is entirely impossible for him to break in to. There is also the fact of repression and how Joe is not only escaping Texas to find a new job, but because of a past that is so traumatic that is sits in his subconscious, subtly eating away at his sanity. 

Stylistically, what made the film unique was it's editing. It used a form of montage in which images and frames were spliced together to create a dramatic and unsettling feeling. This montage style of editing was most effective during moments when Joe was unwillingly coming face to face with his past. Joe, in his shocked and unhinged state, would retreat back into his mind and the images that flashed upon the screen were from the event from his past that changed his life. As the film progresses, Joe has more and more of these visions in which he must face his past. Each time, the audience is given a little bit more information to go on, until finally realizing just what happened to Joe that made him so desperate to become a prostitute. 

I thoroughly enjoyed this film and would suggest it to any one who is interested in a unique look into the time of the late 60's. I give this film a A. 

Cloud Atlas (2012)

Poster byWORKS ADV

"Cloud Atlas" is a science fiction film directed by Lana and Andy Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer. The film takes places over generations and ages and realities and dreams and fantasies. The film stars Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Ben Whishaw, and Xun Zhou.

"Cloud Atlas" does not follow a linear story line in that it recounts the tale of a main character in straightforward fashion. Instead it cuts back and forth between characters and these characters individual tales. The film has many main characters across various eras and times. The stories of these characters at first seem to be standalone stories, but by the end of the film it becomes apparent that all the stories are somehow connected in one way or another. Something interesting about the film: the actors did not only play one role, but played many roles over all the different narratives.

What I found most intriguing about this film was it's use of storytelling. Each character passed through their story as if they singlehandedly controlled their own destiny. As the narrative progressed, however, it became apparent to the viewer, as well as the character, how very untrue this mentality was. The characters were no more in control of their own life as they could be in control of another humans life. The film was more about the codependency of a race, of a group of people, of a couple than anything else. It became clear that each character and their existence was only made possible by the reliance on others. The message of the film, often repeated by the characters across story lines, was that everyone is connected. Characters who lived in a Neo Soeul in 2114 were dependent on those characters who lived in Victorian England, and so on and so forth.

If I were to have a complaint about this film, however, it would be directly related to one of the story lines followed. Tom Hanks and Halle Berry both star in in one tale titled "The Hawaiian Islands on post apocalyptic earth (dated 2321)." My largest complaint was primarily the dialogue and how it was spoken. The lines given to the actors was written in a severe reconstruction of the English language, a new vernacular of sorts for those on earth who survived the apocalypse. Whenever this story was on screen, I had a hard time paying attention due to the fact that I couldn't understand a word that was being spoken. This drew me out of the film experience, which is one of my greatest pet peeves. If it were to eliminate this story entirely from the film, I would have had a much more pleasant time watching the film.

I enjoyed "Cloud Atlas" overall. I found it entertaining, and at some parts even moving. I will rate it a C+ only because at times I felt the message of the film was being continuously repeated as if I was unable to understand it. I also thought "Cloud Atlas" was trying to desperately to be what "Tree of Life" (directed by Terrence Malick) was two summers ago.

Beloved (2011)

Promotional still from the film

Christophe Honoré is by far my favorite director. I first came across his films in high school when I rented his film Dans Paris from Blockbuster. Since that chance encounter with him, I have not been able to get enough. I've seen pretty much his entire filmography, and that includes films produced by him, presented by him, written by him, and of course those directed by him. Until seeing Beloved, however, I had never seen one of his films in theaters. So when I saw that the Criterion Cinema in downtown New Haven was showing it, I knew it was a chance I couldn't pass up.

Honoré has a very distinct style. It is often celebrated by critics, but also condemned. After the release of his 2004 Ma Mère and 2006 Dans Paris, Honoré was praised as the grandchild of the New Wave, which is one of the most influential film movements of the recent age. In recent years, however, he has been criticized as becoming too sentimental. With this last sentiment, I would have to disagree. 

Beloved is Honoré's second musical. It follows the lives of two women over the course of their lives, documenting their loves and their losses and everything in between. The two women are mother and daughter. The mother, played by legendary Catherine Deneuve, has long standing affair with the love of her life, father of her child, and once husband, even though she divorced him and married again. The daughter falls in love with a gay man, all the while ignoring the one man who loves her for who she is. 

The film is documented in segments of decades. This allows the exploration of various facets of the women's lives and how time has or hasn't changed them. There is also a parallel created between mother and daughter. Decisions that have been made by the mother are decisions that the daughter tries desperately to replicate, but the gravity of her situation of being in love with a gay man forever blocked her from any type of true happiness or contentedness that her mother might have found. This can show the affects of an upbringing and the environment that a child grows up in, not to mention the changing of the times. While the mother remains married to her current husband, having an affair on the side, she finds a way to balance her lives and have some semblance of happiness. The mother is from a time of the past, where a sort of restrained nature is applauded over acting out. This is a time that the daughter can't replicate. Even with the openness of relationships and sexuality in the modern age, the daughter cannot hold together the two relationships she has, the one with the gay man and the one with the man who truly loves her.

As a whole, the film was very well put together. It was very distinctly Honoré, which is what I love to see. There is a lack of explanation in his films, but rather a focus on shots to do the explaining lost in the dialogue. A lot of what you feel when watching Beloved comes from from exactly that, watching. There is much more to pick up from the photography than from the writing. The only thing I would have to put in the negatives for this film was it's soundtrack. The fact that the film was a musical greatly took away from its impact. Aside from one or two of the songs, most of the music felt forced and out of place. It felt like I was watching a musical rather than a film, which Honoré has avoided in the past. Over all I give this film a B-. 

2012 Film Challenge

This post isn't going to be a movie review this week. Sorry folks! I had a very interesting experience that I felt would be relevant to share in place of a review.

This weekend I participated in a 48 Hour Film Challenge. The basis of this challenge was to write, shoot, and edit a film within 48 hours. The only catch is that you don't know what film you will be shooting until 7:00 pm on the first day. The challenge gives each team a genre, line of dialogue, prop, and character, and each team must incorporate those elements into their film in order to be qualified.

This isn't my first time participating in a 48 Hour Film Challenge. I, along with three other teammates, participated in the New Haven festival over the summer. Unfortunately we didn't submit our film on time and were subsequently disqualified. This time around, however, went much more smoothly.

My team name was Lemon Difficult, and I had the pleasure of working with Matt Lumas, Matt Scripter, Nicole Caputo, Marc Womp, Joe Brown, Paul Kazmierski, Caitlin Read, and Albert Prempeh. Our elements are as follows:

Genre: Western,  Prop: Skeleton Key, Character: Cassidy Denver, drummer, Line of Dialogue: "And that's how I learned..."

Friday Oct. 19 we received our elements and began brainstorming. We finished our script around 9 pm and began storyboarding. By midnight our story and shots were hammered out and we were ready for a day full of shooting. We had a call time of 8:30 am Saturday, at which all of the cast and crew transferred all of the equipment to our location and set up. By 11:30 am we were film, and by 4 pm we call it a wrap. We spent the rest of the day editing and didn't finish editing until 11 pm on Sunday.

Out of a hectic 48 hours came "No Better Justice." I am very pleased with the final product. I am especially pleased considering it was my first time directing a crew for a creative piece, so I was glad to expand my boundaries and pick up some experience. I also got to try my hand at a little editing, although the bulk of the editing was left to the very talked Matt Scripter.

Above I posted the video to our film. Feel free to give it a watch and don't hesitate to let me know what you think!

Argo (2012)

Photo courtesy of mubi.com

Argo is a film directed by and staring Ben Affleck. It is Affleck's third feature length release, following the highly successful The Town, which came out in 2010. As soon as I saw a trailer for this film, I knew I was interested in seeing it. Affleck has been praised for his ability to make engaging and commercially successful movies. The film also stars Bryan Cranston and John Goodman.

The film follows the Iranian Hostage Crisis which happened from 1979-1981. It does not follow the 54 Americans that were held hostage, however, but the 6 American's that managed to flee during the storming of the American Embassy. It follows their stay at the Canadian ambassador's house and the CIA mission fronted by CIA operative Tony Mendez that resulted in their rescue. The operation that saved the Americans followed Mendez's idea that the American's and himself would pose as a Canadian film crew in Iran to scout locations for an exotic science fiction thriller. Mendez arrived in Iran and gave the American's all new identities that they would need to memorize overnight. At first they were skeptical of this mission, unsure if trusting Mendez would result in their rescue, or their capture.

All in all, the film was entirely gripping. For it's duration, I found that I was on the edge of my seat and unable to contain my anxiety. A lot of the films greatness came from it's ability to hold the audience in the palm of it's hand. Through the use of shallow focus and the gradual change from long shot to extreme close up, and occasionally the drastic juxtaposition of long shot and close up, added to it's thrilling nature. I never once found my mind drifting to another another topic. The film is exactly 2 hours in length, but the pacing was genius in that I thought I had only been watching the screen for an hour.

Argo has very positive prospects for being nominated during the upcoming award season. The acting credentials were massively impressive, however I find it difficult to believe that any of the actors will receive nominations, especially with the minimal screen time given to any of the actors. The main focus of the film was the rescue of the Americans, instead of any exploration of any character strange.

I suggest this film to anyone who loves fast paced and thrilling adventures. Also anyone who is mildly interested in history. I give this film a B+.

Bullhead (2011)

Screen Shot captured from film

I've been wanting to see Bullhead for a very long time, and thankfully my roommate ordered the film off Amazon.com so we had the pleasure of viewing it on Oct. 3. The film's country of origin is Belgium, and therefore it's proper title is Rundskop, although it's anglicized title is Bullhead. It was directed by Michael R. Roskam and was released in 2011.

The film follows Jacky Vanmarsenille, played by Matthias Schoenaerts, a young cattle farmer who enters into a shady deal with a Flemish beef trader. Their agreement involves Jacky illegally injecting his cattle with undetectable steroids to be sold to the trader. As soon as Jacky enters into this agreement, he realizes his mistake and does everything in his ability to somehow break their contract. While that main plot unfolds, there is also a subplot that follows Jacky's own drug addiction which stems from an early childhood trauma.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It may have had the facade of your run of the mill gangster saga, but unlike Lawless, Bullhead played to it's strengths. Yes, the main plot followed a gang related tale, but it was the subplot that propelled the film, and at times overshadowed. The main plot of illegally injecting cattle with steroids acted as a sort of metaphor for Jacky's drug addiction. It is startling to see in one shot Jacky injecting his cows, and then in the very next shot Jacky injecting himself. Most of the time, shots of Jacky shooting up where juxtaposed with close ups of the cattle moving through their pens.

 Jacky's code name to the police is fittingly "Bullhead." It makes sense to compare Jacky to his animals, especially a bull. The reason Jacky started injecting drugs was due to the loss of his testicles when he was a child after being brutally attack by another boy. Jacky feels entirely useless in the sense that he cannot give live or provide for a woman the way he feels is natural. He looks to himself as a steer, which is a castrated bull, and views himself to be wholly useless to the collective. He is entirely singular and alone. It makes sense that he is called Bullhead, however, because he projects the image of normalcy onto his life, and his desire to be a "bull" overshadows any other desire he might have. He injects steroids to numb the pain of his loss of masculinity and to make up for the fact that he can't ever be what he so yearns to be.

The metaphor of animality in the film is a strong one. Quite plainly, Jacky is a beast. He views himself as one, as do most other characters of the film. His cruel and untamable nature is showcased when he tortures two mechanics, brutally beats a man outside of a nightclub, and when he climactically ends his own life by overdosing on the very drugs that he injects into his cattle. And strangely, just as it is natural to feel remorse at the fact that animals are put on hormones and injected with steroids, it is remorseful to see Jacky go. Just as an animal is helpless, Jacky is helpless.

I would recommend this film to anyone who has an interest in foreign film, as well as an interest in film that works as a metaphor. It is vastly engaging, and also makes for a good conversation after you finish viewing. I give it a B+.

Lawless (2012)

Lawless is a film directed by John Hillcoat. I viewed this film a couple weeks ago at Criterion Cinema located in Downtown New Haven, which, as a side note, is my favorite of all theaters in the greater New Haven area. The film is based on the true story of the Bondurant brothers and their exploits as bootleggers of moonshine during the Great Depression. The film stars Tom Hardy, Shia LaBeouf, Guy Pearce, Jessica Chastain, and Gary Oldman.

I was skeptical when going into this film, having followed its progress through pre-prodution, filming, and post-production. It had many reshoots and renamings, all clues to the instability of the production process, which lead me to question its merit as a film. Once the trailer was released, my fears were confirmed. A once interesting concept had probably been shaped into a flimsy Hollywood action release. The cinematic merit that had shone during its early days had obviously been lost under the corporate hands of The Weinstein Company, the films distributor.

All in all, the film was a major disappointment. Not even halfway through, I felt myself huffing and puffing at the overly genre-likened writing and bland cinematography. I could not find anything remotely unique about this gangster era gunslinging movie. It could not come close to competing with the likeness of Bonnie and Clyde (1967), a film that took the gangster genre to a level not yet explored. Bonnie and Clyde added a depth and motivation into their characters, where as the writing in Lawless striped the characters of any true meaning, and placed all motivations under sexual desire without allowing for any explanation.

My largest complaint, however, was the over sexualization of the female characters. The Bondurant brothers essentially used their bootlegging business as a means to acquire the female body, and because of this, the women of the film were automatically subjugated to only live in the eye of desire. An example of this is when Shia LaBeouf's character wishes to join in with his brothers and become a successful member of the Bondurant team. He makes it a point to become the most successful and flashy member of the family through the purchasing of new stylish clothes and high end cars. He does this only to impress a lowly amish girl who has caught his eye. He does not actually care for the business of bootlegging, only the business of watching the amish girl remove her clothes. Mia Wasikowska, who plays the amish girl, is over sexualized throughout the duration of the film because she is seen through the horny eye of LaBeouf's character. The way this is done is through the "peeper technique," in which the camera stealthily hides itself from the person being captured. In various scenes, she is caught in compromising positions due to this technique. Also, instead of focusing entirely on her face during important scenes between LaBeouf and her, the camera instead hovers over the curve of her collar bones or focuses directly on her moving lips. She is no longer a woman, but an object reduced to the sensual portions of her body.

I would not suggest this movie to anyone who does not want to waste their time. However, if you are looking for a fast passed and meaningless action film, please be my guest.

The Master (2012)

Photo from film's trailer

This weekend I had the pleasure of viewing Paul Thomas Anderson's most recent feature length release titled The Master. Anderson in most known for his 2007 film titled There Will Be Blood which stars Daniel Day-Lewis. Because There Will Be Blood is regarded by many critics as one of the best films of the last decade, the release of The Master was highly anticipated.

The film follows a disenchanted WW2 veteran named Freddie Quell, portrayed by Joaquin Phoenix, as he drifts from place to place in the troubling period after the end of the war. He eventually finds his way onto a cruise vessel belonging to a Lancaster Dodd, played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, the leader of a strange new religion calling itself The Cause. Dodd, noticing the restless and uncontrollable nature of Quell takes the young man under his wing and calls him his protege. The rest of the film follows the budding relationship between Quell and Dodd, and their experiences with the ever growing notoriousness of The Cause.

At the end of the film I was left wondering "What was the point?" I wondered what questions Anderson had posed for the viewer and whether or not they had been answered. I then realized that from the start there may not have been direct questions asked, but rather themes placed strategically for the viewer to find. 

One of the themes, and in my opinion the most important, revolved entirely around Freddie and his desires, mainly sexual desires. Although it is never implicitly stated why Freddie does what he does, it can be gathered through cinematic elements just how sexually deprived Freddie is and how this dictates his every decision. One scene in particular is about halfway through the film in which Dodd and his followers are having a party. Dodd takes in into his own hands to dance and sing around the room. The camera at first focuses mainly on Dodd and his endeavors as an entertainer. It then cuts to a close up of Freddie as he gazes lustfully past the camera. It then cuts back to the exact shot of Dodd dancing and singing around the room, but this time all the females that had been previously clothed were now entirely naked. This shows that the eye of the camera is actually the lustful eye of Freddie. The camera can no longer be a trusted viewfinder. The viewer is no longer watching a story unfold from the outside of a fishbowl, but rather under Freddie's biased, sexual perception.

Another example of this theme, and perhaps the most telling, happens later on in the film. Dodd, Quell, Dodd's daughter and her husband head out into an unnamed desert. It is here that Dodd invents a game called "Pick a Point" in which you ride on a motorcycle as fast as you can towards the point you picked on the horizon. Dodd goes first, speeding off into the distance in unmatchable bliss. This camera follows him in a profile medium shot before switching to an extreme close up of Dodd's ecstatic face. The next shot is a wide shot of Dodd riding back towards his companions. When it is Freddie's turn to ride the bike, the camera follows him just as it followed Dodd in a profile medium shot. It then cuts to a wide shot of the motorcycle as it speeds further and further away from the camera. The next time the viewer sees Quell is as he walks up the steps of the house belonging to Doris, the woman he calls the love of his life. Freddie's desire to see his sweetheart is much greater than returning on the motorcycle to Dodd, the man who has become his father figure. His overwhelming need to be loved in a sexual way propels his decisions, and propels him away from the safety provided to him by The Cause.

It has been said that The Master is a criticism on the infamous religion of Scientology. The film does shed a negative light on Dodd's Cause, and there are many similarities between it and Scientology, but it never implicitly connects itself to Scientology, which leads me to believe that perhaps this is not the main thing Anderson was trying to convey. Instead, I believe Anderson was focused on intimate character studies and exploration of themes, such as sexual desire. As an overall film, The Master can at times be static, but I find that this is intentional and has a pleasing effect. Anderson's use of extreme close ups juxtaposed with wide shots gives the viewer a feeling of unease coupled with claustrophobia. As a viewer, we are intruding on these intimate experiences and displays of lust, and then forced to come to terms with them when thrown into extreme wide shots.

As an overall film, I would say The Master is an accomplishment for Anderson. I certainly enjoyed it much more than his previous effort of There Will Be Blood. My rating as of right now is an A- and I recommend everyone to go and see it. 

"Fasten your seat belts. It's gonna be a bumpy night."

So here were go, my first post on my new blog. I want to start off by introducing myself. My name is Chelsea Rowan and I was born and raised in Southern New Jersey, just five minutes over the bridge from Philadelphia, PA. I currently attend the University of New Haven in West Haven, CT as a Communications - film major with a minor in English. 

I've been meaning to start a blog like this for some time, but an assignment from one of my college professors has finally forced me to set it in motion. At the beginning of this year, I gave myself the task to watch 365 films by December 31, 2012. A daunting objection, as I'm sure you know. That would mean I would have to watch at least one film a day, and that's not including any days I may miss. My current tally of films can be found here. 

You'll notice from reading this blog that I utilize mubi.com quite frequently. MUBI is an incredible website for any person who loves film. They describe themselves as "an online movie theater where you can watch, discover, and discuss auteur cinema." The website offers some great features, such as their list feature which allows me to keep a running total of all the movies I've seen in the past year. Not only this, but they offer users the chance to rate films on a 5 star scale, add films to an "I Want To Watch" list and a "My Favorite Films" list. You can personalize your page according to your favorite movies, list your favorite directors and actors, as well as you're favorite styles of film. It's entirely interactive with message boards and comments that the writers for the site often join in on. Possibly one of their coolest features is MUBI Garage, which is an online production studio and workshop for aspiring filmmakers. As you can see, I obviously love MUBI and encourage any and all film fans to give it a try. Not to mention, it will be a crucial reference point for a lot of this blog, so just keep that in mind. 

As for the point of this blog, I intend to post here whenever I see a film. It might be a film that is currently in theaters, or a film that has been sitting idly on my Netflix Instant Queue for over a year. Each movie will receive their own post documenting my initial reactions to the film, and then a more calculated response once I have given it more thought. I will constantly be asking for suggestions, so feel free to leave me a comment if there is something you think I should watch. I hope I keep up with this as much as I plan to. Wish me luck!