Four Eyed Monsters
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Tour Spout | Sign up

SpoutBlog on spout.com

  • Happy-Go-Lucky Review and Interview

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Happy-Go-Lucky  (2008)

    This story originally appeared during the Telluride Film Festival. Mike Leigh’s Happy-Go-Lucky opens in theaters today.

    Mike Leigh’s Happy-Go-Lucky begins as a leisurely yet engaging character study, seemingly unconcerned with a traditional conflict/resolution narrative. Sally Hawkins’ performance as Poppy, a bubbly, sarcastic, and endearing elementary school teacher is a delight to watch. An hour into the film, I pleasantly resigned myself to enjoying it as a disconnected series of episodes. This could have been annoying, if not for the stellar performance by Hawkins. Her comedy and breezy demeanor nearly covers Poppy’s immaturity and apparent fear of commitment, while still giving us a glimpse that something more lurks beneath all the giggles and quips.

    The character is so delightful, in fact, it almost comes as a surprise when conflict eventually erupts between her and her driving instructor Scott, played by Eddie Marsan. It’s a marvel that the animosity between these two characters, and the eventual resolution, is so well-rendered, considering how late it appears in the film. This is by no means sloppy filmmaking on the part of Leigh. On the contrary, he has perfected a sort of inverse method of story telling. Whereas normally we are dumped into a narrative-in-progress and bombarded by exposition to let us know who the characters are supposed to be, Leigh takes his time, building his characters first, then letting the drama follow.

    When I asked him if the conflict between Poppy and Scott was part of the initial concept of the film, he said, “No…you explore and develop, and out of it comes the drama. It can’t be there at the beginning because you have to have the characters there before you have the drama.”

    Leigh’s unique way of working becomes apparent as we live with the characters on screen. Rather than starting with a script, he creates a rough outline. The dialog and the characters are developed with the actors. “I gathered together talented actors and collaborated with them to create characters and bring the whole world of the film into existence through a very long creative process that lasted months. And you know my job is to guide all of that so that I can draw from it and build as we go along.”

    As mentioned, Poppy is a chipper if somewhat immature single woman. Encouraged by her longtime roommate, she decides it’s time to learn to drive. This reveals her penchant for procrastination, given that she’s thirty years old. Scott, the driving instructor, is her polar opposite in every way. If Poppy is the living embodiment of good-natured chaos, Scott embodies a bitter adherence to order. Even while their squabbles seem purely comic, it’s clear that these characters are different at the very core.

    Leigh makes sure that the actors’ knowledge of the film matches their characters knowledge of the film. “The simple principle is this: They only know what their characters would know. They are liberated to see the film from their character’s point of view. They aren’t inhibited or distracted by an overview of the film. Apart from anything else, what you have to remember is my way of making films is that their journey of exploration…is my journey too. So it’s not as if I start with an absolutely clear fixed set of ideas about exactly what the film is going to be and then just carry it out. I really embark on a journey with everybody to discover the movie. … It’s about creating a space for the actor to be completely creative and to collaborate with me on creating the characters. And because each actor only sees the world of the film from his or her character’s point of view, then it means that it can be totally truthful.”


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Twilight Suddenly Looks Awesome. Clip of the Day

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Spider-Man  (2002)

    The Express  (2008)

    Twilight  (2008)

    Max Payne  (2008)

    I knew from the recent Hollywood Reporter feature on Twilight that Summit Entertainment planned to release a new trailer more geared toward a male audience, but I never would have guessed they’d do such a damn good job of it. I’ve been hating on this movie from the beginning, but now part of me is actually thinking I’d like to see it. And I bet a lot of teenage boys will be thinking the same, only more so.

    This is pure genius marketing, and it would have been in Summit’s favor to have gone this route all along. What with superheroes so huge right now, why hadn’t they already tried to sell this thing as being like a comic book movie rather than a sappy adaptation of goth chick lit? Wasn’t that bit of dialogue referencing Spider-Man and Superman in the film the whole time? Such a line needs to be exploited, and it’s a shame the fledgling studio took so long to employ it. This trailer is seriously what Summit should have shown at Comic-Con.

    Well, better late than never, right? Considering there’s more than a month left before Twilight hits theaters, it’s not too late. But since the young Stephenie Meyer fans are already sold on the film and its romantic elements, Summit should definitely concentrate on this trailer and possible TV spots cut from it. Air commercials during Smallville and Heroes (if anyone is still watching that confused and redundant mess they’ll certainly be turned on by how much cooler Twilight looks than Season 3 so far). Run the trailer ahead of male-friendly movies like Max Payne, Quantum of Solace and maybe even a football movie like The Express.

    Young girls are still going to be the majority of the audience for this film, and they may even be the only ones who come away satisfied with it, but don’t be surprised if you see a lot of boys in the audience (myself included), too.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Felon Fest: The Sounds in Our Pretty Little Heads

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Vantage Point  (2008)


    Last weekend, I stumbled home from seeing Ballast at New York’s Film Forum, stunned at its contemplative regard for human-sized people working out their human-sized problems. Gorgeous. Some great films leave you a staggering drunk; Ballast is one of those greats that leave you hobbled but stone sober, lucid, hearing through walls. So when I plopped down on my bunk that night, you can imagine how rattled I was to hear Dennis Quaid getting keelhauled by automobile across a strip mall. That’s what it sounded like, anyway. There were about fifteen minutes of squalling tires, shrieks, Mr. Quaid growling incomprehensible orders, glass shattering, curses in several languages, metallic sobbing/slapping/ripping noises.

    The ruckus was coming from the next bed, from Salaam’s portable DVD player. He was half-awake, his leg dangling from the top bunk, head nodding then springing up at the more violent eruptions. I said, “Yo, Salaam, what’s that you watching, Innerspace?” Salaam perked up. “Nah. What the **** is Innerspace?”

    “Dennis Quaid shrinks down and goes inside Rick Moranis—no, Martin Short.”

    “Goes inside—what? You be watching some weird shit, man. Nah, this is Vantage Point.”

    “Oh, yeah, right.”

    I remembered the trailer for Vantage Point, which was just like being keelhauled through Barcelona: The plot involves an assassination of the U.S. President at an outdoor gathering in that city, seen from several vantage points, including that of Secret Service pro Dennis Quaid. Quaid, Forest Whitaker and others in the international coffee cast go on a white-knuckle race against time to piece together the crime.  In the trailer, as in the film, the chaos—the keelhauling—starts early and rarely lets up.

    I overhear it a lot at the house, emanating from thrillers-on-bootleg like Street Kings and Eagle Eye: a wall of sound. And I’m not talking Sigur Ros here. Isolated from the picture, many of these films sound like an undending cycle of shouts, rapes, baptisms, humiliations, bloody births, tortures, demented soliloquies and procedural jargon whispered in the stuttered breaths of a masturbator on the verge. These movies sound clammy and sweaty, anxious to get you to buy, like a Mid-Manhattan electronics dealer. These movies sound like they want in your panties and in your wallet, at once, or they will taser your nerves with ugly sounds until you submit. These movies also sound like they’re out to impress as much as molest. Shock and awe.

    But, just as I don’t suppose there was much genuine awe in Baghdad on the morning of March 20, 2003, I doubt that too many mouths are hanging open at these films’ sense of spectacle. These movies are desperate to bring off a feeling of technological might and national will, but they sound like the aural equivalent of a short gym rat talking shit outside the club. These movies want to be paeans to the strength and resolve of our institutions, the genius of those who devise, attend to and even subvert them. The worst of these so far this year is The Dark Knight, a summer movie that lingers in the cellar of my memory next to spinal surgery and getting jumped in the street. Its “complexities” and “dark themes” threw many critics off the trail of its central thesis: Whatever dialectic struggle lawmen and criminals are locked in matters far less than the finesse and awesomeness on each side. The wonderful toys, and our heroes’/villains’ mastery of them, are the takeaway. These movies flatter the professional classes, protectors and captains of industry with the romance of their own stalwart super-competence. The rest of us are meant to bow and be grateful we have them around to keep this crazy world from falling in on our fragile little heads. Or so I hear.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • YEAST and NIGHTS & WEEKENDS: Greta Gerwig x 2

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    With Mary Bronstein’s Yeast debuting on DailyMotion tonight, and Joe Swanberg’s Nights and Weekends opening this weekend at the IFC Center, the two SXSW 2008 premieres starring Greta Gerwig will suddenly become available to a non-festival audience simultaneously. When I heard this was going to happen, I dug up some of the press Gerwig has garnered over the past year, most of it pegged to her appearance in the Duplass brothers’ Baghead. I quickly noticed a trend: Gerwig has been covered exhaustively by male writers who a) have a tendency to label her an “ingenue” or an “‘it’ girl“, and b) devote much column space to the question of whether or not Gerwig’s main talent is playing herself.

    Certainly, the great success of Hannah Takes the Stairs, the highly improvised project on which the pixie-cute actress collaborated with Swanberg and friends, is that it parts of it seem so lacking in cinematic artifice, they can play as glimpses into lives in progress. But if Hannah seems real enough to reach through the screen and touch, Gerwig’s title character is too exasperating to make that a particularly attractive proposition (or maybe not: almost like a classic femme fatale, it’s hard to deny her appeal even as she’s leaving you for your best friend). So when in Baghead, she plays a pixie-cute actress collaborating with friends on a highly improvised project––who drinks too much, takes little convincing to remove her top, and ultimately ends up with the funny, schlubby nerd––it seems too coincidental to be fiction, and apparently too cute to resist.

    Gerwig hasn’t resisted the suggestion that the roles she plays grow out of who she is, but Nights and Yeast add two disparate but fully realized characters to her repertoire. Yeast is, for some, an endurance exercise; for me, it’s a comedy, and on the contrary, it’s the comparatively gentle but fundamentally flawed Nights and Weekends (on which Gerwig is billed as co-writer/director alongside Swanberg, and co-producer alongside Swanberg, Anish Savjani and Dia Sokol) which tries patience. If the latter shows Gerwig pushing a character way beyond adorable, it often feels like an exhausting exercise for all involved. It’s her work as Yeast’s only semi-relatable comic relief that throws up a middle finger at the ingenue concept, literally.

    I’ve written a great deal about Yeast and don’t want to rehash too much of my previous ramblings here. But watching the film this week for the first time in months, it was impossible to ignore the lack of vanity amongst all three actresses. In a film with concerns about as far as you can get from the bedroom-bound romantic roundelays associated with the M-word, Gerwig’s crunchy Gen is sweaty and zitty and nothing at all like the DIY sweetheart at the center of so many Arts & Culture profiles. Both a catalyst for the film’s girl-on-girl violence and the only character in the film who seems to be a stone’s throw away from the ability to be civil, Gen’s vacant smile is both compelling and really unsettling. Punctuating sentences with a Butthead-like “heh”, Gen’s grin never fully matches up with her ping-ponging eyes.

    Those who want to stick to their perception of Gerwig as the quirky, if frequently topless, object of desire would best be advised to stick to Nights and Weekends. Or would they? Though both Swanberg and Gerwig cross nudity off the checklist in the first scene, Gerwig spends much of the first third of this naturalistic long-distance relationship drama cast in the role of insecure shrew. Her Mattie, a New York-based nursing student who visits boyfriend James (Swanberg) in the depths of a Chicago winter, waste precious nestling time needling, a bad, nervous habit which hits its zenith with the shriek, “I don’t respond to sarcastic fun!” Mattie’s obsession with controlling every moment feels unnatural, and Gerwig’s plays it with unexpected affectations, her voice snapping quickly from deep mumble to high-pitched sing-song of doom.

    I’ve seen the film twice now, and both times I’ve struggled to find a way in until almost half-way through. I now think it’s because Gerwig doesn’t ever seem to play to her expected strengths until about thirty minutes in. By this time, the action has jumped to New York, and Mattie is dead scared, apparently both of losing James and of being bonded to him for life by a baby. In the midst of a conversation between James and Mattie about the sincerity of “I love yous”, the camera settles on a reaction shot of Gerwig, her pupils drifting off into the corners of her eyes. At this point, the actress seems to suddenly yank the reigns of a film that just a moment earlier felt as if it was to floating without direction, and demands that we pay attention. We come to realise that the first section of the film feeds into an incredibly delayed punchline: the pattern of conflict that Gerwig and Swanberg set up at the start and then leave behind eventually pays off, but it doesn’t really happen until Night’s final ten minutes. I’m not sure if the wait is ever made all the way worth it, but it’s ameliorated by Gerwig’s performance in the film’s final scenes, in which Mattie temporarily gives up control, and then, suddenly and rather spectacularly, reclaims it.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • City of Ember Review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Monster House  (2006)

    City of Ember  (2008)

    Bill Murray in The City of Ember

    I’ve been a fan of Jeanne DuPrau’s Ember book series for several years now, having found them to be a great blend of post-apocalyptic dreariness and steampunk tomfoolery, and all in a young adult book. Tom Hanks’ Playtone production company must have thought so too, since they optioned The City of Ember and gave it to Gil Kenan (Monster House) to direct. I was able to see City of Ember at Fantastic Fest, and it’s sadly not the Ember adaptation I’d been hoping for.

    The basic plot of Ember is set up in the opening moments of the film, which show how the City of Ember was created in an effort to keep the human race going after the surface of the Earth has been ravaged by … something, maybe a virus, war, an infestation of zombies, or who knows what. Ember is sealed with a time capsule that is given to the mayor, and it is set to open in 200 years. Over generations the box is handed from mayor to mayor, but it accidentally becomes lost and forgotten about.

    Lina, played by Saoirse Ronan, receives her job on Assignment Day, along with the rest of her class. You choose a position by drawing a slip of paper out of a musty bag (it makes the Sorting Hat in Harry Potter look like your best friend in comparison), and this is the job you’ll have for the rest of your life. Lina draws up the dreaded Pipeworks job, which will keep her deep in the bowels of Ember. However, her classmate Doon (Harry Treadaway), who longs to do something useful and wants to try to get close to the Generator to see if he can fix it, has picked Messenger, and he eagerly wants to trade with Lina, which she is more than happy to do. In their respective jobs, Doon soon finds out that the city is barely running as it is, and that no one really has an idea what to do about the future. The generator, which powers the entire city of keeps the lights on, has been prone to blackouts that keep getting longer and longer, citizens have begun venturing out into the dark and encountering strange beasts, and Lina is passing strange messages from the Mayor (Bill Murray) to a storeroom worker named Looper (Mackenzie Crook, better known as Gareth from the British The Office).

    That’s where our protagonist Poppy comes in. It’s readily apparent that Ember is doomed, but luckily Lina finds her younger sister Poppy eating shreds of paper out of a mysterious box…the very same box that was passed down from generation to generation, and had become lost. Lina pieces the scraps back together and finds instructions for leaving Ember. However, Lina has been causing problems for the mayor, who has also learned that she has the mysterious box. Cue the chase scene, with Doon, Lina, and Poppy barely making it out of Ember alive. As they ascend to the surface, they spy Ember barely visible far down below through a crack in the Earth, and drop a rock down with instructions tied to it. Thankfully, it doesn’t bash someone’s brains in.

    The real disappointment of the film is that you never get a real feeling of what life is like in Ember, which is more fully explored in the books. For instance, the Library of Ember isn’t even mentioned in the film, and it plays a large part in the novel. The little details from the book that flesh out the world don’t exist, like the delight Poppy feels when she finds a new color of crayon that she’s never seen before. This was a temporary world that was meant to be lived in for only 200 years, and it’s nearly 50 years past that date when the events of the movie/book occur.

    There are moments created for the film that try and capture this: an answering machine is run by Lina on a combination sewing machine/treadmill to lull Poppy to sleep, the Pipeworks is a mess of patches and half-rigged bypass valves. Tim Robbins plays Doon’s father, and he is constantly tinkering with machinery, and Martin Landau plays a narcoleptic pipeworker alongside Doon.

    Throughout the climax, I was constantly reminded of The Goonies, when they were being chased by the Fratellis through the waterslide sequence. That felt real and terrifying as a kid, but the CGI water effects in Ember feel fake and transparent. There’s no real terror on the faces of the actors, despite the fact that a virtual tidal wave is hurtling them at breakneck speed past razor sharp rocks and stalagtites. There’s no imminent sense of danger for these kids, and that goes for the entire film, not just the ending.

    The world of Ember is certainly realistic, and they’ve done a good job combining some of the digital effects with the massive set they created in Belfast. It’s just a pity that we don’t spend much time at all with the Generator, which is practically a living, breathing entity in the novel. It’s the lifeblood of the city, huge and mysterious, yet no one knows much about it, although no one is willing to admit that. The film would have benefited from having an antagonist aside from the comical antics of Murray as the mayor. His part, and Looper’s, seem like they were cast for comic effect, and as a result Lina is left without a real nemesis––or, at least, one that seems threatening.

    At the Q&A for Ember at Fantastic Fest, Bill Murray was asked why he decided to work on the project, and he said he’d heard the words “Young Spielberg” thrown around when people were referring to director Gil Kenan. Let’s hope that Ember is his Duel or his Sugarland Express, and that his Jaws is still forthcoming. Young audience members will probably enjoy Ember for the visuals, but adults will find it lacking. For the true experience, give the first book (in what is now a series of four) a whirl.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Rudin Exits Reader. Trade Roughage 10/10/08

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    • Scott Rudin is taking his name off Stephen Daldry’s The Reader after losing his heavyweight battle with Harvey Weinstein regarding the film’s release schedule. Now that Rudin has left the project, though, can we expect the producer to push his Revolutionary Road even harder for the Oscar? And will Kate Winslet be treated like a poor child of divorce who’s made to pick one parent over the other?
    • Confirming little more than what the movie blogs have been rumoring all week, Variety reports that super hot right now Josh Brolin is in talks to play the DC Comics gunslinger Jonah Hex. Perhaps with everyone respecting comic book characters so much these days this role will be the one that Brolin finally gets an Oscar nomination for.
    • I guess when your film stars George Clooney, Ewan McGregor, Jeff Bridges and Kevin Spacey, you can get just any old actress to play the lead female part. But picking the most boring Lost character ever (well, the actress who plays her, anyway) to costar in Grant Heslov’s Men Who Stare at Goats seems a bit counterproductive.
    • Continuing the trend of making uncomfortable topics funny, Seth Rogen is producing and will co-star in a comedy about cancer from an autobiographical script by HBO producer Will Reiser.
    • Despite another bunch of box office contenders entering the multiplexes this weekend, including the heavily starred yet topically cursed Body of Lies, the bets are that Beverly Hills Chihuahua will stay on top for a second round.

    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • FilmCouch #91: City of Ember and Body of Lies

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Body of Lies  (2008)

    City of Ember  (2008)

    Two movies, both adapted from novels, open in theaters tonight. One is a children’s fantasy, the other is a political thriller. One poses intriguing questions about the nature of authority and value of disobedience, the other is a tangled collection of tired clichés.

    City of Ember tells the story of two children becoming heroes thanks to their suspicion and rebellion. While it may seem strange to make a children’s movie that encourages young people to defy authority, there are psychological tests that suggest it may be a really good idea. The Human Behavior Experiments, a little known documentary by Oscar winner Alex Gibney, provides interesting insights.

    Body of Lies, the latest from director Ridley Scott, stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe as dueling CIA agents. Does the film have what it takes to overcome the deadly Iraq-fatigue that has destroyed so many of its comrades at the box office? Or is it another example of Ridley Scott taking super-charged material and delivering a super-flat film?

    (Subscribe to FilmCouch–Spout’s weekly movie podcast–in the iTunes store or to our RSS feed and an episode will download each Friday)

    0:00 - Intro

    3:33 - City of Ember, The Human Behavior Experiments

    21:31 - Body of Lies

    37:23 - Adam Forrest’s “Cup of Comfort”: A Russell Crowe anecdote

    filmcouch-91


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Female Ghostbusters. Casting Call

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Aliens  (1986)

    Ghostbusters  (1984)

    Tropic Thunder  (2008)

    Ghostbusters 3  (2010)

    In a new interview with MTV, Bill Murray has called for the makers of Ghostbusters 3 to introduce a female Ghostbuster. My first thought was that hottie who models the sexy Ghostbusters Halloween costume, but seriously it is a great idea. As long as the concept is to pass on the proton packs to a new generation, there really should be an actress in the bunch. And I’m not talking just a hot young flavor of the month who Hollywood thinks will get the teen boys in the audience (it’s Ghostbusters 3; they’re already sold). I agree with Murray that the main requirement should be a funny female.

    However, instead of merely picking out one comedienne to appear in the sequel, SpoutBlog has decided to imagine a remake of Ghostbusters in which the entire team is made of women. So, here are some casting choices for a gender-reversed version:

    Elizabeth Banks as Dr. Petra Venkman

    There are only two comic actresses I can imagine pulling off the job of being a female equivalent of Bill Murray’s Peter Venkman. But I wouldn’t want to see Sarah Silverman in the role, so I choose Elizabeth Banks. She’s sexy, hilarious and talented enough to convincingly play a sleazy yet lovable, brillaint yet apathetic parapsychologist. And she’s also my pick for the actual female ghostbuster for Ghostbusters 3 if the filmmakers take Murray’s advice. Especially if the other Ghostbusters are from the Judd Apatow school.

    Anna Faris as Dr. Ramona Stantz

    You might think she’s a little too close to Banks in her looks, but as a comedic actress she’s a whole different sort. She kind of reminds me of a young female Dan Aykroyd, though she’s certainly missing the pudgy parts, and she can do the slight obliviousness thing perfectly, especially as a product of childlike wonder rather than lack of intelligence. And the character’s affinity for munchies could be explained by having her be a bit of a marijuana enthusiast since she lacks the chubby traits.

    Tina Fey as Dr. Elga Spengler

    Fey is funny, but she’s also better as the straight woman with a touch of deadpan, just like Harold Ramis’ Egon. She’s also a little older than the other ladies. And, of course, she wears glasses. Actually it’s the glasses that made her the obvious choice. The other things just fortunately worked out in her favor, too.

    Niecy Nash as Winifred Zeddmore

    Hollywood would probably prefer someone a little younger, like Jennifer Hudson, or hotter, like Gabrielle Union, but Nash is hilarious on Reno 911, and she’s about the same age as Ernie Hudson was in the first Ghostbusters film. Plus, just imagine how much more of an outsider she’d be as the new recruit. Also, think of how amazing that big booty would look in a Ghostbusters uniform.

    Adrien Brody as Dan Barrett

    For the role originated by Sigourney Weaver, I’ve been told by a friend to cast Oscar-winner Brody, because he’s a “hot ugly dude.” And Weaver is, well, let’s just call her a non-traditional beauty. I thought about going with Bill Paxton instead for the Aliens connection and the fact that he’d be really good during the possessed scene, but I ultimately went with my friend’s idea, because for some reason I can accept him as easily being turned into a dog-like creature.

    Zooey Deschanel as Louise Tully

    She’s the right combination of nerdy and adorable, especially if she lets herself go a little. Add some frump and a little more whine to the voice and she’s perfect as the accountant (and eventual Ghostbuster hopeful, originally played by Rick Moranis) who lives next door to Dan and who also gets turned into a hellhound.

    Jay Baruchel as John Melnitz

    This Tropic Thunder actor is a little young, but considering he’ll be filling the secretary role (originated by Annie Potts), he probably should be. Also, it would be great to see Tina Fey flirt with the little dweeb, if anything just for the callback to the “cougar” episode of 30 Rock.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Kiyoshi Kurosawa Interview, Tokyo Sonata

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Cure  (1997)

    Pulse  (2001)

    Doppelganger  (2003)

    Tokyo Sonata  (2008)

    Tokyo Sonata director Kiyoshi Kurosawa

    Kiyoshi Kurosawa (no relation to Akira) has mostly been known for Japanese horror films Cure, Pulse, and Doppelganger, but with his last few movies he’s been moving more into the dramatic. Tokyo Sonata explores a Japanese household, led by a father who is laid off from his job and is too embarrassed to tell his family. He leaves home every day, but instead of going to work he visits parks and libraries until it is time to return. Meanwhile, his rebellious older son wants to leave Japan and go to the United States to join the military, and his youngest son is secretly taking piano lessons, which he has been forbidden to do. It’s a stark look inside the family culture in Japan, and the rift between generations. We sat down to ask Kurosawa about the film, and learned that he’s pretty definitively left the genre with which he’s most associated behind. More after the jump.

    Tokyo Sonata feels similar to Bright Future, your other film, except the family members in Bright Future are much younger and this more revolves around the father, and to some extent the family as a whole. Is this an evolution from that film?

    I think your theory is probably more or less correct. In between the horror films, I have made several more or less what you would call “family” type films and different versions. I’m sure you remember License to Live. But this time what I did, I portrayed a super-duper ordinary family, at least in shape, at least in form. So in a sense maybe I’m going back before Bright Future, back in time when there is such a thing as a family, if just barely functioning.

    The attitudes of the family in the film, do you feel like that’s particularly Japanese, or could it apply to any family in the world?

    You know, I really wasn’t sure. What I did was really try to stay true to the problems that a typical Japanese family would meet up with. I had no idea or any intention to portray kind of universal problems, but based on the reactions that I got at Cannes, it seems like I had hit on something that seems to be fairly universal, or at least traveled outside the borders of Japan.

    Certainly it goes without saying that Japan is hardly an isolated country. Contemporary life in Japan today is deeply intertwined to that of the world. Also film, I really believe, has a universal power and has a universal impact. So as a medium, borrowing that power of film language, I felt really confident that I would be able to reach a large audience.

    The traditions of honor and shame seem to be inherent traits that the Japanese have embraced and continue to find to be strong, especially the older generations; the younger generations, maybe not so much.

    In this film there seems to be a disconnect between the father and the oldest son. The oldest son wants to go to the USA to join the military. The father is meanwhile concealing the fact that he has been let go from his job. The younger son is also concealing that he is taking these piano lessons. Are these all signs of a larger disconnect and problem within modern day Japan as a whole?

    Yes. I think in some ways they do symbolize Japan. But I think if anything, much more is always that I sort of tried to portray what has always been a family. In other words, if there are internal problems that have always been internal to the family, then each member of the family then has their own problems that are outside of the family. You can’t resolve those problems within the context of the family.

    So I think if anything, I was really much more aiming at the precarious balance that has always characterized Sonata.

    I think Bright Future was the first film that you shot digitally. Are you continuing to shoot digitally?

    This one I shot on film. I was intentionally wanting to shoot this movie on film because of the drama.

    Do you have a next project lined up? Are you thinking about ever returning to the horror and thriller genre?

    I doubt I will go back to horror. If I have a good idea I will go back to it, but probably not in my next film. But neither am I interested in another family drama. This film was something quite unexpected.

    If you were asked by an American studio to do an English language film, would you be interested?

    I am interested in making an English language film. I would be perfectly happy to, but I somehow doubt that the Hollywood system would allow me to make the kind of movie I want. So I think of them as two separate things.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Shia LaBeouf Inserted Into Old Spielberg Movies. Clip of the Day

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    Whether you’re a South Park viewer or a reader of many film blogs, you’ve probably seen the disturbing (though not disturbingly funny) clip of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas raping Indiana Jones. As much as I too was disappointed with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, though, I find the South Park thing more upsetting, and I’ll probably have a more difficult time getting the image of Indy in whitey tighties being mounted by Spielberg out of my head than I did erasing the memory of Shia LaBeouf swinging through the trees with a bunch of monkey friends.

    Speaking of LaBeouf, he’s the star of today’s Clip of the Day in lieu of the rape thing (which I don’t want to subject anyone to, if they’ve managed to avoid it so far). Because everyone knows Spielberg loves LaBeouf — as an actor; get the rape and other related thoughts out of your head — the site Spill.com has put together a little animated montage of what it would be like had LaBeouf starred in (or were he inserted into, via effects magic) Spielberg’s past movies. I like it mainly because I’m already obsessed with the Shia LaBeouf “no no no no no” thing (see this past Clip), which works perfectly in the old movies. The Close Encounters musical version is especially great.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • SLACKER on Hulu

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Slacker  (1991)

    In a post published today on Hulu’s official blog, Kevin Smith reminisces about his 21st birthday, which he spent driving from New Jersey to New York to see Richard Linklater’s Slacker. Inspired by J. Hoberman’s Village Voice review, Smith says, “the promise of a scene centered on a Madonna pap smear of questionable authenticity was bait enough to lure us from the Jersey ‘burbs into the wilds of Manhattan-after-dark.”

    17 years later, thanks to Hulu, no one will ever have to drive an hour each way for the Madonna pap smear scene again. Slacker is embedded above.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Movies That Live On As Video Games

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]


    In the 1980s it seemed like Hollywood hated everything that was going to compete with it: television, video games, books, comics, you name it. If it wasn’t being used as an ancillary product for a movie, then it was the enemy. Why would an executive want to embrace something like Spider-Man or Space Invaders and try turning it into a movie? Which, granted might be why so many movies from the 1980s were classic. Where’s our next John Hughes, already? If there was a video game announced tomorrow based on Ferris Bueller’s Day Off or Weird Science, I would retire this column for eternity. Unless the game sucked.

    But what about movies that came out years ago that still live on through video games? Games have single-handedly managed to keep some franchises flush with cash, long before the currently Hollywood trend of retreading, prequelizing, and refurbishing movie happened. Now, you’re just as likely to have a game coming out day in date with the movie, if not a few weeks before in an effort to hype the buzz. But what about those that came before? Here are a few examples.

    The most perfect example of this oddity in the concentric circle of Hollywood and video games is without a doubt, hands down The Goonies II. What, you don’t remember the movie? That’s because it never existed. There was a lot of a sequel to this movie, especially since it was one of the highest grossing movies of 1985, but it failed to appear. Although that didn’t stop the video game world from filling the gap.

    Games based on both the movie and the non-existent sequel came out. Sadly, they were mostly relegated to pizza parlors and the dimly lot back corners of arcades before fading into obscurity. What makes this even more ironic is that Goonies DVDs have been selling so well, Sean Astin is sure that a sequel will appear soon. Good enough for me.

    Although it hasn’t hit the shelves yet, Ghostbusters III is living on in video game form as Ghostbusters: The Video Game. Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd, Harold Ramis, and Ernie Hudson are reprising their roles as Ghostbusters in this game as voice talent, and Akryoyd himself has said that the game is essentially Ghostbusters III. Let’s just hope and pray that it’s better than Ghostbusters II.

    There have been several Ghostbusters video games out over the years, and I still remember playing the verison on buddy’s Commodore 64 back in the day. So am I excited for this one? You bet I am. Seriously, any game that Bill Murray contributes the voice to, as long as it doesn’t have “Garfield” in the title can take my money. And the fact that it’s Ghostbusters is just icing on the cake. It’s set in 1991 also, two years of Ghostbusters II, so you can both date yourself and have fun busting ghosts at the same time.

    George Lucas and his galaxy far, far away have been guilty of dipping into the well of video gaming more than anyone else in Hollywood history. Since hitting screens in 1977, there have been over 100 Star Wars games on multiple systems. Just recently, Lucasarts released Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, which is set inbetween the events of Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope.

    Darth Vader has taken an apprentice that he’s hiding from the emperor for reasons unknown, and while you play as this apprentice through most of the game, you start off the first level playing as Darth Vader, which is a first for the Star Wars games. What kid (or adult) hasn’t dreamed about stepping into that black cape and armor and just mowing things down with his lightsaber? Although the gameplay has taken several hits in reviews, the storyline is pretty intriguing… which is more than I can say for any of those Star Wars prequels. The game sold nearly a million units in its first week of release and will probably be in several stockings during the holidays.

    What does this all mean? It boils down to the fact that you might see Ben-Hur: The Video Game sometime soon, because the sky is the limit when it comes to the gaming realm, and studios are always eager to capitalize on old product by releasing a new “Special Edition” DVD, so why not a game? It might be sacrilege to think about a Casablanca “shoot the Nazis!” video game, but if it was a murder mystery, with the player trying to find out what happened in the role of Rick, then it begins to sound interesting. Just some food for your gaming thought.

    Kevin Kelly, a contributor to The Austin Chronicle, Joystiq, io9, Cinematical, Film School Rejects and countless other weblogs, will be weighing in on the intersection between film and video games every Thursday here on SpoutBlog. Please ask him personal questions, shower him with flattery and/or rip apart his argument in the comments. Game on.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • CHE: A Generational Divide?

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Che  (2008)

    After Che premiered at the New York Film Festival last week, Glenn Kenny wrote two blog posts in which he criticized anonymous critics for their criticism of Che’s lack of “human drama.” I knew I was implicated in the complaint –– In his first post, Kenny directly quoted a phrase I used in my write-up of the film but didn’t link to said write-up; in the second, he said he found it “exasperating” to see such a complaint from “people who position themselves as new voices, with new perspectives, in cinematic discourse” –– but I didn’t intend to respond. Not only do I stand by my take on the film and have little else to say beyond what I’ve already written, but when somebody criticizes something I write on the internet without linking, that’s basically equivalent to talking behind my back, and I’m usually content to pretend like I don’t know the talk is going on until I’m invited to defend myself.

    But over the past few days, as reviews of the film far more considered than my own have started to stack up online, I’ve noticed something that I do think is worth commenting on. A number of writers, including Keith Uhlich, Michael Joshua Rowin, Nick Schager, Leo Goldsmith and Daniel Kasman, have written reviews which incorporate the criticism that Che is “dispassionate”, that Soderbergh has a “disposable, inconsequential attitude” towards his subject, that the whole thing amounts to a “prolonged and wearying exercise in disinterest.” I’m sure there are more examples out there, but I think the five of them plus me are enough for a focus group. All six of us not only write for what could be called “alternative” publications, but we’re all in our 20s or early 30s––evidence that the “new voices, with new perspectives” that Kenny cites are in fact almost completely united in our “exasperating” take on Che. Che’s key defenders, thus far, are Kenny, J. Hoberman and Amy Taubin –– all veteran critics, and our seniors by several years.

    Which is not to say that the old guard is wrong just because they’re the old guard, just as I hope no one is really shaking a fist in the air at “these kids these days.” But I do think there may be something significant to the fact that the divide is breaking down this way. Are younger critics frustrated (or just bored) with Che because for the most part, we don’t bring an emotional, historical or intellectual relationship to its subject to the viewing experience? Or are we just braindead children with the attention spans of infants? Or both?


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Oscars Hawk Blockbusters. Trade Roughage 10/09/08

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • McCain for Penguin. Clip of the Day

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Batman Returns  (1992)

    If John McCain doesn’t become the next President of the United States, perhaps he could take a completely different sort of gig, as The Penguin in the next Batman movie. Of course, there’s already a worthy candidate for that role, too, but if Philip Seymour Hoffman doesn’t want the job, Christopher Nolan should give it to the senator. That is, if Nolan actually decides to include the villain in his next installment, and so far it hasn’t seemed likely that he would.

    The idea of McCain as The Penguin sparked from a campaign speech the presidential candidate gave last Friday in which he inadvertently channeled Burgess Meredith while congratulating his running mate, Sarah Palin, on her performance at the VP debate the night before. Since then, YouTubers galore have sampled the speech, whether using the audio to redub a scene from Batman Returns, as you can see in today’s Clip (and here), or intercutting the audio and video with footage from Meredith’s portrayal of The Penguin on the old Batman TV show, or simply drawing in the necessary accessories and props to make McCain look like Meredith’s Penguin.

    The whole trend may have actually begun with a little joke on The Young Turks talk show. But how about it? Ehh? Throughout the Town Hall debate last night, while watching McCain waddle around that stage, I couldn’t get the Penguin thing out of my mind. He’s perfect for the part. Ehh?


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<October 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
2829301234
5