Look at Me, I’m Hands Free!
July 24, 2008California just passed a new law stating that it is illegal to talk on the phone in your car unless you have a hands free device, such as a bluetooth earpiece or wired headset. Personally, while I think it’s a good idea in the long run, at the moment, it’s even more dangerous to drive while everyone figures out how to answer their phone via their ear.
But this new law has unintentionally begun to ruin movie going experiences. Because people keep this wireless device in their ear, it is out of their peripheral vision. Hence, they cannot see the gdamned blue light that blinks every ten or so seconds. In a dark theater, that is extremely bright and shines like a lighthouse through a fog, or a troubled ship sending S.O.S. signals through Morse Code.
Having been out of town for awhile, I recently returned to California just in time for the public to start fully integrating themselves into this law. My first day back I decided to see The Dark Knight (because due to my trip, unfortunately, kept me from seeing it opening weekend…) And as soon as I sit in the theater, I’m distracted by this little tiny blue light, blinking as if it were an attention whore. A few minutes into the pre-trailer commercials, and I was about to say something to the guy who had it, when a group of guys came in, two of the four of them wearing the earpieces and not taking them out when they sat down. That’s when I realized this wasn’t an isolated incident… that this is a war. A war that one man can’t win by himself.
If you read this and have kept your earpiece in during a movie in the past, I hope this makes you feel humiliated and embarrassed and less of a human being. Otherwise, let’s do our parts to maintain a decent society by shutting these effers off before going into a show. While they don’t produce as much light as a cell phone screen (texting or checking the time is the devil in movie theaters,) it is twice as annoying because the blinking never stops. If you see someone wearing one of these in the theater, kindly ask them to remove it. And if they don’t, take it out of their ear and throw it towards the front row.
Topics: Random Thoughts | No Comments »
Retrospectacles: The Shining (1980)
July 21, 2008
Director: Stanley Effing Kubrick
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Shelly Duvall, Danny Lloyd, Scatman Crothers
In the last thirty years, two films have been the standard to which horror films have tried (and failed) to compare themselves with, if no other reason that to get the asses in the seats. Those two films are the demonically possessed (literally) film The Exorcist (1974) and Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining (1980). Both films share a lot of aspects, both of over-the-top theatricality, and a sadistic attack on the subconscious.
Failing writer Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) gets hired as a groundskeeper for a massive hotel while its closed during its winter season. With his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and son Danny (Danny Lloyd) in tow, they take up residence in the hotel, or does the hotel take up residence in them? Early on, they start experiencing unusual happenings, particularly Danny and Jack as they seem to have a special gift for supernatural communication. As the weeks wear on, Jack begins to succumb to the evils in the hotel, eventually evolving him into an axe-wielding murderer, hell bent on the destruction of his family.
The first time I saw The Shining there was such a stigma about it that I began to get terrified far before I probably should’ve. The beautiful helicopter shots that open the film even terrified me (I think that’s partially due to the eerie score, and the fact that I’m a bit of a wuss.) I had a hard time getting all of the way through it without wanting to cry and sleep with all of the lights on for a week straight. My mom had to calm me down numerous times. That infamous first viewing for me was at the infantile age of twenty-one.
Since then, I’ve probably seen it seventeen times, and while it will never cease to creep me out, I can at least fall asleep without the help of my Little Mermaid nightlight. It’s a film that, unlike many others in the genre, doesn’t focus on cheap thrills but a deeply rooted psychological experience. Because of that, and because of Kubrick’s shear craftsmanship, it allows the film to be watched over and over and not lose its appeal or mystery.
For instance, in a scene where Danny is playing with his trucks, a tennis ball rolls to him from off screen. When he looks up, no one is there. In most horror films, we would be forced to see this through some sort of character P.OV. and close-ups of Danny (showing him scared, looking around from side to side, close ups of door knobs or a floating camera watching him from a distance.) Instead, what we get is two static shots: the semi-birds eye shot of the ball rolling over to him, and a really wide shot from above and behind Danny showing the entire hallway. Accompanied by the eerie score again, that’s all that’s needed to scare the living $#!+ out of anyone. Kubrick doesn’t give any indication of where the threat might come from, instead he just says “There’s a threat here. You’re on your own. Good luck finding it, fu©ker.”
And he does this simplistic storytelling so well that after awhile there is really no way for you to protect yourself. One of the most terrifying scenes for me was when Danny rides his bike through the hallways and the steadycam follows him, the wide lens making things seem larger than they should be, and never being able to see what’s around each corner he takes. Kubrick teases us with this scene once when nothing happens before bringing it back shortly after and forcing us to run into those creepy ass twins (which gave me a phobia of twins for the longest time.)
Kubrick’s film and Stephen King’s novel are very different from each other, and I think this is the perfect example of an adaptation being changed for the better to tell the story cinematically. King’s novel, if filmed (and has been in the awful TV version,) would play out more like a Saturday morning cartoon. It’s vague description of Jack completely losing his physical self being overrun by the evil power of the hotel by the end seems like something more suited for Uwe Boll, the destruction of the hotel at the end is more in the style of any modern studio executive decision (see the end of Iron Man (2008) for an example), and the happy rescue of Danny and Wendy by Dick Halloran at the end is far too sentimental. But the main reason I think that the changes are better is because King’s novel relies heavily on the description and words. It doesn’t translate well to the screen. Kubrick and Diane Johnson were able to create a more visceral experience by incorporating things like the maze, the death of Dick Halloran, and most of all the casting of Shelley Duvall, opposite of the description of Wendy in the book.
It took me a long time to fully appreciate the performance of Shelley Duvall. I always thought that she was incredibly annoying (which she is,) completely unattractive (which she is,) and someone who could never compare to Nicholson’s performance (which she can’t.) But that’s what makes the choice all the more brilliant. If she weren’t all of those things, the film wouldn’t feel as balanced as it is. If she were a strong attractive character, we would have more hope for her. We would think she’s capable. But since she’s such a whiney, dependent, wreck of a woman, it’s more like watching a lion hunt a wounded zebra towards the end of the film.
I like the comparisons that have been made between Nicholson and James Cagney. His performance is incredibly over the top, particularly in the scene in the lobby where Shelley Duvall has the bat and he is threatening her. But I think it’s a case of the director choosing something more interesting than realistic. His character demands a lot, from the most subtle choices to grandiose to show the evil presence seeping into his subconscious (and eventually conscious.)
Both in his performance, as well as in the story, it’s such an intriguing thing to watch Jack become overtaken. The character starts out in a place that isn’t far from delirium, with a hatred for his family already brewing. He just needed the hotel to push him that extra mile. By slowly taking over elements that make him who he is, the hotel consumes him: it steals his intelligence as shown through his infamous “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” manuscript, it takes his sexuality through the titillating and disgusting room 237 scene, and eventually consumes the rest of his darkened soul.
The great thing, for me, about The Shining is that it’s a film that I can watch over and over again and still find something new in it (whether it be something in the compositions that evoke something larger than what’s happening on the surface, the themes of failed communication and dysfunctional family, or even general editing technique.) It’s not like the horror films that came in the decades that followed it (really The Shining, though made in 1980, is really the last horror film of the 70’s,) the “slasher” films that relied on gore and easy scares to entertain its audience. Those films only seem to have a nostalgic appeal, great to put on during Halloween for their campy storylines and acting—most of them are forgettable. And on the opposite end of the spectrum, after watching it a few times it’s no longer unbearably scary like The Exorcist (1973). It strikes an amazing balance between the two, which I think was Kubrick’s talent.
Final Thoughts:
The Shining is definitely at the top of horror genre. It’s a film that can be enjoyed by every type of viewer, from the casual audience member looking for two hours of entertainment to the film student looking at how to tell a story cinematically. And it sparked a whole generation of people curious about getting a BJ from a man in a dog costume.
Topics: Retrospectacles | No Comments »
Trailers: Watchmen (2009)
July 18, 2008I would have to say that I’m pretty on the fence with comic book films. There have been a few amazing releases, a lot of shitty ones, but mostly they land in the middle of the road for me. Christopher Nolan’s depiction of Batman in Batman Begins (2005) and The Dark Knight (2008) as a dark character study has sparked my interest more than any of the other superhero films, partly because he used the comic books more as inspiration rather than an adaptation. The first two Spider-man films were fun enough, however the third one ruined the whole franchise for me. And Sony’s failed attempt to make an original character from the dark story that Hancock (2008) only adds to my skepticism for this new genre of film. For what it’s worth, Iron Man (2008) was wonderful until the end when it felt too over-the-top (a term that shouldn’t have to apply to a “superhero” movie.) But starting with Dark Knight and continuing with this film that comes out next year, I believe the door to telling superhero stories in an unconventional way (for the genre) is going to be kicked wide open. Just like cinema itself, when there’s a hero, there needs to be an antihero. With the Allen Moore’s Watchmen (2009), directed by the highly-stylized director Zack Snyder (Dawn of the Dead (2004), 300 (2006), we will welcome the superantihero, and that excites me.
Watch the TEASER trailer to Watchmen (2009).
Topics: Trailers | No Comments »
Random Thoughts
July 18, 2008I attended a screening of Hellboy 2: The Golden Army (2008) recently, and as part of the whole movie going experience, I enjoy basking in the trailers before the show (unlike Mr. Milk Dud who walks in three minutes into the first reel.) I couldn’t help but be bombarded with a slew of opinions after seeing the trailers.
First was a trailer for Bangkok Dangerous (2008). While watching this trailer, which I had seen before, I noticed something that I hadn’t before. At first, I thought Nick Cage just looked rather tuckered out from doing one awful movie after another, making his Oscar win almost as much of a joke as Cuba Gooding Jr.’s. But then it hit me… something familiar that I felt I lived through a few years ago with Tom Hanks. What could it be?
Nicolas Cage in Bangkok Dangerous (2008)
Tom Hanks in The Da Vinci Code (2006)
I’m pretty sure that their hair is really a space alien that jumps from host to host, making its way into a number of films. It’s not unlike the Facehuggers from the Alien franchise, only instead it attaches itself to the back of the head and sucks the talent out of actors. Bruce Willis better keep his balding head protected.
Next, I saw two trailers, one for Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008) and The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008), both starring Brendan Fraser. In the last decade, I can’t seem to think of a single actor who has done more CGI-heavy films than Mr. Fraser. One is almost lead to believe that he has been genetically created to punch tennis balls on the end of sticks while shouting out a comedic exclamation. His knack for these special effect films has put a serious damper on any kind of respectable performance. Even in Crash (2004), which is an amazing film, he seems completely out of place. He played a politician, right? Do politicians punch cartoons in the face? Because I half expected one to pop out at any moment. Which makes his attempts to deliver lines like “I give you… the center… of… the… Earth,” with any kind of seriousness, they become just as funny, if not more funny than his comedic ones.
For more examples of Fraser’s body of work, watch him punch a clay-like monkey in Monkeybone (2001), punch a mummy in The Mummy (1999) and The Mummy Returns (2001), punch a cartoon in Looney Tunes: Back In Action (2003), and punch his dramatic career goodbye in The Air I Breathe (2007).
Oh, and just a note to some of you movie-goers out there: they put trash bins outside of the doors for a reason. Stop leaving your crap behind you.
Topics: Random Thoughts | No Comments »
Trailers: Ghost Town
July 14, 2008Maybe it’s because I went and saw Ricky Gervais live last Friday night, or maybe it’s because I’m a massive fan of The Office (TV, 2001), and have enjoyed his work in both Extras (TV, 2005) and Stardust (2007)… whatever the case may be, I am incredibly excited for this film. While it looks like it might’ve been a project slated for Ben Stiller, the casting of the unconventional Ricky Gervais as the lead role will most definitely bring a unique charm to it, even if it doesn’t do well. I think it’s saying a lot when, in this trailer, a virtual rookie to starring movie roles, can completely eclipse Greg Kinnear. I’ll definitely be seeing it on September 19th.
Watch the trailer for Ghost Town (2008)
Topics: Trailers | No Comments »
« Previous Entries