Film and Therapy

The Adjustment Bureau

2011-03-03T23:46:00.001-08:00

In “The Adjustment Bureau,” Matt Damon and Emily Blunt star in a romantic metaphysical thriller that aims to provoke thought about free will. Damon stars as Senator David Norris, whose up and coming political career continues to be at the mercy of his bad habits. Along the way, he meets Elise, a free spirit of a woman whom he has an instant attraction with. However, due to a fluke, Norris stumbles upon a group of men who appear to be in the habit of mind control.

The film is based off of a story by Philip K. Dick and it sets up some great questions with obvious metaphor for free will. That is the strength of this otherwise mediocre affair. It’s not that “The Adjustment Bureau” is a bad movie so much as it feels mundane. With the topic, actors involved, and set piece of New York City, it feels like we have a movie that could do so much more. Thrilling chases end up feeling pedestrian, revelations come quick and fast, and tension rarely exists.

Plot questions begin to arrive left and right – Like, why for all their supposed special powers do the Bureau employees so rarely seem to use them? (Mild spoiler) In one scene, a character is supposed to have coffee spill on him to distract the path of his day. When things change, a bureau member chases after the character, only to use his special powers at the last minute. Why not just use them from the outset? There are many more, but my questions would spoil too much of the plot.

Also troubling is how much of a wasted potential the aesthetic of the film is. The Bureau employees look awesome – the top hats, trench coats, and slick suit make them potentially menacing and imposing. Yet, they are framed so blandly – no shadows are used, nor are there ever interesting camera angles. Perhaps it is the Melville (Le Samourai, Army of Shadows) lover in me, but after seeing what he does with these types of characters I now have come to expect all other filmmakers to make good use of it. It doesn’t help that the music is bizarrely out of place and will find itself detracting more and more from the movie as time goes on. It’s not that the visual or music aesthetic is ever outright bad – just bland.

Yet, the movie’s interesting questions are what kept me interested. Once Terrence Stamp shows up, I suddenly was in the grip of the questions. They are interesting because they are clearly about how we see God involved in the affairs of man. Of particular note is some dialogue between Damon and Stamp about God’s intervention and then leaving mankind before the Bureau has to step in again. Once certain questions are raised, it left me with an immediate answer based on my worldview. I wanted to take the concepts further – what about mans access to God or the moving of His heart through prayer? The questions raised are certainly the films strength.

When my wife and I began discussing the movie afterwards, she seemed to be taken in by the love story between David and Elise. For what is there, the chemistry is believable even if the time jumps (3 years later, etc) feel less like years and more like days. Still, I appreciated that the leads seemed connected to each other. Otherwise the whole motivation of the story would have fallen apart.

Bottom line, this is an entirely mediocre adventure from a visual and aural perspective but one that is interesting for the mind (and possibly soul). The film certainly attracted its fair share of attention – cameos are littered throughout the film. If the tension could have been thicker, this could have been a great film. As it is, I can only get so excited. Then again, I watched “Hunger” by Steve McQueen earlier in the day (a visual masterpiece rife with visceral tension and passionate acting). Perhaps that was the Bureau’s way of affecting my viewing of this film.

More Quick Thought Reviews

2011-02-26T21:12:00.000-08:00

Time is fleeting, so here are some brief reviews:

Some of it is netflix, some of it is in the theater. All of it is opinionated. Read on and don't forget to comment on what you have seen lately below in your own 2-3 sentence reviews!

The Trotsky (8/10) - Rushmore set in Canada. Jay Baruchel's character is simply hilarious. The movie has some seriously flawed elements, but it is mostly funny if you can accept the premise.

Kick Ass (5/10) - Gratuitous in every sense. Nicholas Cage was watchable, Chloe Moretz made me cringe...not because of her, but because of what she did in the film.

The House Bunny (6.5/10) - Guilty pleasure with a terrible message. However, it gave me a new favorite line - "The eyes of are the nipples of the face." Anna Faris is hilarious in it.

MacGruber (4/10) - Manages to be simultaneously better and far worse than everyone said it would be.

The American (6.5/10) - Slow paced, great cinematography, dull. It wishes it were Melville or Leone and ends up being neither. Where those directors milked tension, The American ends up being boring. Fantastic ending though.

Cyrus (6/10) - Wants to be awkward, but too self conscious to achieve it. The awkwardness didn't feel natural. Some brief, but genuinely funny moments.

The Kids Are All Right (4/10) - Massively overrated family drama with two leads who feel like they are trying too hard to be in an awards contender movie.

Dinner For Schmucks (6/10) - Completely stupid, but I laughed out loud numerous times. Too sexualized for its own good.

Bored to Death Season 1 (8/10) - I laughed a ton and have a new show to add to my favorites which include Arrested Development and Extras. Great cameos as well.

Waynes World 2 (5.5/10) - A rehash of the first movie with some hilarious bits. Seeing Chris Farley made me sad because he was at one time my favorite person to watch on screen.

Get Him to the Greek (3/10) - Gross.

American Experience: Jonestown: The Life and Death of People's Temple (9/10) - A completely absorbing, engrossing, heartfelt documentary on one of the greatest tragedies in human history. Stories from former cult members and eerie footage are nothing less than heartbreaking.

Despicable Me (7.5/10) - The best non-pixar movie toon to come out in the last 10 years. Almost achieves the zen balance of kid/adult, funny/endearing with too much annoyance from the main villains writing and voice acting. LOVE the minions!

Exit Through the Gift Shop (10/10) - If you haven't seen it yet, why not? Brilliant on every level.

Tron: Legacy (7.5/10) - Awesome, exhilarating visual and aural experience with a story that is mostly coherent. What could have been a brilliant allegory of God and humanity gets sold short.

True Grit (9/10) - When I wasn't laughing, I was engrossed by newcomer Heilee Steinfeld in the lead female role. Great script by the Coens, who after two disappointing movies in The ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty have been on a consistent winning streak.

The White Stripes Under Great White Northern Lights (8/10) - Lots of fan service in the form of well cut live performances. However, when Jack White talks about himself and the band it becomes grating. However, watching them perform affirms much of the brilliance Jack brings to the table.

Good Hair (8.5/10) - Completely hilarious, and surprisingly interesting flick about the hair industry and African Americans. Chris Rock narrates and hosts as uneducated folks like me learn about weaves, sulfates, and India.

Brooklyn's Finest (4/10) - A relentlessly bleak picture of being a cop in the projects where everyone shoots each other and wishes they were in "The Departed." Don Cheadle's lines are either spot on or unintentionally hilarious.

Almost Famous - Directors Cut (10/10) - A literally perfect movie with endless amounts of character, warmth, and rock and roll. I had forgotten just how great this movie is until visiting it again on BluRay.

Let Me In (7/10) - Absurdly creepy, with some boring stretches and sprinkles of gore. The ending is unsettling, with an enormously effective finale. I also saw the Swedish version, but am not loyal to either side - It's nice to see vampires be scary again.

The Fighter

2011-02-26T21:11:00.000-08:00

I rarely give actors and actresses credit for amovie. In fact, I am frequently irritated at how much credit they get at the cost of the writer, director, and cinematographer. The director shows you how to look good, the screenwriter gives you good things to say, and thecinematographer makes you look good. In only a few movies have I been thoroughly had by great acting – DeNiro in “King of Comedy” and “Raging Bull,”Jim Carrey in “Man On the Moon” (which I saw ages ago), and Frances McDormand in “Fargo.” I now can add Christian Bale to the list for his performance in "The Fighter."

“The Fighter” is a movie about Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg in an understated performance) and his brother Dicky (Christian Bale). Micky and Dicky have grown up loving the sport of boxing. Micky in particular has always looked up to his older brother Dicky. Dicky wants everyone to know his claim to fame – that he knocked down Sugar Ray Leonard. He is the pride of Lowell (his hometown where he and the family still reside) and Micky is the next rising star.

The problems then avalanche. The family is a brand of dysfunctional called “Enmeshed.” Enmeshment is when youhave family members who are so intertwined in one others lives that it is suffocating. Alice the Mom, played brilliantly by Melissa Leo, is the matriarch and proud whip cracker of the family. She is Micky’s manager, while Dicky serves as Micky’s trainer – if he can ever show up on time to train him. That Micky and Dicky’s sisters look like a row of 7 year olds playing dress up in 40-something-year-old’s bodies further emphasizes the enmeshed nature of the family.

Then there is Dicky. Dicky is addicted to crack and it has done what you expect crack to do to a persons life. Difficultscenes to watch involving groups of people in crack houses with Dicky at the center populate the first two thirds of the film. It is heart breaking – but with any less skilled actor, it would be silly. Bale’s portrayal of Dicky is the perfect portrayal of an addict – on the one hand you completely despise him. On the other, you can't help but love him.

What breaks the barrier of enmeshment in Dicky and Micky’s life is the arrival of Charlene, played by Amy Adams. Normally Amy Adams is played as sweet and innocent – her character in “Catch Me If YouCan,” or more famously in “Enchanted” come to mind. However, here she is a no nonsense street tough bar tender in Lowell. She sees the problem of the family system and starts to disrupt things in a big way. Things start changing, and Micky’s boxing career is right in tow.

So, what makes the movie so good? Well, a number of things really. David O Russell, a filmmaker whom I really enjoy (Three Kings, I Heart Huckabees) keeps it gritty without being dreadful (I’m looking at you “Brooklyn’s Finest”). Cinematography is up close, with a handheld style that is not overbearing (Rachel Getting Married). Additionally, there is a wise choice to use HBO cameras from the era in which the movie takesplace that provide a classic look to the boxing matches. Then there is the music. Wonderfully – if not perfectly – chosen and implemented songs up the adrenaline that make the final match one in which I literally had to be kept in chair for fear of jumping up and cheering at the fight that takes place. But really, the actors drive it home. The performances make the script go from formulaic and predictable to breathing and living. I have not been this captivated by acting in a long time.

Bottom line - Do we really need another boxing film after Rocky and Raging Bull? Not really – those two films captured the sport in really unique ways. Every film about the sport from then to forever will be compared to those films. But the film isn't merely about boxing in the same way the aforementioned films aren't either. Family systems and drug addiction give the story extra interest. Besides, how many sports movies have been made that all feel like must see inspirational “you already know the ending” types? We love to watch underdogs fight through their battles and come out on top. It’s ingrained in the human narrative –If you try hard enough and commit yourself, you can break through.

Of course, it helps when the people in front of and behind the camera know how to make it all work.

Exit Through The Gift Shop

2011-01-25T09:39:00.000-08:00

I have been keeping most of my writing here: www.conversantlife.com. However, I decided to post this one here as well. Enjoy!

It is hard to explain “Exit Through the Gift Shop” without giving too much plot detail away. Where some films are more character driven, ETTGS has some of the most intriguing characters of any film I have ever seen. Where some films have an ever twisting plot, ETTGS has one that bends and curves. Where some films are a hoax on the viewer, ETTGS makes me wonder just what happened. It’s an experience that will make you laugh, give you a unique glimpse into a world that is notoriously exclusive, and leave you thinking about a handful of themes – hype, value, and art being somewhere on the list.

The first thing about the film you have to pay attention to is its director – Banksy. Google image search his name for a moment and then come back to this write up. Banksy is brilliant at what he does – he takes images that are uniquely his and makes opportunity for social commentary and creative expression that are pioneering in their creativity and depth. It could be worded statements plastered across a bridge, images painted on walls, or bringing Guantanamo Bay to the Magic Kingdom. He is brilliant, and far more on his game than you may want to give credit for. It’s also why he is notoriously wanted in Great Britain for numerous vandalism crimes but has never been caught.

ETTGS is told in 3 acts. As each act unfolds, an ever so slight bend to the story comes through that sucks the viewer in a layer deeper. The film first introduces us to Thierry Guetta, a Frenchman in Los Angeles who runs a high-end fashion shop. Except for Guetta, the fashion shop is him buying bulk stacks of clothes and calling them “designer” for no other reason than he has created the hype to do so. A shirt that cost him 35 dollars for purchase at another location will go up on the racks for 350 bucks. There is no good or logical reason for it. He just finds a way to call it “designer” and his store has a reputation for being hip.

Guetta also is notorious for bringing a movie camera with him everywhere. He films everything from flushing a toilet, to cherished memories with the family. The film later attempts to uncover the reason for his camera obsession but establishes that not all who hold a camera are filmmakers. This eventually leads to how Guetta shot most of the footage but Banksy has the credit as director.

The footage that the film highlights is in incredible work done by the street artists themselves. These individuals are seen (some of their faces are blurred out) scaling buildings, running from cops, and carrying large buckets around filled with glue like substances as they risk and thrill to put up their art. The footage really is amazing – seeing them do giant “OBEY” spreads that appear to be 2 stories high, painting with spray cans, or using tiles – it really is an art form. There is something often much deeper to the image than just the images themselves.

The film is nearly unclassifiable – is it a documentary about street art? Is it a documentary about Banksy? Is it a commentary about art? Maybe it is all of these things at different times and with different potencies. The bigger question however would be is it real? Remember who is directing the film and what his art does – Banksy makes you think. Questions have arisen about whether or not the events of the film are a hoax, or are real. But does it really matter? Whether or not the principal players are real, the effect at the end (in a conclusion you won’t see coming from any distance) that is achieved by street art enthusiasts and the means by which they express it is nothing less than brilliant. It makes a point that I don’t want to say more about because it is worth discussing and thinking more about on your own. Suffice it to say, “Exit Through the Gift Shop” is a must see movie for anyone remotely interested in good art, and why we consider art “good.”

As a bonus, Netflix subscribers can presently stream the film in high definition. I suggest you do it!

The Social Network

2010-10-01T18:43:00.000-07:00

While working for Pepperdine University as a Resident Director, I was first introduced to facebook by an administrator. Though brand new (and frankly silly sounding to me), he spoke of it in common terms. He told me that students were flocking to it, but the catch is that only those with e-mail addresses ending in “.edu” could be on it. I set up a profile due to my “.edu” password, and it felt kind of cool to be portraying some of my college self again – music, films, friends, etc. It soon became fascinating as I heard students ad lib about status updates, pictures, and gossipy pronouncements. Students didn’t censor themselves. They didn’t have to worry about their profiles being observed by curious parents, University employees, or others – just their friends (which of course rapidly changed and again redefined the term “internet privacy”). What at first was silly and fascinating soon became frightening – talking about it with students was like walking on eggshells filled with rusty nails.

“The Social Network” aims to document one author’s perspective on the events and development of facebook. It begins with an anxiety bathed Mark Zuckerberg (played by Jesse Eisenberg) having a conversation of sorts with his girlfriend. The set-up perfectly introduces us to nuances of the character – excluded from clubs, insecure, and brilliant – who goes on to became the world’s youngest billionaire.

First, don’t forget that the movie is a fictional movie. How much of it is true, dramatized, and outright false is not entirely known. In a film like this, truth affects the viewer because we want to know how much of the story can be believed. And just how good is the story? In a word – engrossing. Aaron Sorkin’s screenplay hooked me and ended in what felt like an abrupt manner. It is fantastic – the filmmakers made 120 minutes feel short. Major praise goes to David Fincher (Fight Club, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) as he handles the acting so well, that my major concerns (especially regarding Jesse Eisenberg) were put to rest. It’s not that I think Eisenberg is a bad actor, it’s just that he seems to play off the same personality type: insecure, anxious, and nerdy (“Zombieland” uses it for laughs, “The Squid and the Whale” to make us cringe). It’s sort of like Michael Cera, who never seems to be anyone but George Michael. However, in the film Eisenberg has a level of depth to him that utilizes these strengths and makes them blend in beautifully with the character, creating a certain kind of depth. A worthy nod during awards season is entirely appropriate.

Big nods as well to Justin Timberlake, who looks about 10 years younger, playing Sean Parker – the founder of Napster/former President of facebook. All other players, especially Andrew Garfield as Zuckerberg’s best friend and facebook co-developer Eduardo Saverin are perfectly cast and played. Everything feels tight, clean, and focused. Much of this is due to rapid fire cuts that highlight Sorkin’s words and Fincher’s trademark browns and natural colors. The movie is a clean, slick, no nonsense production.

So, the filmmaking elements are all in place which leaves the big question – is it a good movie? Yes it is, but its long term relevance is worthy of questioning. It documents something very “2000’s” by displaying a familiar character – the fractured genius who wants to be accepted. But 10 years from now, will we care? While facebook has changed the way we communicate, will it matter in 5 or 10 years? While the question may seem silly, ask the creators of other major internet sites like myspace or Napster – it’s very much a fair question.

Perhaps this is the bottom line – if it were the “myspace movie,” would we care? Probably less so, but assuming the characters and storyline are the same I’d still be interested. Zuckerberg is still the underdog, and I couldn’t help but grin when he snidely remarks that he is happy to be sticking it to people who have gotten whatever they have wanted their whole lives. These kinds of characters are compelling because they are the archetypes of a certain brand of hero. It’s just that in this case, the hero is an insecure brat.

Waiting For Superman

2010-09-24T19:53:00.001-07:00

I am surrounded by people in the helping vocations. My Father and brother are pastor’s, my Mother is a nurse, my wife and my brothers wife are teachers (one in inner city LA at a school featured in the film, both a part of Los Angeles Unified School District), and I worked as a school based therapist in inner city Los Angeles (essentially a Clinical Social Worker). My experience and family environment have informed me and colored my biases about the problems of education - especially in areas where poverty and immigration create challenges for teachers. I have been and am presently surrounded by people in the trenches of the education war.

I was cautious going into “Waiting For Superman” due to its director – Davis Guggenheim. He is responsible for “An Inconvenient Truth,” a film that has polarized while igniting a political fire. On the other hand, his most recent film “It Might Get Loud” inspired me to play music again, and as a result I started a band for the first time in 9 years. To say that Guggenheim’s films leave an impact is an understatement. He gets people to talk.

“Waiting For Superman” chronicles the failure of the public education system. He cites several sources for blame, among these issues are Teacher’s Union’s, lack of accountability, and bureaucracy. The film tells the stories of several children from various neighborhoods in the United States, all but one of whom are from what appear to be low income areas. The film chronicles these children and their family’s journey’s to get kids into Charter, boarding, and other advancement level schools. Meanwhile, several administrators, teachers, and parent’s are given the opportunity to speak up on the issue.

As a film, it looks slick and moves at a good pace in spite of a long running time (the version I saw was 120 minutes long). The students themselves are the highlights – their candid comments and truthful expressions leave an immediate impression. However, for the genre of documentary, this feels less like a documentation of a problem and more like a message movie. My main problem is that Guggenheim plays mostly on his side of the fence and doesn’t present both sides of the arguments.

The main example is with regards to the argument made about tenure and the Union’s power. In the film, we see student captured video of teacher’s getting paid by the state to do little more than babysit as kids play craps and socialize during what is supposed to be classroom instruction. We learn that these teachers got fired as a result of the video. However, we also learn that not only did these teachers get their jobs back a year later, they were back paid for a year’s worth of not teaching. It’s maddening. In addition, Guggenheim alleges that Teacher’s Unions are the most powerful in DC, and have given more money than any other group to Democratic candidates for office. The film appears to allege that a dollar to the Union is a dollar to a Democrat.

But, Guggenhiem never interviews Union members, nor does he spend much time interviewing the teacher’s themselves. What do Union leaders think of his arguments about tenure? What about the pressures teacher’s face to appease unreasonable parent’s (something I have witnessed first hand), peer pressure from card carrying Union members (“side with us, or we won’t be helping you out anymore”), or the natural problems of many “failure factories?” Like, how do you address the fact that students are bringing English written homework home to parents who are monolingual Spanish speaking? What about the devastating effects of poverty – that some elementary and middle school aged children are forced to work because they would rather have food to eat as opposed to doing their homework?

My last social criticism of the film is in Guggenheim’s conclusions. He doesn’t look at the parent’s and make them take responsibility for their children’s performance. True – he does chronicle and we do see parent’s helping their children do homework and fight for the lottery system, but he sees the problem strictly through the lens of the school system itself. Agreed – the school system is a giant mess. However, parent’s have to follow up on their children’s homework, provide accountability at home, and support teachers who at times don’t give their children “good” grades. The school can’t do the parenting part, and Guggenheim’s neglect to confront this is curious, if not frustrating.

That’s a lot of criticisms, but what about the positive? Well, there’s a huge amount to give – this film will provoke you. You will feel sad, you will laugh, and you will be left asking the question “what can I do to help?” On these merits, the film is successful. The film also knows how to balance entertainment with information. His bottom line is glaring – shouldn’t every child be at a school where there are quality teachers who care about the students and do a good job? Why is it that some children get to by chance enter lottery schools, while the rest get the crummy ones? Shouldn’t each child have an equal share of the same slice of educational opportunity? Additionally, Guggenheim’s statistics hurt. The United States is producing 120+ million skilled labor jobs, but due to the poor academic performance of our schools, but we are only producing 50 million qualified students. The labor is being filled elsewhere, because across the globe, we are being beat.

I could continue writing, which I suppose is high praise to the film. See it with your family and think about it. Discuss it – education is the vital component of our nation. But think critically about it – how do you hold your child accountable? How do you support your child’s teachers? My wife saw the film with me and she was engaged wholeheartedly. She later commented that she felt the film could have been even longer. She is right – there is so much ground to cover in a conversation about education. But then again, if I have learned anything over the years, it’s that she is always right.

The Town

2010-09-17T17:39:00.001-07:00

On my facebook page, I am part of a group called “Ben Affleck sucks as an actor.” My friend Ezra made the page around the time Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez were media magnets, and the backlash was massive. But then a curious thing happened – Affleck made the outstanding noir thriller “Gone Baby Gone.” It worked because “Gone Baby Gone” was anchored by what Affleck appears to know well – Boston. In addition, the performance onscreen by his brother Casey is among my favorites in the genre.

For the unfortunately named “The Town,” Affleck returns to a different neighborhood in Boston to tell a story that is less about mystery, and more about heist. Affleck stars as Doug, a hockey flunkey who makes a living robbing banks with longtime friend James (played wonderfully by Jeremy Renner) and 2 newcomers to their crew – Albert and Desmond. Things get all tricky when Rebecca, a bank manager, gets taken hostage by James during one of the heists. Soon after she is let go, Doug begins to “bump” into her around town. During this, the FBI starts to close in on Doug’s crew, all of which tests relationships and decisions within the bunch.

Heist films are a favorite of mine, especially older ones. Heist characters often having me on their team hoping they get their score, which is hard to do seeing as these characters aren’t usually “good” guys. The best parts of these types of films are the planning and casing of the scene of the future crime, the character tensions as the planning happens, and the tension existing in the heist itself. Each heist film I see will always be filtered through Rififi and Le Samourai – two masterpieces of the genre. They both feature nail biting heist sequences with no music, jump cuts, or fast pacing. They are beautifully tense, wonderfully shot, and feature rich characters.

Where “The Town” succeeds is in the characters, most of whom are interesting, with the one let down being FBI Agent Adam Frawley, played by Jon Hamm of “Mad Men” fame. I am not sure where to point the finger, but Hamm appears to be either poorly directed or underutilized. We never sympathize with his character because his role is played in a flash, and with limited emotional range. However, Affleck is great, and he disappears into his role and character. Better yet, Jeremy Renner adds another notch in his belt after his turn in “The Hurt Locker.” I have to give Ebert credit for mentioning this in his review, but there is one scene where Renner has to play restrained and playful. The scene is so tense and uneasy, it is a testament to the ingredients of the film – writing, story, direction, and acting.

However, for all its positive qualities (and there are many) “The Town” disappoints in other key areas. I have a fairly critical reaction to how the film concludes, because it does not seem true to the events on screen. I wish I could say more, but to do so would be to spoil (comment below to discuss). Additionally, some of the plot points become a tad muddy. Why does James sister show up at convenient plot points, and what is she there for? Same with Fergus (the head of…the local mafia?) who appears briefly, but always appears threatening. Lastly – it’s okay to slow it down in these types of films. Let the tension build more, no need to rush through.

Nonetheless, “The Town” is a solid, recommendable heist flick that both enjoys and rejects cliché’s of the genre (thankfully there are no major plot twists in the end). The film certainly earns its R rating due to sexual content, strong violence and language, but it feels true to these characters and their world. Overall, “Gone Baby Gone” is a stronger film in terms of its coherence and depth (especially the fantastic moral dilemma). Still, “The Town” is great at times, and certainly worth seeing in the theaters. So – Melville, Dassin, Affleck? No, not yet. But I do think I need to unsubscribe from my Ben Affleck sucks group on Facebook.

Christian Movies!

2010-08-15T13:20:00.000-07:00

It had been at least 10 years since I walked into the Family Christian bookstore around the corner from where I went to high school in Costa Mesa. I used to go there on weekdays in the lull between the end of the school day and the start of theater practice. I went there for music, and Tooth and Nail records was all the rage. With the exception of Wish For Eden and Everdown, I bought nearly everything that had the labels name on it, and Family was my Christian music dispensary of choice. Half the store was CD’s, and the rest of it could have been stocked with groceries for all I cared. It was my music place.

Revisiting Family Christian bookstore 10 years later was sort of disheartening. What used to be rows of CD’s was a sparse collection of music comprised of worship leaders and things they play on KFSH. Taking its place was the hot new Christian media – the DVD. Several aisles of colorful DVD’s, sitting right next to a DVD player that would censor out the naughty bits of whatever you were watching, which was certainly nothing carried on the shelves. In fact, they even have 30 dollar versions of your favorite secular movies, without any of the aforementioned corruptible content.

Recently, I spoke with filmmaker David DiSabatino for conversantlife.com (he made “Frisbee: Life and Death of A Hippie Preacher”) and our conversation reminded me of this visit. We were talking about the Jesus People movement. In his mind, the downfall to this remarkable movement of God came when the church stepped in and softened things, effectively changing the wine back to water. This soon led into a conversation about Christian music and Christian movies. Christian movies have an identity crisis on their hands, and all we need to do is go back a few years and learn again from what Christian music has been through. What started out great has with few exceptions continued to be a joke, with CD’s that I can’t help but think say the Lord’s name in vain more than Eminem’s latest album.

Now, taking the place of CD’s are colorful DVD’s. They are separated by genre such as comedy, drama, and other forms of Christian DVD’s that want to hang out with your wallet. Like music 10 years ago, the tools were there for independent artists to make music, but they were just out of reach. The tools to make Christian movies are so close, but still a bit far off in terms of what is needed in any form of accessibility. There’s no Guitar Center for filmmaking gear. By contrast, radio friendly tunes can be made in the living room or the studio by anyone with a half decent computer.

Movies are close, but the problem is money. We need money to make the media, and we need someone to hand it over. Said person wants to give you the money if they know that they will make more back. Problem is, once we start making movies for the faithful, we lose. Do you know anyone who isn’t a believer that was jonesing for the Left Behind trilogy on DVD? Haven’t we learned yet from Christian music?

The genre of “Christian film” is saturated with overly dramatic faith crisis’s that hinge on life and death decisions, the rapture, funeral services, and generally unrealistic depictions of humanity. These unrealistic depictions are most plain in the end of the film’s, which always promise a conversion sequence and canned “hope.” It’s as subtle as Lady Gaga. More so, it’s embarrassing. But the people with the money to finance these projects turned giddy when Mel Gibson opened up the heavens, and they want in. For them, if your movie can’t be shown at church and accompanied with a study guide for a few dollars more, it won’t see the light of day. And just what kind of a film will get shown in church on movie night? Check the racks at your local Christian retailer.

The opposite is certainly true – movies in general don’t get made unless they can make money back. I recognize the common sense aspect of this; we all have to make a living. And yes, content is often vulgar in movies and not suitable for families. I am not equivalating Forgetting Sarah Marshall with Toy Story. The difference is that we have a voice about the unseen, and in this time of uncertainty we should feel a Jeremiah like burn to open up our mouths and make art that means something. In a perfect world, we wouldn’t care about how much more money it could make back if we tweaked things to white bread absurdity. We should piss people off, rattle cages, and make people talk. It doesn’t have to have special effects, or labels on the cover like “Hollywood production values!” to make it worthwhile. It should simply mean something. Instead, we are so contented to sit next to what is safe and easy. Again, I reference the growing Christian movie genre as evidence.

Artsandfaith.com recently listed their top 100 films that combine…art and faith. Alongside Bresson, Tarkovsky, and Bergman sit one of a handful of modern day films that fits their perplexing choices (Punch Drunk Love is my favorite film of all time, but how it ended up as #85 is head scratching). The film is “Frisbee: Life and Death of A Hippie Preacher.” So, instead of picking up the next colorful DVD box with smiling white families or people who dress like white people, try something different. We don’t need Christian media – music, film, or otherwise. We need truth and beauty. If we can express that honestly, perhaps we will avoid repeating the past. Perhaps we will be taken seriously.

Flipped

2010-08-06T09:06:00.001-07:00

Coming of age films are a favorite of mine. There is a certain quality to this genre that reaches me unlike any other. Children know blunt emotion at its simplest and most raw – happy, sad, angry, nervous – while adults attach more convoluted subcategories to these feelings. Seeing kids experience these feelings on screen takes us back to our own childhoods to when we first felt them. A good coming age film will remind us and make us feel those feelings again.

In Rob Reiner’s latest film “Flipped” (adapted from the book of the same name), Juli Baker and Bryce Loski describe their journey to and from first love with one another. The uniqueness of the film is that each section of is replayed so that each character narrates their male and female point of view of the same scenario. The effect provides an original take on the traditional romantic film. What one character saw as love, the other was narrating as annoyance. When one character describes passion, the other sees crazy.

My expectations ran high for “Flipped.” Reiner is a proven director whose films span multiple genres, with numerous classics that solidify his body of work in cinema history – “The Princess Bride,” “When Harry Met Sally,” “Spinal Tap," and “A Few Good Men” are all to his name. Each film sits at the front end of their respective genres. Additionally, "Stand By Me" is among the greatest coming of age stories ever made.

And while "Flipped" should be outstanding, it is merely decent. It appears to be simple and warm, but something gets lost along the way. I don’t think it’s much fault of the actors – the cast is mostly great, with extra nods to Aidan Quinn as Richard, and Madeline Carroll as Juli (Richard’s daughter). Carroll’s full of charm and appeal, easily the most likeable part of the film and the one with whom the audience will eventually side, if not right away. Quinn’s character reaches some genuinely intense highs and reserved lows – all played with believability. The Father/Daughter bond with its joys and conflicts feels great.

One of the elements that keeps the film in average territory is its familiarity. The memory of Reiner’s classic “Stand By Me” is present in the setting and tone, perhaps to a fault (The film is even liberally graced with 50’s and early 60’s doo-wop standards, including the song “Stand By Me”). Additionally, while the film is ripe territory for clever, the cross sexes observations don’t seem as charming as they could be. Appealing and grin worthy, yes, but hardly laugh out loud hilarious.

The film also struggles to find its balance. On the one hand, we have cliché’s of family movies that play things really safe – a kind Grandfather who is clearly the most wise, or the buttoned up Mom who seem to be wide eyed and gasped at their children’s outlandish acts (such as a child’s funny faux pas at dinner), etc. Yet, there are scenes where we see some oddly placed foul language and a particularly intense Father/Daughter confrontation.

To its credit, there appears to be earnest warmth in the film and I sense Reiner’s love of simple feelings is present. The territory is deep and can potentially inspire great conversations - love, loss, disability, Father/Daughter and Father/Son dynamics, etc. That it’s set in its early 60’s time period is Reiner’s choice, and I think the film benefits as a result. Reiner knows this era – it’s the one he experienced childhood in. It’s a very cute story, and the double perspective style is fun (if slightly tiresome by the end of the film’s 90 minutes). The cinematography appears beautiful in some scenes with warm autumn tones, even if the landscapes appear digitally manipulated.

Perhaps it’s because Pixar has spoiled me with what I expect in a family film – hilarious for kids and adults, but genuinely heartfelt. Perhaps my expectations from Reiner were unrealistic to begin with, but I can’t help but feel that this film was waiting to be placed in the front of the line of great coming of age kids movies like “The Sandlot,” “Simon Birch,” or the excellent “Millions.”

As I've thought about it more, I've appreciated it more, but it just seems too safe, and strangely not safe enough. While Juli’s character is especially endearing, there are too few laughs, and the emotional depth is fairly limited in spite of the ripe territory. I recommend “Flipped” for families who are tired of explosions as mindless summer blockbusters come to a close. It will certainly recall memories of first love for parents and inspire some great conversations with the kids.

Inception

2010-07-17T20:45:00.000-07:00

Summer movies have been a huge disappointment so far. Not merely in quality, but also in selection. I haven’t been eager to see any films outside of the annual Pixar voyage demanded every summer. Not so with “Inception” – a thrilling, psychological, science fiction, heist flick blend that had me glued from the first frame.

The story is this – a team of mental ninja’s (led by Leonardo DiCaprio) are commissioned to go into the minds of others and extract information. In addition to extraction is inception, a nigh impossible technique where said team of ninja’s go in and implant ideas into the mind’s of others. I don’t want to say more – the less known the better.

Let’s talk the good, firstly being the structure of the story. If you are going to introduce new rules of reality, make sure the audience gets it, and we get it. I have never seen a film like this before, but Nolan and company do an excellent job of setting up the parameters, the rules, and show us how they work in the first hour or so. The second half or more of the film is the team of mental con artists playing by the rules. In terms of genre I have a positive bias towards heist flicks, especially the “one last job” noir style tragi-drama. “Inception” is a great heist flick.

The effects and the means by which they are employed are perfect. Nolan blends the best of naturalistic effects with CGI. There are things on screen that happen that I have never imagined, and yet I was thoroughly immersed - I believed it all. Especially memorable is a hallway fight that involves a spinning room and drunken laws of gravity. Acting is uniformly convincing, but I have to give a big nod to Joseph Gordon Levitt whose athleticism, wit, and acting chops have appealed to me beyond nearly all other big screen actors.

Now the critical – the movie is so densely packed with information, that the emotional intentions get obscured. Nolan goes for big emotional buy in – marriage, death, grief, Father/Son relationships, and love all make weighty appearances. Yet, the viewer has been on alert since the first act that it might all be a dream. My attention to all of the details made me work at the film, so much so that I had a headache at the end of its 2 ½ hour running time. I praise that it made me work to be in the film, but it was hard to let myself get emotionally invested.

Psychologically speaking, the film is one big, intensive therapy session for one of the characters. We are introduced to the power of the mind, dreams, and memory interacting like a volatile chemical with feelings waiting to explode. The film almost espouses Cognitive Behavioral Psychotherapy (CBT), a popular brand of therapy which posits that when the thoughts are changed, the feelings will change as well. This brand of emotional confrontation seems to be at the center of the mind game. The characters experience a confrontation of painful truths, changed ideas, and big feelings to mix it all together.

There is much to be theorized about the film, and it certainly demands multiple viewings. However, I want to point out that it’s nice to see Nolan sit comfortably as an auteur – something of a lost brand in modern filmmaking. It would seem that he, Scorsese, Spielberg, and few others share a common creative control, touch, and feel in their films. In other words, Nolan’s films – cold and detached, yet slick and innovative – have a look and feel that are distinctly his. His creative touch is all over “Inception” with what appears to be almost no interference. With “Inception,” Nolan has managed to live up to the hype he created for himself after making “The Dark Knight,” creating even more hype and expectation for what he will make next. I can’t wait to see.

When in Rome

2010-06-19T22:24:00.001-07:00

Mary – “Christopher, is this a good movie?”
Me – “No Mary it’s not”

Mary is my Mother in law, and she and I have vastly different tastes in entertainment in general. It’s not that I’m a snob, or that I have to watch movies in foreign languages that reference other movies in foreign languages. It’s not that the only English language films I watch have a low budget and a shaky handheld camera. It’s a bad movie because it’s what’s wrong with movies in general.

“When In Rome” is a 90 minute cringe fest. It aggressively wastes nearly all of its considerable talent with ease. With exception to Dax Shepard, who elicited the only laughs as a narcissistic male model, the movie fails on every level. Let’s start with the story, which is the same formula of every romantic comedy: Overworked girl meets someone (on vacation), starts to get into him, faces a dilemma, only to be swept off of her feet and be overjoyed by romance that ends in a wedding, which of course has an interruption before rapture sweeps the couple off of their feet.

Where “When In Rome” should have been really fun is in its real comedic talent. Will Arnett is amazing in Arrested Development, Jon Heder should have been great as a “street magician,” Danny Devito is blessed as a dark comedian, and Bobby Moynihan is great on SNL. Beyond the comedy, Anjelica Huston does her best Meryl Streep impression from “The Devil Wears Prada” and even Lee Pace from “The Fall” and “Pushing Daisies” briefly makes an appearance. Yet, they are all wasted on an awful script and poor direction. The filmmakers manage to make someone as likeable as Kristen Bell an eye rolling mess.

But it is the story and the moral ineptitude that is perhaps most bothersome. Kristen Bell is told by her newly-dating-younger-sexy-woman-Father that she just needs to “believe” in love. When Bell’s character points out the twice divorced Father’s track record doesn’t appear to support this ideal, he says something to the effect of “I just love too much.” While most of us would find it stupid, the movie seems to esteem the character and his philosophy. Isn’t that offensive to anyone besides me?

The sad truth is that this mentality is what motivates the central character. Later in the film she repeats out loud to herself the advice of her Father – to “just believe” in love. Another thing she could have said is “just believe in warm feelings that tingle your tummy.” I may be making more of a deal about this than is necessary, but this is the point: all films inevitably espouse a worldview. Whether it is preachy or subtle, it is literally impossible to make anything (especially films) that doesn’t have some kind of meaning or point.

A recent episode of “South Park” attempted to make the point that some things aren’t intended to be interpreted beyond face value. In the episode, the boys attempt to make the most offensively graphic novel in the history of mankind only to have it be interpreted as a metaphor, hailed as a work of genius. But even then, the episode makes a point that some things don’t have a point. Isn’t that a belief of some kind, or an extension of ones worldview – that not all things have a point?

So, “When In Rome” is a giant waste of time that tries to sneak in a message underneath it’s unpretentious looks. It wastes loads of comedic talent and in an attempt to make us feel any feelings of puppy love ends up grating the nerves. Don’t fall for this kind of garbage. Don’t waste your time with it. Watch Arrested Development for some Will Arnet goodness instead.

Thinking about "Shutter Island"

2010-06-14T15:18:00.001-07:00

I’ve been catching up on movies lately, so unfortunately the bulk of my recent viewings have occurred at home, not in theaters. But hey, if you are wondering whether or not to rent, here’s my take!

In “Shutter Island,” man couple Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio team up again to tell the humorous story of finding love where you least expect it in a foreign country.
Or not. DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo are federal agents investigating the disappearance of a patient at Shutter Island, an intensive inpatient mental hospital that houses only the most dangerous and violent of criminals. Through the film, the two dig and dig to find the truth of what happened to their missing subject.

There are 2 things inherent in any Martin Scorsese movie, especially if it was made in the last 10 years or so – everyone on screen is going to act their best, and it’s going to look first rate. Editing, cinematography, and Scorsese’s specialty – character – are all trademark excellent. Not one frame is wasted on anything dull in spite of a running time of just over 2 hours. While Scorsese aficionados have most likened the film to his remake of “Cape Fear,” I see little similarity apart from the thriller genre aspect. This is still Scorsese, so it is first and foremost about what people feel, who they are, and why they do the things they do. It is about great characters.

Read on, but important spoilers will be revealed:

The task of creating the film had to present some difficult challenges, because once the main reality of the film is exposed, we realize that we are watching 2-3 movies at the same time. We think it’s a mystery, but there is no mystery. Ultimately, the film is grounded in two psychiatric schools of thought – to love or not to love? While one school saw lobotomy (a barbaric process in which a portion of the brain is likened to a scrambled egg) as the logical progress forward, the other school found medication in combination with genuine care and talk therapy to be the answer to treatment and care.

The film then, is the story of patient care. Consider what is actually happening – a man, so traumatized and detached by horrors in his life that he has experienced and taken part in, constructs an alternate reality where he is only a victim or observer of the trauma. This is his defense mechanism against his experiences. His alternative reality is not so far fetched. It is how many psychotic disorders develop. Consider sexual trauma, violent trauma, or other types of trauma. Rather than live in the real world – one which is too painful to actually experience – we create an experience that we can control and cope with. This is a fantastically intricate yet automatic method of protecting ourselves from pain.

The star of the film is ultimately an elaborate treatment plan that involves role play on a huge scale. Every character is role playing in order to aid in this particular clients treatment. What we watch is how one doctor conceives of treatment – that if one lives in and is enabled by their “detachment” role, they may break into reality, the process of which takes time. This is why the flashbacks happen in the film – it is the protagonist’s memories being permitted to come to life by the protagonist himself. As the real memories come through, he has to allow himself to be exposed to who he truly is, and what truly happened.

The fault of the film is in the reality of it. No matter how loving and caring one might be, no one is going to put a patient at such risk as to let him wander off near a cliff by himself, or otherwise. While the protagonist is logical and thoughtful in weaving his web regarding the mystery in the film, at any point the memories coming back may have been too much that his detached reality could have caved in. That he lives in it for several days in such consistency and logic is also intriguing. And yet, like “Lars and the Real Girl,” the fact that everyone plays along with the main character shows what might happen if we accept an alternate reality as real for someone, even if it is false in our reality. Perhaps when we realize this serves a purpose for someone else, that acceptance can lead to breakthrough.

END Spoiler

Like “The Road,” I knew I was going to love “Shutter Island” within 5 minutes of viewing it. The opening shot of the ship moving through thickened fog and the faces of all the guards on the protagonist sets the tone early. Like the ship itself, the film has a lot of fog and texture before we really see what’s coming towards us. Big thumbs up.

Oh hello, its been awhile...

2010-05-25T13:55:00.000-07:00

I wanted to briefly post to let you know I am still here, but my schedule has swallowed me whole. After gasping for some air, here are some brief takes:

I was hoping to give a full fledged review to Tim Burton's vision of "Alice in Wonderland," but I fell asleep during the film. That may be review enough. You want more? Um, it had pretty colors.

"Date Night" was really funny and even deeper than one might expect. Its a great ride, but the strength of the film squarely depends on your feeling about its leads. The story and comedic territory will feel mostly familiar. I happen to be a big fan of the leads.

"In The Loop" is probably really funny - but seeing as I don't know the in's and out's of politics, I didn't appreciate it or get it like I probably should have. Also, I normally can stomach verbal vulgarities, but some of it was pointlessly strong in this one. A rental for the curious is recommended.

"Gentleman Broncos" had one of my favorite trailers of the year (surveillance doe's!), but was an unfathomably bad movie. Jemaine Clement was great, but the rest of this movie was as terrible as anything I've seen in a long time. Reliance on vomit and genital humor seem to further diminish the fun that could have been had.

Speaking of awesome movie trailers, "Black Dynamite" was another favorite trailer. Though I am not a blaxploitation cinema devotee, the film still delivers big laughs, kung fu, and a 100 dollar suit. See the trailer on youtube and give it a rent. It's like what "Undercover Brother" tried to be, but instead of mimicking "Austin Powers," "Black Dynamite" aims to recreate the period - complete with music, film grain, and costumes. A scene about Little Richard had me in stitches.

I think I am one of only several who appreciated "Couples Retreat." 'll agree that the humor is very "meh" and Vince Vaughn's schtick is hardly fresh anymore. However, it was great to see a film where the couples represented a stage nearly all people in committed relationships can identify with. Worth discussing, but an overall missed opportunity.

I have now seen "A Serious Man" 3 times. Like the Coens previous work "No Country For Old Men," this is a movie that just keeps on giving. Repeated viewings have illuminated various themes and meanings, while leaving all of the wit and irony in its place. A most recommended film, but be prepared to talk about it afterwards.

"The Fantastic Mr. Fox" is a great rental, but had it been directed by anyone else I doubt I would have cared. Wes Andersons stop motion world is indeed fun to take part in, and his OCD camerawork is given that much more control. However, the humor felt misguided. Putting The Rolling Stones in this type of a movie feels like it's trying. It's possibly my least favorite film of his, but hardly bad. Speaking of Wes Anderson, here's my Wes ratings from favorite to least - Rushmore, Bottle Rocket, The Darjeeling Limited, The Life Aquatic, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Fantastic Mr. Fox.

On the TV end of things, "Mad Men" is the television show that just keeps on giving. If you haven't seen it, give it a go. Great writing, great characters, and great visual detail create a world I can't help but be curious with.

Also, "Modern Family" is growing on me immensely, but the comparisons to "Arrested Development" are not even close. You see, "Arrested Development" is the greatest show in the history of mankind. There is no show in memory (and I'm thinking of Seinfeld too) that has tighter writing, consistent energy, and brilliant characters (I stress that I rarely use the word "brilliant" to describe something).

Speaking of funny, Am I the only one who is thankful that "Flight of the Conchords" stopped? Season 2 was hardly the amazingness that was season 1. I am glad they knew when to say no.

Then there's the fun if (incredibly) formulaic "30 Rock." It's enjoyable enough this season with plenty of laughs, but something about the proceedings feels too easy. Maybe its the fact that most of the jokes rely on a 3 step system, where one of the 3 stated things is going to obviously be ridiculous. And, for someone like Tina Fey who appears to have a disdain for Family Guy, it seems odd to continue the stream of cutaways that "Family Guy" practically invented...

Speaking of the Griffin family, I have come to realize that "Family Guy" is the equivalent of junk food - a guilty pleasure that is hardly satisfying, usually indulged in as a result of cravings, and is often gross. Yet...I still consume.

I hear that the Criterion Collection is going to be releasing "The Darjeeling Limited" and "The Thin Red Line" on bluray, which gets me excited. Any chance we could pursuade them to take it further and give us Malick's first film "Badlands" and Swedish filmmaker Lukas Moodyson's "Lilja 4-Ever"?

What have you seen lately?

"Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire"

2010-03-28T23:03:00.000-07:00

Fantasy is a powerful tool that brings us out of our reality and into a place of maximum control, typically to ultimate gratification. Our fantasies are the controllable wishes that directly contrast the out of control aspects of our lives. Fantasy often happens in places of pain or boredom. Fantasy serves as a coping mechanism to pain, whereas in boredom it often reveals our hearts by illuminating our desires and wishes. Fantasy is unplanned, which is why it typically happens in the moment of the stressors themselves.

When do you find yourself fantasizing most often? What do you fantasize about? For those of us struggling to make ends meet, perhaps it is fantasizing about what we imagine as an affluent lifestyle. For the timid, fantasy may be about walking into a bosses office, parent’s home, or other authority figures presence and displaying boldness. For Clarice “Precious” Jones, she fantasizes about being adored.

“Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire” is the story of an African American woman in New York named Precious (played perfectly by newcomer Gabourey Sidibe) who is the victim and survivor of countless abuses. The film begins with a set up of Precious environment – her home, dominated by a monster of a Mother (played by Oscar winner MoNique, who more than deserved her awards), her school, and her neighborhood. We then see in painful detail all manner of abuses including emotional abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse – including incest and rape. However, an opportunity comes into Precious life that she bravely follows through on, carrying the rest of the story forward.

The direction and style of the film really took me by surprise. I was not expecting the editing, direction, and music to be so effective. Jump cuts, exits from reality to fantasy back to reality again, and music all richly texture the film. Acting is uniformly great – Real life experience with some form of abuse on the part of the filmmakers impact what we see. The performances truly authenticate the story. If the actors were directed poorly and overacted, played too flat, or were otherwise unbelievable, it would have sunk the film. The movie was obviously created with passion.

But why sit through a film where abuse of any kind is portrayed in any manner? That’s a question only you can decide for yourself (and be warned, this is a tough film to sit through), but the film attempts to give a hopeful climax in the midst of utter hopelessness. Precious is not merely likable, so much as she is so lovable. Perhaps it is the message that in spite of any experience you have been through, you have the choice to rise above it. Is healing possible after experiencing such monumental pain? If so, where is this healing?

It would be a mistake to assume that this film is about poor minorities (especially African Americans) or is a “black” movie. It would be a mistake to assume that “those people” portrayed in the film are the ones who have this sort of universal life for themselves – the poor, the ethnic group you only spend time with through television, or the teenage Mothers. It is a movie I believe that anyone can relate to because abuse is not defined by ethnicity or socio-economic status. Most of all, we can relate to this film because at its core, it is about love. Precious wants, needs, and deserves love. Love of, from and for herself.

“Precious…” came out around the same time as “The Blind Side” and they share two powerful themes – that love and education are forces of healing that are not equaled. Education is enablement, love is empowerment. In addition, each film challenges viewers about the personal human story. When we encounter people, we don’t know where they have been or what role we will play in their story. Just as importantly, we don’t know what role others will play in our story. I am grateful to be moved and reminded of such truthful things after seeing “Precious.”

Green Zone

2010-03-13T01:14:00.001-08:00

Someone just tried to make Call of Duty: The Movie

In “Green Zone,” Matt Damon plays a soldier in a specialized unit trying to uncover the whereabouts of WMD’s in Iraq. However, all of his intel is coming up fruitless, much to his frustration. Before you can say Sarah Palin, Damon goes rogue. He then spends the rest of the film hunting down the whereabouts of WMD’s, being confronted by nosy reporters, encountering the locals, fighting soldiers, and dealing with opposing political forces within the American and Iraqi camps.

Yawn.

On paper, “Green Zone” does have ingredients to make something good. Paul Greengrass directed two Bourne films and made a legitimate masterpiece with “United 93.” Matt Damon can show his talent, and Amy Ryan was Oscar nominated for “Gone Baby Gone.” Brendan Gleeson was honest and balanced in the offensively fun “In Bruges.” Greg Kinnear is also capable of delivering good performances as well. Yet, everyone seems to be going through the motions, making a film without much passion.

For a modern warfare movie, “Green Zone” feels awfully boring due to just how familiar and stale the proceedings feel. While there are a couple of legitimate action sequences, they rarely rouse or maintain tension. Problematically, the reuniting of Greengrass and Damon swiftly recalls images of Jason Bourne, while the shaky cam cinematography plus grainy appearance make it look and feel like a half baked Bourne sequel. There is even a close quarter’s combat scene much like the book-fu fight in the Bourne films. It takes away from much of the uniqueness that the film may have tried for and undercuts any message about the conflict that may have been intended.

What “Green Zone” did do was narrate much of the cultures current view of the conflict in Iraq. We were sent for good reason, got betrayed, feel misled and lied to, and now are endlessly cynical about what Government tells us. We question why we are there, what the purpose is, and while attempting to unite a divided Iraq have become divided ourselves. When the end of the film finally rolls up, the “message” is hardly revolutionary. What you expect to happen probably will happen.

This is not to say that “Green Zone” is a bad film, so much as it is a tired film. It’s competent, but merely so. The acting, cinematography, and action feel recycled and borrowed from better movies. If you’re itching for some war or action, check the Netflix selection instead.

The Hurt Locker

2010-01-18T11:56:00.000-08:00

Addiction is a powerful force that drives those caught in its grasp to do illogical, selfish, and moronic things. In search of the next high, addicts stop at nothing. The drive and compulsion consumes and manipulates the physical body, the critical mind, and the sensitive heart. What once was too potent is not enough. Addiction can take the form of sex, drugs, alcohol, and as “The Hurt Locker” points out – adrenaline.

“The Hurt Locker” is about a group of soldiers in Iraq whose daily job is to dismantle roadside bombs. In the film, we watch them deal with their last 38 days of active duty. The three men each have unique characterizations. Sgt. Sanborn is a solid, level headed thinker who appears to be a fearless soldier with his wits about him. Spc. Eldridge is more timid, appearing to be aware of the possibility of death at every corner. Then there is Sgt. James. Sgt. James is an adrenaline addict.

After an incredible opening sequence, director Katheryn Bigelow sets the tone and makes some ground rules. First – no one is safe. Second – everything is game. As a result of the first sequence, it is anyone’s guess as to what will happen next. Since the stars of the film are not typical A-listers (which is smart casting for this film), I developed a different attachment to the events on screen.

Bigelow uses every object on screen to create tension. I found myself looking at objects and movements on screen guessing what role they might play in the film’s events. Is the phone just a phone? What about the videocamera, or the seemingly desperate man and his claims in the city square? As a result of the tools at Bigelow’s hands, everything has the possibility to create tension. She mostly succeeds in creating the tension in nearly every frame.

However, the film began to fall a little bit flat to me due to its logic. I began questioning how Sgt. James got away with so much broken protocol. Surely, in a film about soldiers and war, this man – who is supposedly a brother with his fellow soldiers – wouldn’t act so recklessly putting them in harms way, right? And wouldn’t his commanding officer reprimand him instead of praise him for some of his decisions? Or what about the stupidity of staying in place when the person occupying it before you was killed there by gunfire? It just doesn’t make sense.

But after thinking more about the film, it became clear that “The Hurt Locker” is as much about the psychology of an addict as it is about the psychology of the US armed forces. Dismantling bombs plays out like getting more and more intense hits off of a drug – each man is playing with something that could destroy them in a heartbeat. Too much exposure or too many risky decisions, and death is certain. The parallels to substance abuse are everywhere.

But simply dismantling bombs is not enough of an adrenaline high and things get riskier as the film moves on. It becomes clear that Sgt. James is not dismantling bombs in service of his country. He is doing it in service of himself. Each successive bomb situation is approached with greater degrees of intensity, increasing the amount of adrenaline pulsing through Sgt. James veins. To say much more would be spoiling a lot, but the things Sgt. James does becomes increasingly riskier. He goes to get his high at the risk of not only his life, but the lives of his fellow soldiers. He is out of control. It is not about following protocol, it is about getting fueled and high on adrenaline. With this view, my thoughts about the “The Hurt Locker” grew more appreciative. The film is more concerned about the characters than it is about right or wrong.

On the imdb.com message boards for the film, people who allege to be soldiers or familiar with the world of the armed forces point to how unrealistic much of the film is. Should this be true, I find it disappointing that Bigelow didn’t take better care of some of the details in the film. More authenticity would have made the film stronger. However, what we are left with is a really good movie with lots of tension and energy that shows patterns and parallels of addiction.

Avatar

2010-01-17T15:56:00.000-08:00

I just don’t understand cross species love.

I wanted to love the King Kong remake, but I couldn’t buy a romantic plot between a human female and an oversized gorilla. When Family Guy episodes focus on Brian the dog hooking up with human females, I don't laugh. It’s like asking me to believe that I could fall in love with a horse. In fact, what if someone made a full length movie of Mr. Ed where the plot hinged on Ed’s burning desire for his keeper’s wife?

Talk about forbidden love…

In “Avatar,” James Cameron’s sci-fi special effects opus, a marine who is lacking the use of his legs gets hooked up through sci-fi machinery to become a Na-Vi (as in “native” – a blue alien creature that is an obvious reference to Native Americans). He becomes them to learn about and ultimately exploit them. That’s because their home sits amongst a highly valuable energy source on their planet called Pandora. Things get all twisty though when our hero falls in love with the people, ways, and an individual of the Na-Vi.

No mention of “Avatar” is complete without talking about the amazing technology the movie employs. “Avatar” is visually dazzling and it makes a good case for 3D films. It looks (mostly) stunning with bizarre winged creatures, insects, and horses. The rainforest type setting with light up flooring a la Billie Jean is lush and imaginative – we believe it could actually exist but recognize it as alien all the same. In addition, the human’s technology and aircraft all look inspired but somehow familiar. Cameron’s Pandoran world is grounded in enough reality that it never feels so far away.

But as good as “Avatar” looks, we’ve seen it before. If “Avatar” were a book, you probably would be bored. This is a tired story, filled with obvious allegories and unintentionally humorous stereotypes. The American’s (though I don’t recall nationality ever being mentioned – it’s an organization run by a corrupt company) march in to get a much needed but costly energy supply. The company has no qualms marching in and destroying a civilization with their own customs and ideals to get this energy source. The company tries to reason with the Na-Vi but they can’t do it and get exactly what they want. So, when one tribe/culture/person won’t work with your country, what else to do but use lots of firepower and brand them terrorists! (The line “we’ll fight terrorism with terrorism” even makes an appearance from a crazy white guy drunk on the mission). It felt too obvious and silly.

While the story is ultimately uninteresting, it is obvious that James Cameron is a gifted director when it comes to action. The climactic ending sequence is riveting, even though it is fairly obvious about how the movie will end. The scenes are shot coherently and cleanly, and we never have to wonder just what is going on (there are even multiple “300” type slow-mo sequences that probably made Zac Snyder blush). I also feel the need to mention that James Cameron likes blowing up large objects. Cameron goes titanic on a massive tree delivering similarly spectacular results and devastation.

Spirituality is also a big component of the film. Like the believability of Cameron’s visual world where things look like ours but aren’t the same, the spiritual connection he strives for is Pandoran but it borrows from a lot of animism. The trees, animals and flowers all seem to have souls and spirits. It is perplexing to me that people find a spirit inside nature but somehow are closed off to the idea that nature points to its actual Creator. Granted, the people and world of “Avatar” are made up, but we are kidding ourselves if we don’t recognize that all creative endeavors inherently express some type of worldview.

It would be unfair to say that “Avatar” is like a beautiful woman with no brains, because “Avatar is not a garbage film. “Avatar” is just an average film. No amount of visual pop and creative 3D can overcome how tired the story felt. How could I be held in suspense if the ending was in plain sight before it happened? How am I supposed to care about the characters if they feel like stereotypes that have little depth? And seriously, do you really expect me to buy into a love story between an alien and a human (complete with a brief sex scene)? Sci-fi and fantasy enthusiasts may get more out of the experience than I did, but once was enough for me.

Christopher's top 11 Favorite Films of the Decade

2010-01-01T02:57:00.000-08:00

Any perusal of the internet will reveal a fascination in top 10 lists. As many others have, here are my top 11 films of the decade. There are some honorable mentions that didn’t make the cut like About A Boy, No Country for Old Men, Amelie, Children of Men, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and There Will Be Blood. There are also films I have yet to discover – like The Hurt Locker, Moon, and so many foreign and independent films I didn’t make the time to see.

For the last decade, movies grew from being an engaging curiosity, to hobby, to full blown love which I have attempted to integrate in my professional life. In the past 10 years I learned about people like Federico Fellini, Martin Scorsese, Sergio Leone, Terrence Malick, and Jean Pierre Melville. I found the Criterion Collection, which gave me an excellent entry point into the world of movies that demand thought, introspection, and conversation. Movies have flowed from entertainment vehicles, to pretentious art house snob lingo, to simple joys I love sharing with others.

This list will be called “Christopher’s 11 Favorite Films of the Past Decade.” The key word is “favorite.” These are all films that left a mark on me and ones I have in the past, and currently do recommend anyone to see.

Punch Drunk Love (2002)

“I have a love in my life. It makes me stronger than anything you can imagine.” – Barry Egan

While the films are in no particular order in terms of favorites, “Punch Drunk Love” is undoubtedly my favorite of the decade, perhaps even of all time. “Punch Drunk Love” is the film I associate most with my wife. It hit me in ways no other film has – I found Adam Sandler to be relatable in a curious way with his awkwardness, yet tunnel vision determination. The feelings communicated in the movie – protection, aggravation, romance, anger/violence, and confusion – are all feelings I experienced to various intensities when I fell in love with my wife.

I am also one of the 7 people in the world who owns the soundtrack. I mean, how many of us would go out and buy such an ethereal, bizarre set of sound and play it on a regular basis? Well, I did – and Jon Brion’s remix of “He Needs Me” hooks into my skin like few other songs. The whole experience of “Punch Drunk Love” is uncomfortable, surreal, bizarre, unsettling, and yet completely aware. When I first fell in love with Colleen, I knew very shortly that she would always be the love of my life. I can’t explain that kind of love. No other film communicates falling in love in quite the same way, and it will take a filmmaker with acute awareness to pull it off again.

Hot Fuzz (2007)

“Have you ever fired 2 guns whilst flying through the air?” - Danny Butterman.

I have seen no movie which has entertained me more in the past decade than “Hot Fuzz.” The actors look as though they are having fun, the story is fun (if surprisingly suspenseful and gory), and the pay off at the end is among my favorites ever. If you get bored at all during the film’s excessive running time, hang in there for the (literally) explosive ending.

I tried “Shaun of the Dead” before “Hot Fuzz” but hadn’t seen the zombie movies it lovingly points to. I hadn’t seen the movies “Hot Fuzz” points to either, but the film does it for you. There are scenes from Bad Boys 2, Point Break, and other absurd action flicks interjected throughout the film to humorous effect. It’s the perfect homage that manages to also make light of its referenced materials. It is also the most entertaining movie I have seen over the last 10 years.

American Splendor (2003)

“You might as well know right off the bat, I had a vasectomy.” – Harvey Pekar

No film wowed me with originality in the way “American Splendor” did. “American Splendor” is the true life story of a man who uses comic books as a means of coping with his bizarre life. This includes a world filled with illness, love, attachment, and above all – a bitter soul. Or perhaps brittle soul is more like it. The main character is played in perfect pitch and tone by Paul Giammatti, an incredibly gifted actor when he wants to be.

But the originality in of the film is in its blending of mediums. “American Splendor” combines documentary, animation, and drama to drive the narrative. The story couldn’t be told nearly as well with a traditional structure, as each of the typically alienated storytelling mediums intertwine just where they need to. The movie is emotionally affecting, especially the final scenes and even though we are in Harvey’s bitterness, there is something loveable about Harvey and his world. Ordinary life is indeed pretty complex stuff.

The Station Agent (2003)

“Would you do me a favor and not look at me right now?” Olivia Harris

Community is a topic I am endlessly fascinated with. How do we connect with others? What does it take to be vulnerable about pain and suffering? Who do we laugh and play with? “The Station Agent” is a lovely movie with great humor to go with its more painful moments. A dwarf wants to get away from the attention he is getting from the world and so he moves into an old train station his former boss left for him. He ends up being swallowed up in relationship by a talkative Cuban man and a grieving white woman.

What follows is simple and affecting as the three talk about their lives and spend time with one another. It’s the soul of the film that works. It’s a perfect mixture of genuine acting, great writing, and meaningful story. It’s the stereotypical “gem” of a film that is simple, yet difficult to pinpoint. It also happens to be a must see.

Lars and the Real Girl (2007)

Sally: “We came over to sit.”
Hazel: “That's what people do when tragedy strikes.”
Sally: “They come over, and sit.”

The first time I saw “Lars and the Real Girl” I was disappointed. I was expecting a “quirky” comedy. But future viewings revealed that “Lars” is no ordinary film. It is honest, and it perhaps the most perceptive film I have ever seen about attachment and relationships. To add praise, the therapy scenes are written better than any I have ever seen in a film. Not to mention just how sweet and loving this film is.

“Lars” gives a mythical, unreal picture of community and love, alluded to in its first lines spoken in a scene at church. People all over the film show how they project much like Lars into their own dolls, stuffed animals, and action figures. It equates Lars as a person with everyone else, rather than making him some kind of outcast. It poses a question I hope I am always asking myself – what would it take to love someone right where they are at without agenda?

Brick (2005)

“Throw one at me if you want, hash head. I've got all five senses and I slept last night, that puts me six up on the lot of you.” – Brendan Frye

Watching “Brick” in the theater was a rediscovering of why I love movies. It was original, intense, and strangely believable in spite of its otherworldliness. If Stanwyck and MacMurray were teens, they may have been cast. But here we get the kid from “3^rd Rock From the Sun.” However, Joseph Gordon Levitt is one of the few actors whom I have gone out to see other films as a result of his performance here.

The real story is first time feature director Rian Johnson whose screenplay is a rewatchable masterpiece that takes several viewings for people like me to appreciate. For the uninitiated, imagine if the classic 50’s film noir was updated in Orange County with only the dialogue intact, but the scenery is modern day. It’s kind of how I might describe “Brick,” a brilliant mystery that keeps on giving over and over again.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

“Nobody tosses a dwarf.” - Gimli

“Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” took me somewhere I had never been before. It is possibly the only film I could endure at 3 hours for midnight showings in the theater. It is amazing. The characters are dealing with life and death, love and fate, and they are doing this on an epic adventure. I was so taken in by the story and scenery that it was impossible for the 2^nd and 3^rd installments to top the first dip into the Middle Earth.

So much has already been written about these films, so I’ll just say this: If you haven’t seen “The Lord of the Rings” yet, you are a fool.

Waltz With Bashir (2008)

“Pray and shoot!” – Ari Folman

“Waltz With Bashir” is a devastating reframe of war, soldiers, and healing. Ari Folman created an artistic masterpiece – an animated documentary which details his experience in an Israeli conflict, that I admittedly don’t understand. And that’s okay, because while the history of the conflict is not something I am intimately aware of, Folman’s story is about how he experienced, forgot, and remembered war. It is his story, not a chronicle of the war itself.

How does one animate a documentary? Folman did it by interviewing subjects from his past, trimming their statements into a screenplay, and then he had each person (with exception of a couple who refused) re-speak their lines into a microphone. Once they recorded their lines, the animation told the story. The movie works as a surreal journey into war by confused soldiers who aren’t the machismo brotherhood so often emphasized in American war films. Yet, it is the films jaw dropping finale that left me crying and so struck with emotion. It is a sequence that will forever be in my memory. It will affect you too.

Lilja 4-Ever (2002)

“I'm not your property. Think you can buy me? You can't buy me. You can't buy my heart and soul.” – Lilja

Didn’t see “Lilja 4-Ever” in the theaters? That’s because you can only rent it through Netflix. Unlike “Trade,” another attempt at making a film about the horrors of human trafficking, “Lilja 4-Ever” has a certain X factor. It will scar you. It is like a horror film where the main character is trapped or being chased, except Lilja’s horror – being smuggled into human trafficking against her will due to poverty and desperation – is very much real for thousands of people.

I saw the film in a Pepperdine University auditorium for a school event. Students later told me they were scarred for life. I am too. But human trafficking should scar us. We need to be frightened, reminded, and scarred by these stories because they are true and real. Of course, this wouldn’t be effective if the story wasn’t told so damned well. We are trapped with Lilja, and the eye covering point of view shots from Lilja are among the most disturbingly effective any film has ever created.

Monsters Inc. (2001)

“Mike Waszowski!” – Boo

It’s hard to know which Pixar film to select because all of them are amazing movies (“Cars” being the exception). They aren’t amazing animated movies, so much as they are simply amazing movies. “Animated movie” has a certain negative connotation to it perhaps due to the association of “kid’s movie” and “animation.” But Pixar is different – each of their films has something so uniquely special – “The Incredibles” as metaphor for family system, “Up” and its out of nowhere opening, or “Ratatouille” and its metaphor for Disney and quality storytelling.

Yet of all their films, “Monsters Inc” is perhaps my favorite story. The reason is because of “Boo.” She is adorable, and animated so convincingly in her mannerisms (not to mention the utterly perfect voice acting). It may not be the most beloved in Pixar’s suite of films, but it is certainly my favorite.

The Fall (2006)

“Are you trying to save my soul?” – Roy Walker

No film wowed me in recent memory as much as “The Fall” did. Every scene is a freezable piece of art that is filled with overwhelming visual power and beauty. The film was filmed in many countries over several years by its director and it makes no use of CGI. When I saw the film and what its director Tarsem Singh created, I couldn’t help but be sucked in visually and aurally.

It’s a pretty amazing story as well. Think of it as a clever “The Princess Bride” with a Getty Museum flair. If you have a bluray player, don’t see it any other way…unless of course that way is in the theater. An absolute must see.

"The Twilight Saga: New Moon"

2009-11-21T00:06:00.001-08:00

Typically when I write about films, I try and do it from the perspective of what can we take that might be personally enriching. In the case of Twilight, this is me writing and having fun. Please excuse my diversion for a moment...

“The Twilight Saga: New Moon” is about a 104 year old pedophile who falls for a 17 year old personality-less emo girl. In this fascinating installment, children with supernatural powers turn into wolfs, speak in tongues, and walk around shirtless. They also have super awesome long hair, fix motorcycles, and find even more reasons to not wear shirts. It’s awesome. The reason all of this on screen trickery occurs is because of head scratching codes and a love story for the ages.

Particularly, the ages of 12-15 years old.

To say that I did not resonate with “New Moon” would be the same as saying bananas do not resonate with hot mustard. The movie is two solid hours long and painfully slow. There are about 3 action sequences that divert from the chatter, but that’s about it. It is a very talkative movie that says absolutely nothing at all. One particular scene where Bella (the love interest, played by a wooden Kristen Stewart) and her maybe/possibly lover Jacob (some guy with a fantastic hairdo) talk in her bedroom goes something like this:

“I can’t do this”

“You’re saying no?”

“That’s right…no”

“So…you are saying no. I don’t know”

“But it must be…no”

I am paraphrasing here, but not by much. The line delivery is so stilted and overly serious, I thought George Lucas stepped behind the camera and yelled at the actors by saying “Be serious guys! Let me see serious” just like in the second Star Wars movie where Natalie Portman and Haden Christensen hilariously talk about Natalie’s sandpaper skin. It’s hard to know if it is terrible direction, or terrible acting, which is a bummer because the film is directed by the guy who made “About A Boy,” a personal favorite of mine.

While others around the globe have fallen in love with the story, I don’t get what makes the story so good (at least in this film version). The vampire and werewolf mythologies are tiny footnotes that could otherwise make this fun. The leads are uninteresting in spite of their supernatural hot sauce, and Bella has virtually no likeable qualities.

Logic also has to arrive at the front door of your mind at some point as well – Why is it that a 104 year old remains in high school? He could always maintain his secrecy by going to college if he were really that bored…And why in the hell is he picking up on teenagers? Doesn’t that kind of disturb anybody, at least comically? You know, the fact that the guy is 104 and he is picking up on 17 year olds? And if you have lived on the planet for 104 years and met Bella in all her drama, wouldn’t that be more of a turn off as opposed to a life long romance?

The movie becomes distractingly bad when we observe the cast. 5 years from now, this movie will be irrelevant and it is ripe for SNL and South Park parodies. All of the music and style is so self consciously hip, it grates the pace along. The vampire females all went to the Vidal Sassoon academy for a haircut before they appeared on screen. They wear today’s brilliant fashions and look like they all just jumped out of the latest Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue. Sequences of slow motion running are littered throughout the movie. In one particularly scene it is hilarious – it comes at the end where Edward and Bella blissfully run through the woods like they are in a love story parody. Or Shrek. The theater I was in laughed out loud.

While “New Moon” does have a soundtrack filled with today’s indie pop heroes, it sort of shows just how commercialized the music has become. I have long noticed that the lyrics of the so called counter-culture indy bands are whining children sad about girls and relationships, but this movie just highlights it, and painfully at that. The lyrics and dialogue are so loathing and adolescent, it’s as though the script were written as a project in my high school drama class.

But…

I know that I am not the target demographic for this film. I doubt anyone was trying to make a great piece of art that places alongside Bergman, Hitchcock, or Fellini. For those who read the books, I salute thee and hope that you enjoyed the film for bringing the story to visual life. There is nothing wrong with liking what you like. In this case you probably just have bad taste.

But hey, I also used to adore The Monkees TV show as a kid.

In the end, this is what we call a booty cash call. It was not made for any other reason than to make money, which is why it gets the hottest tween actors and actresses, hip music, and shirtless tomfoolery. I know the films intentions, and I don’t fault it for that. But for any other reason, this is a big pile of crap waiting for your money. And with two more installments on the way, you and I know that it will get it over and over again.

"Anvil! The Story of Anvil"

2009-10-30T15:43:00.000-07:00

Is there a point when it’s time to change your plans? You know, something just isn’t working right that you have been working on for so long? How about a business you started that just isn’t taking off? What about an acting career that has nothinged out, which led to you faking a stunt about putting your kids up in a balloon to get on TV?

Well, if the band “Anvil” is any indication, you should never quit pursuing your passion.

“Anvil” is a Candian metal band that has/had a legitimate talent. They were known back in the early 80’s as a new type of metal that brought the “heavy” into the mix. They shared the stage and influenced the likes of Slayer, Twisted Sister, Metallica, and Guns N Roses. And while all those bands went on to brainwash your children, “Anvil” was never let out of its cage to bang its head all over your stereo. No label picked them up, no band they inspired took them on tour. Many years, albums, and dwindling shows later, “Anvil” was finding itself to be a has been comprised of 4 old men who never graduated from Metal University.

So what happened? Where did they go? Should you and I care? The documentary “Anvil! The Story of Anvil” answers all these questions. It picks up in modern day where the guys get hooked up to go on an international tour. Some of the shows are genuinely great, as they share festival stages with other well known metal bands. Some of them are miserable, as we painfully share in the genuine heartbreak these guys go through. It is here where the Spinal Tap references are more than applicable.

Speaking of guys, while bass and lead guitar have been a rotating play list for “Anvil,” drummer Robb Reiner and lead singer Steve “Lips” Kudlow have been faithful and true back to where it all started in the earliest of the 1980’s. They are the kind of best friends who might as well be related. They fight and spit like brothers, and they would die for one another like brothers. It gives the movie a heart and soul that other films of its nature just don’t have. They are the reason you will end up caring, even if you hate the music.

But, as much as I cared about the guys and their never ending passion, it begs the question – When do you stop?

While watching the film, I couldn’t help but wonder. Lips and Reiner’s passion for their music and friendship is so strong, that “Anvil” is the marriage and the wives are the mistress. They work low end jobs to pay the bills. Each man has given up everything for the dream of being a full time touring musician. Even though the ship left the port when Nirvana docked in the 90’s, they still tightly held on to the dream.

Regardless, I absolutely loved this documentary because I know what it feels like to want to play music so badly that you would give up everything to do it. Ask anyone who plays music: If someone today were to present you with the opportunity play music for a living, would you drop everything and do it? The answer is “yes.” When you are fulfilling your passion, you feel a type of happy that doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world. Nothing compares to it. This is the sort of thing where no matter if 10 or 1000 people show up, you still play with the same energy because you love the sound. You feel that feeling, and you get high on it. It is a beautiful thing to know your passion, and to relish in it. Playing music for these guys has never been a job they had to do. For them, it's why they breathe.

Since the film came out, “Anvil” has been getting more and more recognition. But I think that it may not be for the reasons they had hoped for. It is their story of the years and years of never giving up that makes me root for them, not their music. It is a double edged sword of recognition, but also novelty. Old school metalheads either knew about the band and forgot, or they have always cared. These are the ones “Anvil” will affect the most. But the rest of us probably wouldn’t go out and buy the soundtrack.

“Anvil” is a weird sort of gambling addiction for the guys. They go to the tables and play their cards, only to sometimes win. That type of positive reinforcement is called addiction. They tasted something once and have been trying to find it again ever since. However, I know of more than a few folks who are paying off recording debts in their parent’s basements while pimping out their myspace music page. You get stuck, and like an addiction it can ruin your life. You believe that someday something will happen. You’ll get that experience again, or that feeling will come back. Why go to school and get a degree if the band might take off? Why risk not playing a show? You have to wonder how far you go to hang onto the dream before moving on.

As a whole, I have a really mixed reaction. I can’t help but be happy that since the film released, they have only gotten more recognition due to the timely “don’t give up” message. It’s true, don’t give up on your passion. But the other side of me says sometimes, it’s best to know when to quit, or at least change your plans. I am grateful that in the case of “Anvil,” they stuck it out till the end.

You will be too.

Zombieland

2009-10-23T23:17:00.000-07:00

Around elementary school age, I used to love playing with action figures. I used to spend hours pretending I would be the lone ninja GI Joe superhero spy who would come into the fray of soldiers, ninja turtles, and miscellaneous robots to save the day. I imagined being one man versus 1000, and the enemy never stood a chance. That’s because I am awesome, and my soldier could withstand any bad guy ninja in the pack.

Yep, unstoppably awesome.

My imagination about saving the day has always caught up with me at each stage of development. As a teenager, it was me pretending to walk down the hallway and ask out my dream girl, who secretly was in love with me. You see, unbeknownst to me, she had been admiring my awesome haircut, hardcore music related t-shirt, and my sense of humor. When I was on stage with my band, it wasn’t the reality of the crowd watching, it was the hope of that one person watching me.

In fantasy and imagination, no one stops you except for yourself. You can only imagine things that you understand. Often, these fantasies come from a place of wanting something you aren’t. Perhaps it was that in playing with my action figures as the lone wolf soldier, I was enjoying pretending to be invincible and in control. However, in reality I was a really anxious and socially nervous kid who dealt with a fair amount of being made fun of by my peers. Playing was way to feel cool, comfortable, and in control of my environment. Imagination and fantasy are why play therapy works so well with children, because children project onto the playing what is going on in their uncensored minds.

“Zombieland” is the ultimate in male escapist fantasy. It opens with Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg from “The Squid and the Whale”) giving an overview of four simple rules to survive the world, or as the world is now known, “Zombieland.” As Columbus narrates, we see limbs flying, tendons being chewed on, flesh gushing, and all manner of zombie style gore - much of which is played for humor as opposed to terror.

Very quickly, Columbus meets Tallahassee (all characters go by the name of their home town) and off they go en route to their various destinations. While en route, the run into Little Rock and Wichita, two sister’s who are headed to a California amusement park. Columbus is immediately smitten with Wichita, and the chase is on for love…and freedom from zombies.

The story is told through the eyes of Columbus. He is your everyday lovable nerd who loves his World of Warcraft and Code Red Mountain Dew. He lacks social skills, particularly with females. The movie watches him try to be the hero in the midst of an ultimate tough guy, tiny teen, and gorgeous gal. The movie is about him, through him and by him.

It is his fantasy.

In fact “Zombieland” is every male geek’s fantasy. You know, the guy who obsessively plays videogames, is socially awkward, and has an insanely deep knowledge of all things safe (hence the rules in the film)? This is the guy who has his fun imagining slaying dragons, fighting on battlefields, and yes – saving the world. He imagines being cool while retaining his geek sense of self and makes friends with other cool people. Most importantly, he imagines getting the girl. At the end of it all, if the whole world was decaying and dying – he would survive it, show incredible courage, save the world, and get the girl.

It’s the little things that matter in life.

“Zombieland” is this male fantasy. I get the impression that the writer was making his autobiography of the future, only told through the lens of the past as his teen self. One could even argue that the character of Tallahassee is a projection of his inner fearless self. Consider that the tagline in “Zombieland” is “It’s time to nut up or shut up.” So what are the ladies supposed to do (because you know, women don’t have nuts)? In the film the women are clever con artists, but even at the end, they are transformed into damsels in distress and it’s up to Mr. Geek to save them and get his kiss of a reward. It is what every pimply faced teen dreams of accomplishing.

And yet, I really enjoyed “Zombieland.” I connected with it as a fun escapist movie that features plenty of jump scares, humor, action, and gore. It connected with the geeky male in me (there is plenty of it too). I liked the story, which had some real dynamic, emotional depth and character development in the most unlikely of places. I thought that Woody Harrelson was cast before the movie was actually written because he so embodies Tallahassee. The film had great one-liners, and the lines were delivered by actors who were fun to watch and listen to.

As a film, I have a couple criticisms. Some things are convenient, like how the protagonists first meet. Additionally there are some pacing issues. It starts off fast and loud, winds down and then ends somewhere in the middle. It wasn’t the finale it should have been. I would love to have seen some big explosions to close it out. Additionally, the rules idea was clever and set up well, but not carried through as consistently as could have been. Still, it was easy to forgive in a movie that was as much about giving you some scares and lots of laughs as it was about telling a story.

I read somewhere that “Zombieland” was America’s response to the completely awesome British film “Shaun of the Dead.” In many ways it is, though this film feels more polished – for better and for worse. I ultimately liked “Shaun” more, but that is not meant to be a knock to “Zombieland.” They both are really fun, entertaining movies that aim to do just that – entertain. It will connect with something in male’s more, but everyone will laugh at least once.

3.5/5

It Might Get Loud

2009-09-21T08:52:00.000-07:00

How are you creative?

I am a musician, and have played mostly guitar and drums for over 17 years. I remember my first guitar - it was a red Hohner stratocaster copycat. I got it during Christmas one year, and I remember when I first saw it in the garage after all the other gifts had been opened. My Dad led me to it through a false story about spilling coffee and needing some carpet cleaner. The first time I looked, I didn't even see it. But the second time, I did see it, and thanks to guys like Beau Bivins and my Dad, I was playing metal with power chords as often as I possibly could.

Any of us who likes partaking in creative endeavors can remember when we started and how it felt. That first time we made up our own song, played it with strangers who become our new best friends, and then showed it to others awaiting their response was unforgettable. The feeling of playing music you create, love, and share with others is like giving a friend a present. You are nervous about what they will think as they unwrap the box. Only, when you create something you are that much more nervous of the person's reception - what will they think of the colors you chose? What will they think of the sound it makes, or the way it looks? It's a fantastic feeling when it is received well and even better when asked for more.

"It Might Get Loud" serves as an example of the creative process through three men's legacies that have been shaped by the guitar. Jimmy Page, Jack White, and The Edge get together to discuss the way the guitar has impacted their lives. We see and hear early video of the stories of U2, Led Zepplin, and Jack White's music, to sometimes comedic effect. However, this is not a documentary about bands, it is a documentary about creative persons. You see just how these guys approached the same instrument from different views and thus created something uniquely special where no two sound the same. The film explain's how each person developed or found their iconic instrument (The Edge's classic sunburst guitar, Jack White's unique take on pick ups, Jimmy Page's two neck guitar), and ultimately reminds us just how diverse and subjective music (or art in general) actually is.

The movie does not aim to create something with these three musicians. In fact, the end result of their conversation is a cover song, perhaps appropriately so. But there won't be any superstar band or "project" as a result of the meeting. I liked that. It kept the focus on the process of playing, discovering and creating. It took the focus off of content. These three men have made a career, traveled the world, and had emotional impacts on people across the planet from the same device: the guitar.

The thing is, it doesn't appear that being famous is what anyone was necessarily striving for - a refreshing change of pace in a reality tv world. The three men share a rabid love of playing and experiencing music. We go into their homes and see what vinyls they have, what their favorite songs are, and where other musicians have inspired each of them. It is fantastic. It is less rock star, and more giddy child interacting with music enthusiast. It made me feel like I was just hanging out with the guys. To make it even more amazing, the film revisits the homes or places where one of each musicians classic works were created.

The movie nicely covers a diversity in approach to the guitar. Each player has a specific philosophy about the art. Two ends of the musical spectrum candidly reveal themselves: to be aided by technology or to rebel against it. There are those who love the aid of digital manipulation, and those who refuse to participate in anything remotely digitized. In the film, these spectrum's are inhabited at polar opposites by Jack White and The Edge. It is revealed that The Edge has an individual, no two alike effect for nearly every U2 song. He shows how there is a sort of artistic approach to the aid of technical effects and devices. Then there is Jack White, who rebels against technology like a 4 year old to broccoli. His guitars and sound are happily obtained from thrift stores or places tech head musicians wouldn't dare touch. However, White is clearly in search of a specific sound. Jimmy Page appears to be somewhere in the middle of the two, having a raw sound but with the aid of some effect and polished gear.

I am very much opposed to overly used effects when I play. However, in watching the film it occurred to me that the effect is not the instrument or the pedal, but the player. Just as a paint brush doesn't talk or move without the aid of an artist, a guitar sounds how its handler wants it to sound. The artist is the effect pedal. The instrument is being played through them as much as anything digitally manipulated. The film made me think about how I create and what I use to create with.

It would be interesting to see the movie with other guitarists that cover more than a mostly rock n' roll spectrum. What would it have been like if BB King were there? Or how about a jazz or classical player who can manipulate the guitar into other absurdly beautiful or technical spectrums? Or, in a dream world - could you imagine if Stevie Ray Vaughn and Jimi Hendrix were still alive and played together in this film?

I left the film wanting to begin playing again after a several year hiatus that had been brought on by my own lack of inspiration clogged by the demands of the stages in my life. Just hearing about how these men discovered music, play an instrument, and love their work made this an infectious movie. I cannot think of too many movies which left me wanting to go out and be creative. I got home, plugged in "Big Red" (all musicians name their instruments) and wrote a song.

All of the sudden I was playing music again, and it felt really good.

Questions to consider:

1. How are you creative? What is your primary means of creativity?

2. What inspires your creativity?

3. How often do you spend time admiring and praising the creativity of others?

4. If you haven't felt creative lately, what do you think some reasons might be?

5. What is something you have made that you are proud of?

6. How do you encourage the creativity of others?

7. Who inspires your creativity?

Liar Liar (or how I woke up one day and noticed my pants were very large)

2009-09-08T13:38:00.000-07:00

This morning when I woke up, something felt different.

I went downstairs to start my day off with a run and noticed that my clothes felt baggy. What else is strange is that I ran the whole route instead of jogged it. After my run when I went to the kitchen for breakfast, I skipped right over to some oatmeal and fruit, a change of pace from the usual sugary cereal. I also happened to have packed a lunch the night before that looked abnormally trim. I finished my morning routine and - again - went on to notice that my clothing was balloon parachute worthy. What happened?

"Liar Liar" asks a potent question: If you woke up one day with a massive change in your life - How would you notice? How would your day be different?

Jim Carrey comically acts out the scenario as a lawyer who habitually lies. It's an older film many of us have seen that has a 3 part structure capped by a saccharine ending. Of Jim Carrey's comedy's, it's probably my favorite due to the way it showcases his comedic talent. The humor is just right, and it is hard to imagine anyone else besides Jim Carrey in the role. I am also personally fond of Tom Shadyac (Bruce Almighty, Ace Ventura), the film's director. Based on who I know him to be from his work with student's at Pepperdine, I have a lot of respect for the man which automatically endears me to his movies.

I want to draw attention to its central theme - change. While lying is the vice that is used to demonstrate change, I think the movie is less about the virtue of telling the truth and more about change in general. The movie poses a great question - if you woke up tomorrow and that habit you most wanted to change in your life were changed - how would you know? What would you notice?

Carrey never wishes away the lying, his change is the wish of his son. Yet, in thinking about change, this often true of ourselves. We are far too often not the instigators of change in our life even though we are ultimately the one's responsible for it. A friend or loved one may instead point out in us an aspect of our lives which is destructive because they feel and see the negative habit with a clearer view than we do. We are often unable to notice it. Think of a close friend in your life - have you ever confronted them on something? What was their reaction?

Change is hard because we make it hard. If not for ourselves, change would be easy in most cases. We are responsible for those behaviors we want to change. The reason is because destructive behavior serves a purpose. For example, I was once told by an overeater support group therapist that he got many doctors and nurses in his group. Why would medical professionals overeat or harm their bodies when they treat its ill effects so often? The therapist's answer was that these doctor's and nurses often have an entitlement mentality that plays out as something like: "I worked extra long hours today and served my patient's with hard work. As a result, I can treat myself to this doughnut (or whatever vice it may be)." For them, the food serves the purpose of comfort and reward for their sacrificial work.

How many of us can identify with a long, stressful day and then feel like we earned that extra large blended coffee drink? I know I can. What if it became a comfortable habit?

Change is hard, and we often do what we can to sabotage it. Sometimes we resist change so much that we are willing to be deceitful with those we love the most. Think of Carrey in the film attempting to manipulate his own son to get the change reversed. The scene is uncomfortable at some level to watch because we know Carrey is not interested in his son, but his son is deeply interested in a relationship with him. Often when a vice serves a function in our life - drugs, alcohol, overeating, lying, etc. - we are scared to do life without it. We thrive on that thing which ironically harms us and our relationships.

There is a principle in family therapy called "homeostasis" which is another way of saying "family functioning." When one person changes - the alcoholic stops drinking, the son or daughter puts up a parental boundary, etc - it typically means things get worse before they get better. It makes change all the more difficult. However, as with a dentist's visit to get a tooth pulled, it sometimes takes a degree of pain to remove something before healing sets in.

So, let's do an example. We'll suppose that you noticed recently you have been spending too much time on the internet. If you woke up tomorrow and this were changed, what would you first notice? You might notice that you don't have the compulsion to log in as much to certain e-mail accounts or websites. You might notice that you pick up the phone and call a friend to socialize. You might even head to the beach and just be still with God. You may notice that all of the sudden - you have time on your hands you didn't have before. You also might feel a little bit scared about this newfound connection through disconnection. That's okay. Better yet - that's a good thing. Change is scary, but all of us need it at times in our life to become more mature (or to the believer - more like Jesus). This is the process of refinement, or ultimately - growth. And like all things that grow, growth often coincides with health.

So now, what do you want to change?

Magnolia (1999)

2009-08-20T10:33:00.000-07:00

I have now seen Magnolia at least 4 times over several years. It is a unique movie, in that each viewing provokes new reactions, while solidifying older observations. It is a multilayered, deeply rewarding film experience. But it is a movie that seems to demand your participation like few other movies do. I always knew Magnolia was a great movie, but I have never been sure I could explain why. I think I have gotten closer and would like to share some observations.

The first time I saw Magnolia was during college. I turned it off part way through Tom Cruise's first Frank T.J. Mackey sequence. Frank Mackey is a self help guru who prances about on stage showing men how to score through emotionally manipulative means. He is never physically or verbally subtle about his intentions. At the time, I felt that it was too uncomfortable and I turned the movie off.

I later learned more about the movie and felt like giving Magnolia a second chance. This time, I was sucked in. So much of the film, specifically Cruise's character, made sense. It is one of few movies I feel thoroughly justifies its crasser leanings. There is a reason the man is perverse, but the movie doesn't praise it or let him get away with it.

It also proved to me something hardly any other film has been able to: Tom Cruise can be a really great actor. Watching him interact with his near dead Father is convincing and brutal.

The third time I became more aware of the technical end of things: The long, elaborate tracking shot which rivals Scorsese's Copa Cabana scene in "Goodfellas," the inundation of music, and the precision of the writing. I read up on some of the symbolism, watched for specific numbers to appear throughout the movie, and found it to be even better than my previous viewing.

I participated in watching the movie.

Now I have seen it a fourth time. During viewing #4, many more things became visible to me. My observations are listed below in detail, so beware of spoilers.

First, I noticed that Magnolia is a movie told in movements. Each movement is closely accompanied by specific music (which never repeats itself later in the film), weather conditions, and technical differences. The only thing consistent between each movement is Aimee Mann's voice.

It almost feels like an opera. Movement 1 is introduction, with a thoroughly gripping set up of characters and themes. Movement 2 is where everyone slowly falls down. Their facades begin to crack. Movement 3 shows the characters heading into (and arriving at) rock bottom. Movement 4 is the crash. Everything breaks, secrets are exposed, wounds are wide open. Movement 5 is a movement towards redemption. Each character begins to sense it. They don't necessarily move up - that would be disengenuine. But the fact is that they look up. That's all P.T. Anderson needs to show us, and that's all we need to see.

Watching Magnolia in this way helped me to experience it much differently than in any previous viewing. I felt like I had a road map.

A major theme (or gimmick?) of Magnolia is the multiple characters story lines. Unlike "Crash," Magnolia's characters are more difficult to connect. I finally saw far more clearly how they are all connected in this viewing. Consider sequences such as the one where the old man is saying his last, bitter, grieving words about regret yet the camera is entirely on another character the whole time. He is narrating the other characters thoughts and feelings as much as expressing his own. Or consider the future that awaits the brilliant child game show contestant. We can see his adult counterpart living his life should the child continue on being dominated by his openly abusive Father. Even if the characters never all end up in the same physical space in the movie, the occupy similar territory in other ways.

Thematically, I am convinced Magnolia is a movie focused on masculinity. Notice that the driving narrative predominantly revolves around men. Anderson focuses thematically on men and Father's in nearly all of his work - Remember "There Will Be Blood" and it's reliance on the role of oppressive Father? What about the role of Fatherhood in Anderson's debut film "Hard Eight"? Magnolia is consistent with this theme.

The roles males play in Magnolia is quite diverse - we have a male nurse, a male chauvinist, successful men, Father's, husbands, a "good" man, and children. It is not just that these roles exist in the movie on their own; they all seem to be quite purposeful. I think the biggest role of the movie is the role of a Father. Consider each character - Frank T.J. Mackey and his Father, the Father of the cocaine addict, or the quiz kid's present but emotionally tortuous Father. The literal and emotional absence of Father's in Magnolia appears to contribute to the majority of what happens in the movie. We see how families suffer at their greed, lust, and emotional absence.

There is more - the narrator is fixed on the line about the past not being through with us. As a therapist who largely subscribes to a classic Family Systems therapy approach to treatment, this is refreshing. I believe we all play out roles from our past in our lives today. Birth order, emotional roles, and triangled communication are examples birthed from our families of origin. It affects intimacy, attachment to others, and personality. Consider again Frank T.J. Mackey: He had to deal with the loss of his Mother and the emotional absence of his Father. He does not know, nor had he likely ever known, intimacy. He knows sex, but he does not know love. These are patterns and themes that his past gave him as an adult. Is it any wonder that he makes a business out of it?

Magnolia is a long, dense movie. It takes its time, and it demands your participation. I still eagerly await my next viewing of it - each time I've watched it with someone, we talk fruitfully at the end about it. There are still things about it I don't get - the frogs being one of them (anyone have a theory about this?). But, hopefully these thoughts can provide you with some clarity about the movie.

I am curious for those who have seen it what about the film you enjoyed most? What themes did you pick up on that resonated with you?

Questions for Counselor's:

1. What role does family history play in your work with your client's?

2. What character would have given you the most counter-transference?

3. What type of a client might you encourage to watch this film? To what purpose?

Questions for Viewer's:

1. Which character did you identify with the most? In what way?

2. Can you think of a role you played (or still play) in your family? How has this role impacted your relationships today?

3. What character bothered you the most? Why? Do you identify with them in any way?

4. Consider the line "we may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us." Do you believe this? Why or why not?

5. Consider the abusive Father and his brilliant son and where their story line ends. What do you think of the son's confrontation? The Father's response? Is there a family member whom you've ever thought about confronting? If so, what do you hope it would accomplish?

6. What sequence was the most memorable to you?

7. One character comments that he has a lot of love to give, but he wants to have a place to give it. Have you ever identified with this statement?

8. Forgiveness appears to be a big theme in the movie. How have you experienced forgiveness in your own life as forgiver? What about forgiven?

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)

2009-08-12T12:55:00.000-07:00

“Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” has all of the ingredients of films I am drawn to: a well known director who has masterpieces to his name (Sidney Lumet – aka “Network,” “12 Angry Men,” among loads of others), respected actors and actresses (Philip Seymour Hoffman, Albert Finney, etc), and a fantastic premise that appeals to one of my favorite genre’s: noir.

Consider the set-up: Two brothers agree to rob their parent’s jewelry store as they are in need of some cash. Ethan Hawke’s character needs the money to pay child support and deal with rough times. Philip Seymour Hoffman’s character just needs the money (though I am not sure I understood exactly why). The set-up may sound harsh, but the brothers know that their parents insurance will cover the losses, and they reason that no one will get hurt. It’s a victimless crime that they can only benefit from.

Right?

The film is told in a mildly out of sync narrative style where we jump forward and backwards in time, with plot points nicely revealed as we need them (think “21 Grams”). It certainly does well to ratchet up the tension. Sidney Lumet knows how to make the movie turn white knuckle. The script originally had the brothers written as friends, but Lumet’s decision to change the friends into brothers makes this “all in the family” tone benefit the feel of the movie. The movie would not be nearly as compelling without it.

But, “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” and I didn’t get along too well. It is a dark movie. Not dark in the way “The Dark Knight” is, but dark in the way few, if any, movies I have ever seen are. Consider a comparison with “The Dark Knight”: The Joker is a morally absent, deviant monster being combated by a clearly good force. By contrast to the Joker, “Knight’s” Gotham city mobsters appear almost as good guys. It makes his unpredictability a major point of tension as the Joker is loyal to no one person, but rather the philosophy that all mankind is inherently corruptible and prone to evil. The Joker sets out to prove this in every way he can. The Joker’s belief in everyone’s evil side allows the movie to explore what everyday men and women do when they have the capacity to commit evil.

“Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” is evil run amuck. There are no good guys. Everyone is out for themselves. The result is a film that is possibly the least redemptive, most intently punishing movie I have seen. Perhaps thematically, I could give it credit for being an interesting take on sin without redemption, or guilt without forgiveness. But so what? Why should we care? “Devil…” starts bad, gets worse, then ends.

Why should I care when not one person in the movie is worth caring for?

As a study of guilt, “Devil…” is worth mentioning. One of the brothers has to cope with his role in carrying out the plan to its less than ideal ends. His guilt is palpable, I felt guilty just watching him. But, I didn’t find the movie saying anything about guilt other than showing guilt on screen.

Acting is universally well done, if predictably so. Hoffman, Finney, Hawke, and Tomei are all proven. Lumet’s mastery of direction gives a tightly focused character for each thespian to reveal. Lumet insists the movie is a melodrama, almost apologetically. I think it works and it helps to explain some of the contextual dramatics on display. However, it is worth mentioning that for some reason Marisa Tomei appears dead set on wearing as little or no clothing throughout as much of the movie as possible. I am not sure why Lumet made this decision. It is almost distracting to the narrative and focus of the film. It got to the point where I expected her to be topless in every scene. Sometimes nudity can serve a genuinely important point to the story, characters, or otherwise, but here it just feels mostly unnecessary.

In spite of so many ingredients I crave in a great movie, “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” proved that the parts were superior than the whole. It’s intent to observe careless adultery, murder, drug use, and evil for 2 hours may be an interesting character study, but the lack of purpose of any kind hurt any of what it intended. Sure – perhaps we could argue it is a revenge story between a Father and his son, or the tried and true moral that nothing is easy in life. But again – so what? Why should I care? Why should you?

I think I’d rather watch “Network” for great Lumet, or “The Man Who Wasn’t There” for great noir.

Lars and the Real Girl - Second Viewing

2009-08-09T14:55:00.000-07:00

(Originally posted in August 2008)

How do you show your friends you love them? What words do you use? What actions do you take? What objects in your life take on a meaning bigger than intended? “Lars and the Real Girl” is about how families, neighbors, and friends cope with mental illness. But “Lars and the Real Girl” is also about so much more.

Lars is an introvert on the far end of the scale who avoids contact with others as much as possible. However, things change when Lars tells his brother and sister in law (his neighbors) that he has met someone – a woman. The problem is, that woman happens to be a sex doll named “Bianca.”

The movie is advertised in a way to make you assume it is (yet) another film about a quirky guy/girl whom the world just doesn’t get. Even the back of the box makes it seem like it is a romantic story about finding true love, as though “Lars” is a sort of off beat romantic comedy. However, this is not a flat, callous movie with alienating “catch-phrase-catch-quirk” characters (like Napolean Dynamite or Juno). Lars is different. It takes its characters and themes way below the surface.

“Lars” works on multiple levels. Many people have wondered what therapy would be like if they went. Look no further than here. Patricia Clarkson’s character is written and acted so well (playing both an MD and a therapist – which is true of smaller towns), that I felt as though I was peering in on a master therapist at work. For example, many of us might ask Lars about Bianca and try to "fix" or understand the problem. However, when Lars is first presented to the therapist, she doesn’t ask. She lets Lars tell her when he is ready. Her focus is on her professional, yet intimate relationship with Lars. She is not concerned with hurriedly fixing a “problem.”

Second, Lars’s family reaction and coping to his diagnosis is very real. When they are told what Lars has, one member wants to fix it right away. “How long does this illness last?” “What medicine can he take that will change him quickly?” “Won’t this be embarrassing?” The other simply asks, “How can we help?” It is a perfect response to someone in crisis. Watching not only the family, but the town characters love Lars is a workable template for how we can respond to those in crisis.

This is where the film got unrealistic to me. There is no way that a large group of people could love someone so much. On my first viewing, this ruined the movie for me because I assumed it was asking me to simply “watch” a silly movie. However, on my second viewing, the film simply asked “what if?” What if a group of people truly loved so much that they selflessly held and walked with someone without advice giving, “shoulds,” or nagging? There is one powerful line where a character says “That’s what friends do in times of crisis. They sit and they wait.” Job’s comforters are nowhere to be found. "Lars" powerfully shows the viewer how we can love others in times of unknown.

We can simply sit, wait, and listen.

Thematically, “Lars and the Real Girl” can be boiled down to being a movie about love. While there is much to say about this, I most want to comment on another theme of the movie - the theme of attachment. Object Relations Theory therapists must see this film. If you want to better understand Object Relations theory, this film shows how a transitional object can be utilized in place of displaced attachment.

It is important that we consider when we watch the film what the power of individual objects can be for us. This makes Lars condition relatable to the average viewer. While this may seem strange, I would argue that what happens to Lars is something that has happened to you. How many of us can recall a doll, stuffed animal, invisible friend, or other blank object that was real and existing to us? They had no identity and language, save for the way we made them to be. Those objects represented something to us. For Lars, Bianca is his means of dealing with physical touch, grief, and human relationship (among other things). She is blank canvas of emotions and attachment patterns that are unique to Lars.“Bianca” is very much a real person in spite of her plastic frame. She is real because Lars projects onto her what is real to him. He projects onto her a relationship where Bianca is the manifestation of Lars’s reality. For Lars to be that vulnerable and open with real people is too difficult for him.

“Lars and the Real Girl” is funny and painful with a certain tenderness. Perhaps it is because the filmmakers acknowledge that this is because these are what love and relationships at their most real can be: funny, painful, selfless, intimate, etc. When we love one another past our understanding of normal, the power of that love can be more than we really know. “Lars and the Real Girl” gets my highest recommendation.

Questions For Counselors:

1. Recall the sequence where Lars family is told clinically about Lars condition. Did you have any reaction/countertransference to either character?

2. What is the metaphor of Bianca for Lars?

3. How does metaphor and analogy play into your clients behaviors?

4. Object Relations Theory appears to provide a great case conceptualization for Lars symptoms. What would your treatment plan be for this type of a client? Would you incorporate any other theories?

5. Are there any ethical issues for the therapist/M.D?

6. Consider the role of physical touch in Lars treatment. Would you consider this ethical?

7. Consider the way the therapist reveals personal information about herself. Is it appropriate? When is it not appropriate to reveal information about yourself to your clients?

Questions for Viewers:

1. Think of a friend or family member going through an emotionally painful experience. What does the movie say might be helpful in the way you treat others in their pain?

2. Recall the sequence where Lars human love interest first sees Bianca after church. Can you think of a family member who pays more attention to an inanimate object than you (a car, a videogame machine, etc)? Why do you think they give so much attention to that object?

3. When was the last time you felt like someone cared for you in a meaningful way? How did that person show it?

4. When was the last time you attempted to care for someone else in a meaningful way? How did you show it?

Henry Poole Is Here

2009-08-09T14:48:00.000-07:00

(Originally posted in February 2009)

After much discussion and thought from seeing "Fireproof," I felt that it was a great message packed into a poor movie that was ultimately still worth watching. "Henry Poole is Here" might just be the film I was thinking of when it comes to a movie about faith. It still manages to maintain a sense of the abstract, a fair degree of subtlety, and artfulness. Sure, the last act gets pretty heavy handed, but I hope that more people will check this one out and entertain the questions it asks the skeptic in all of us - what if?

Henry Poole (Luke Wilson) has just moved to an older suburban neighborhood in Southern California seeking solitude. Upon moving in, he gives his realtor the message that he actually won't be staying very long. Within a few days of his arrival, he meets a very inquisitive Latino neighbor named Esperanza who seems all too happy and cheerful amidst Henry's dour demeanor. One morning, he goes outside to find Esperanza in elated affect while observing his backyard wall. She claims that it is an image of Jesus Christ. Suddenly things start happening in Henry's life as a result.

Several things make "Henry Poole is Here" a really great movie. The characters are drawn pretty realistically. I was convinced of each characters emotional struggles, and found that when specific things happened in their life, it was not a stretch to believe it (save for one subplot which felt unnecessary). Second, the cinematography was beautiful. The movie was shot in La Mirada, but more beautifully than a film of this type deserves. Great point of view shots, some great tracking shots, effective use of slow motion, and even beautifully contrasting colors. Particularly, the inner house's blue painted walls with the aging brown ceiling looked wonderful (I watched the film on blu ray, and I can confidently say that this is one of the best looking blu ray discs I have ever seen).

However, what makes the film work is that it approaches faith in Christ and miracles very openly. It nicely balances Henry's skepticism with Esperanza's faith. It would be unfair to make the film an atheists vs. believer’s conflict. It really seems to hit on the skeptic that resides in all of us. How many of us have read Christ's miracles to bring sight to the blind or walking to the lame? Could it still happen today? I can think of many charismatic denominations that have been vehemently opposed - even denounced - by non-charismatic denominations because they believe that the miracles in the Bible continue regularly today. Some conservative churches seem to have a real lack of faith in the literal power of Christ so frequently written about in the Bible.

Still, the film manages to ask these questions while not preaching to the viewer. The discussions I anticipate that could be had afterwards are many. I know I have heard the reports of the image of Christ burned into some food product and attracting many of the faithful. Internally, I feel bewildered that people would be so drawn to something that seems so silly.

But what if?

Doesn't God use the foolish things to shame the wise? I had to think of my own experience of miracles in front of my own eyes, and conversely disappointments when prayers went unanswered. We are all skeptical of things for a reason. Why? What would it take to move our hearts from skepticism to openness?

What helped drive these messages home was the effectiveness of the actors. Luke Wilson's hangdog face and hopeless eyes were directed in such a way as to give the man dimension. This is the best I have seen Luke Wilson act - and yes, I have seen "The Royal Tenenbaums." I doubt he will ever be any better, and that is a huge compliment. Additionally, Esperanza is portrayed and acted as annoying, but also loving. She is not the movie world's religious fanatic we have come to know and seen poorly portrayed in movies past who is portrayed as a one note moron. The film esteems her because we see that she cares about her downbeat neighbor, which is why she bursts into his life in the first place. Much can also be said of the supporting actors, such as George Lopez in a small but genuine role as a priest.

The film gets too heavy towards the end with extended music sequences and overly drawn out emotional climaxes. Most of the music is outstanding - particulraly the score - but there are a few duds in the bunch. It reminded a little of the ethereal "Crash" soundtrack.

Apparently Henry Poole has quite the back-story, but much of it was edited out which I think helps the film more than hurts it. As the movie progresses, we learn more and more about who Henry Poole is and how he came to be. It is effective and it works. Though the characters all seem to have a story, the movie nicely keeps it focused on Henry's without sidetracking too much and losing its focus.

In a world where it is easy to shut off and let our own cynicism and skepticism forcefully override possibilities, "Henry Poole is Here" is an uplifting, even hopeful experience. One of the things I criticized "Fireproof" for was its lack of subtlety (which admittedly was not its purpose) and its lack of an artful soul. "Henry Poole is Here" was more of an effective film for me in the realm of faith as an emotional, thought provoking, and even entertaining experience. Don't miss out on this little gem of a movie, and don't forget to ask yourself: what if?

Fireproof

2009-08-09T14:36:00.000-07:00

(Originally posted in February 2009)

So, take a guess. Which film over the last year set box office records and made among the biggest profits of the last year? If you said "The Dark Knight," you'd be half right. The biggest surprise was the Kirk Cameron stoner comedy "Fireproof."

Nah, I'm just kidding brah. It was more of a drama than a comedy.

The truth is that when you make a movie for half a million bucks and it grosses 33 million, that's a pretty sizable return on your investment. It certainly had studios turning their head once again as they did with Mel's Passion. Critics seemed to not enjoy it much, but churches packed the theaters. Make no mistake - Joe and Suzy moviegoer probably didn't see the trailer and think to themselves "It's like Backdraft, only with that guy from Growing Pains!" No, they probably saw it on invitation from a friend who goes to church. I finally saw it for the first time on a marriage retreat over the weekend. The movies audience is so built in and preach to the choir that a retreat attendee, who when he found out I hadn't seen the movie, jokingly stated "and you call yourself a Christian?"

I guess my faith now depends on my attendance of a film. Go figure.

"Fireproof" tells the story of a firefighter (played by Kirk Cameron with surprising believability and capability) who is dedicated to his job and his co-workers, living by the mantra that he will never leave his partner behind. Yet, the partner he has committed to - his wife - is ready to leave him. His marriage is ready to collapse, and he can't put the pieces together why. The film then proceeds to tell their story.

"Fireproof" can be judged on two levels: filmmaking (or art) and message movie. Considering context and purpose in the making of any film provides the angle from which many films are judged. No one expected "Kung Fu Panda" to be "Schindler's List" and likewise no one expected a comic book movie about a man and bats to do more than entertain...but we all have our expectation breakers, don't we?

As a piece of art - "Fireproof" plain sucks. It is awkwardly paced and it contains the dubious hallmarks of Christian entertainment - melodramatic story with heavy overacting, a conversion sequence, a complete lack of subtlety (no character shows you how they are feeling, they all are required to tell us verbally as though we can't figure it our for ourselves), and poor attempts at humor (the white guy is gonna dance like he lives in the hood...Hilarious!). And don't tell me this is an issue of budget either. Plenty of independent cinema is made artfully (some would say the bigger the budget, the lesser the art) on small cash.

"Fireproof" is also too overt in its storytelling and leaves little room for the abstract. There is no room for the viewer to apply the movie as they see it, it tells you what it wants you to feel and how you should feel about it. Visually, the cinematography is awful. Camera angles are flat and lack depth (there may be memorable sequences, but not much could be said of lasting images), and the film lacks any visual identity. The camera does not enhance the story or characters, it lazily watches them. The music is syrupy in places with "Third Day" garbage type alternative songs, and it features not 1, but multiple montages with some "rockin" tunes. Last, some of the stereotypes bordered on offensive (why do all the black women in the movie say "mmhmm" at the end of every sentence?).

But...

The movie is actually refreshing as a message. I recognize the film's context: it was not made to be 8 1/2: the sequel. It was clearly made to preach a message, and as a sermon it has many bright spots. It features a compelling dilemma - if your marriage sucks, why? What can you do about it? The movie has a linear purpose and point that you will either appreciate or not - it's that simple.

Also refreshing is that "Fireproof" not only presents a dilemma, but it gives the viewer a resource to try out should they share the dilemma (provided you can go pick it up for 15 more bucks at your local bookstore). It is nice to hear some practical "try this" advice. I think having a tangible step for couples to take is greatly beneficial.

Last, if anything you view in life has a clear purpose to help resuscitate your marriage, it can't be all bad right? Same goes with the movie. To watch it means that like any sermon, you are expected to talk about it with those around you afterwards. I liked that.

So where does it leave things at the end of the day? Is it a movie? A sermon? I think it tries to be both, but it miserably fails at the art part. I still have to admire that it is independent filmmaking - the church that made the film obviously believes in their vision and they are financing something they believe in with little studio insider influence. Like it or not, that is the spirit of independent cinema.

Yet, it makes me sad that Christians still struggle to make compelling cinema. There seems to be a distrust in the audience, that if the message is not so specific and overt, they won't get it. If the content is not free of reality - the fact that real people sometimes use "bad" words, have sex outside of marriage, etc - then the message is somehow obstructed. Nor is the other side true, that all films must contain a certain degree of despicable acts in order to be believable.

It saddens me that we don't have much in the way of compelling art that glorifies God. Remember - Christianity used to be at the forefront of art in the classical sense - the majestic chapels built and canvassed around the world, the beautiful music of Bach, etc. Not much can be said now.

It is not to say that "Fireproof" is entirely without merit or purpose. Many individuals have and will see the film and be inspired to do something about their marriage. No amount of crappy movie making in the world could argue against that. It just sets the tone for more uninteresting films that do little to enhance their message beyond the target audience.

For the reader - what films would you recommend that meet the balance of artful yet spiritually relevant? I am curious as to what you would suggest...

Rachel Getting Married

2009-08-09T14:31:00.000-07:00

“Rachel Getting Married” has the kind of insight and truthfulness that Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach wish they could communicate regarding family dysfunction. “The Royal Tenenbaums” was cartoony, “Margot at the Wedding” felt too alienated from reality, and “The Squid and the Whale” while great, has a lesser degree of the alienation.

“Rachel Getting Married” stars Anne Hathaway as a recovering addict with mountains of pains, regrets, and destruction from her addictive life. As the film progresses, stories come out, and the sequences build upon themselves revealing history and secrets. The movie is a handheld cameraman’s fantasy of recording dysfunction for 2 straight hours.

The movie plays its characters and themes spot on. I have arrived at a point where a film has to really do something right to convince me regarding its portrayal of dysfunction and/or therapy. Rachel gets it right. The AA scenes are real and convincing. Hathaway’s character is written well and acted realistically. The family system is also portrayed with textbook predictability regarding addiction: Essentially, when one person is an addict in a family, the family often scapegoats the individual and makes them the family whipping post. Rather than individual members taking responsibility for their actions, they focus on the addict. Rather than being vulnerable, they make it the addicts fault. Rather than dealing with the way we hurt one another in a family, it’s easier to negatively focus on the more overt addict. Everyone plays a role and is still responsible.

When Rachel’s sister comes home for Rachel’s wedding, the writer and director give a solid picture of a family functioning on dysfunction until the addict comes home and blows it apart. These scenes are played out with tension not unlike a good thriller – what will she say? How will she embarrass herself? It’s to the films credit that things are portrayed the way they are that this type of tension exists. It probably doesn't hurt that this was directed by Jonathan "Silence of the Lambs" Demme either.

Each family member plays typical roles: The Father is a passive man who refuses to be real, insisting instead on trying to make people laugh and draw attention away from the real issues. The biological Mother is cold and withdrawn, parenting her adult daughter like a child. The self centered, narcissistic addict who – in spite of it being her sisters wedding – insists on taking grand opportunities to draw attention to herself. I could go on and on.

“Rachel Getting Married” had me worried with Anne Hathaway in the lead. In fact, when the movie opens with a shot of her face in her scenester haircut, I couldn’t help but laugh out loud – this is Ms. “Princess Diaries” Anne Hathaway trying to be tough. However, 5 minutes in I lost track of her goodie-goodie roles and was able to focus on her character. She really deserved her Oscar nomination.

While “Rachel Getting Married” plays through to its burnt out, exhausting finish, I couldn’t help but think about the purpose of film in general. Some of us want to be entertained, some of us want to be enlightened, some of us want to be challenged, some want all 3. The movie will do more for those who find their entertainment in the challenges the movie presents about the family system. However, don’t go in expecting a fun family drama that resolves itself by the end. While some may feel the film tries too hard to communicate pain and brokenness, I actually felt the film dealt with it so well. The reality is this – we are all at some level in pain or broken. None of our families is perfect. But we are still family. As one family member poignantly states in a toast to the group, “this is what heaven will be like.”

Indeed.

Who I'd Like To Meet

2009-08-08T16:21:00.001-07:00

When I lived in Malibu for 4 years, I heard an unspoken “thou shalt not talk with the famous” rule. It wasn’t hard to resist the temptation to strike up conversations with John Stamos or Tony Danza (so…uh…are you still the boss?), and talking to Britney while she jets away with her kids and 50 paparazzi is impossible. It’s unavoidable when they play on your softball team, but those are rare exceptions. However, most of us did have one person that regardless of whomever we were with or whatever we were doing, we would have gone out of our way to talk with them. I started thinking about this “rule” while reading up a bit more on Marjoe Gortner.

Marjoe Gortner is a dropout evangelical. You know that kid in Bible class who knew all the answers, but when he was an adult was a deeply committed nothingist? Marjoe may sort of be that person. Raised a charismatic pentacostal, a preacher by the age of 4 (and abused along the way), Marjoe epically threw off the shackles of Christian business-ism in Samson like fashion.

Marjoe was the subject of an academy award winning documentary of the same name where he went around doing revival tours because he was short on cash. He brought a documentary film crew along with him because they would film his sermons, interactions with the faithful, and poignant one on one confessions. The catch was that he never believed a word of the faith part. He was in it for the money. On camera, he had a certain believability that probably would have fooled me as much as you. He wanted to show the world that you didn’t need church to have a spiritual experience. By association, Marjoe's film tried to teach the world that this new Christian movement was really just a bunch of hucksters and thieves, and he knew how to con as good as any other.

By today’s standards, the film lets me down and energizes me in equal measures. I am glued to the screen by Marjoe who appears to be a gifted vocalist for the pentacostal choir. His stage presence is catchy, like that punk rock band you saw once at a small venue in high school and haven’t seen or heard from since. Some of his sermons also had a fair amount of theological depth that seminarians today often convolute to the faithful.

The let down of the film is in its fascination of Marjoe and the Christian movement at the time. The cameras just roll while he preaches and we observe. It’s the same shtick ad nauseum for much of the film. It ultimately unbalances the person of Marjoe against the myth of Marjoe. After thinking about it more today, I have come to realize that contextually the filmmakers wondered who those crazy Christians were. What were they saying? What is the hippie Jesus people movement? What exactly was happening under those tents where alternate substances weren’t used to cause vibrating humans who talk in jello speech? Contextually and historically the film is curious, but today it comes across as unfocused and repetitive.

Marjoe remains a constantly interesting figure to me because of the one on one conversation’s where his voice does not fluctuate in volume or directedness. He somberly talks of being raised by an abusive Mom and Dad whose love was dependent upon his ability to memorize a script. Instead of being able to play outside with other kids, he had to stay in and memorize Bible verses and sermon cues. Think The Jackson 5, but for preachers. In the film he shares a few brief tricks of the trade to help fill up a minister’s pocket. All the while, I am endlessly fascinated.

I feel connected to Marjoe for reasons I can only try and explain. I grew up in a Christian home where church attendance was a regular part of the week, like school or Tuesday taco night. I led worship and passionately led others in singing the songs. I started and led a Bible study on my Jr. High campus and led others to Christ before I could shave. I feel like in many ways, I know him. He and I would have sat next to one another on stage while being broadcast on KWVE before the legions of Calvary-ites. He would have probably done a good “performance” for the crowd and wooed many to Christ, so long as the money (or more specifically - love from his parents) kept coming in.

Still, in many ways I have no idea who the man is. My parents never abused me or made me stay home from playing with friends to memorize Bible verses. I asked of my own accord to lead worship because it was always fun to play music with friends, especially when such obvious, droning, “4 chords with a key change” songs were easy to teach to this 12 year old rock star in the making. Plus, I do love Jesus, which helps. Still, I knew what Marjoe looked like in my youth group – he was the restricted, socially awkward, bug eyed Bible smasher on Balboa island. I feel like I knew that serial youth groupie, but never had any idea who they really were.

So, yeah I have a famous person I would go out of my way to meet. A student on my Residence Life staff unknowingly met this person. While serving drinks as a bartender at a cocktail party as part of a routine catering service, this famous person said to him, “I bet you’re the guy who forgets to put on his condom, aren’t you?” I would have babbled something about Fellini and then drooled a little bit on my shirt. Then, I would have posted on a message board at imdb.com about how I met Martin Scorsese and he was a really cool guy who likes to talk about condoms.

Today though, I add that I want to meet Marjoe. It’s a crazy idea to me in some respects because I have no idea what I would say. I mean, consider his company – I really wanted to meet Bjork, a Go-Bot, and Martin Scorsese (still true to that one). I don’t have a pre-packaged message for him. I wouldn’t try and share the gospel with a guy who used to sell it like a can of Coca Cola. I think I’d just shake nervously a little bit, and then talk to him. He is probably amongst the most wounded of individuals out there. He was abused, a faker, and later a semi failed actor with roles in such classics as "American Ninja 3." But I still would want to be in his company and ask him about what his fascinating life was like. I’d want to do a sort of follow up to the films many gaps.

I typically am triggered when I see overprotective parents who uses Christianity as a punishment to their children. It scares me. I see someone being abused. I don't hear Jesus invitation to "Let the little children come to me." When your child’s love and relationship with you is dependent upon their ability to quote the Bible, sing a song, attend church (etc), then the child is your little wooden toy. They don’t exist to develop into who God made them to be, they exist to be a feather in your cap. I don’t know what it's like to be a parent – to worry about my son or daughter when they go out at night. Who are they with? What are they doing? Are they safe? But I do know what its like to be a son. Marjoe never really did. Maybe if I see him someday, I’ll buy him a juice box and teach him how to kick a soccer ball. It’d probably be more interesting than talking about condoms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bnyNwRKDrY&feature=channel_page

Waltz With Bashir

2009-08-08T16:20:00.001-07:00

I used to work with preschool aged children diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, a mild form of autism. One of my co-workers ended up becoming a pretty close friend of mine. In between wiping boogers off of our arms that the kids tried to give as a gift, or help them figure out what their task was, he and I would talk about life, religion, and films.

One such film he recommended that caught my eye via the golden globes was “Waltz With Bashir.” “Waltz With Bashir” is an animated documentary. The filmmaker Ari Folman made it by interviewing his subjects in his own search to understand strange dreams he was having revolving around a massacre during a Lebanese/Israeli war. Folman was an Israeli soldier. As he talks to these individuals, he gets closer to the realities of the war. It all culminates into a final sequence so devastatingly powerful, you simply have to see it to experience it.

Folman then took all of the interviews, spliced them together into a script, had the individuals read their lines in the studio with a bit of acting, animated it all, and gave us “Waltz With Bashir.” If it sounds ambitious, that’s because it is. No one has ever made a film like it before.

Interestingly, I think that this film (as Roger Ebert says) couldn’t have been made any other way. He is examining dreams, memory, and history through his own recollection. Animation allows him to project the surrealism inherent in these individual topics. It leaves room for the abstract, which dreams often contain. There are scenes of beautifully simple orchestral music which enhance these sometimes frightening, violent, and erotic images. At times, the aural and visual come together in a sublime, trance like way that transports you into a different world.

The animation emits a particular style, but this is a rare case where the style isn’t there for the sake of style itself. If I see one more movie titled artistically like Juno, I am going to puke. The style of the art and the images on screen enhance the visual narrative. Without the style in which the story is told, this would be a lesser film.

Interestingly, Folman stated in an interview that he loathes the American idea of war film where men depict a certain brotherhood that makes the fighting almost seem cool. Even though we see them fighting in horrific conditions, you might still say you could live through it if Tom Hanks was your commanding officer, or if Private Joker was in your company. Here, none of the soldiers appear like brothers. You don’t want to be them. There isn’t a tough guy, a comedian, and a brainy guy. There are a bunch of guys who look and feel a certain numbness. Folman states that this was his experience, and I thought it was a refreshing take on who a soldier is.

I had one minor problem with the movie. This is a low budget film, and the animation suffers for it. In a Pixar age, it is that much more present. Some of the movements are very wooden and simplistic. I found this flaw easy to forgive because the style is so great, but it can be noticeable if you’re expecting something with the financial clout of Disney or Dreamworks.

Some have faulted the movie as a documentary for being unable to explain the history of the conflict. It does not "document" a period of history. I was admittedly hard pressed to understand the context of the film due to my general lack of knowledge about the conflict presented on screen. This lack of context takes away from some of the impact of the narrative because it is assumed that we as the viewer know what is going on. However, I saw this more as an individual’s conflict within a narrative. If this is a documentary about a man’s involvement in war, we don’t necessarily need all of the details of the war – we want the experience of the man. Thus, the film is less about the war and more about how man copes with his involvement in it.

The film should also be praised for its careful examination of healing. Folman is being quite open with himself to the viewers, as he clearly suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The film’s flashbacks cement this diagnosis. However, Folman utilizes art as a healer in the film, as he says that by confronting his past and making this film, art helped him to heal. It is really a beautiful testimony and helps to fill a redemptive void in the film.

“Waltz With Bashir” is definitely not for the faint of heart. There are scenes of explicit violence and sex, but this is a film where I think the majority of it has a justifiable purpose. I don’t think Folman needed to go to the lengths he did to animate what one character views on a TV screen, but it is nicely contrasted with some of the other animated nudity in the film. Plus, I am aware that if I complain about graphic nudity in a film with graphic violence while saying nothing of the violence, I am simply putting a hypocrisy target on my chest.

See the film. If it gets hard to follow, stay with it for the knock out of the ending. It will leave you stunned and amazed at what happened. This is a movie which completely deserved its Golden Globe for best foreign film and is one you must go out of your way to see.

The Hangover

2009-08-08T16:18:00.000-07:00

Women, I have a secret to reveal about your man that you may not be aware of: You are well aware that we can behave respectfully - even pious - at church, with your parents, and in most professional contexts. However, when men congregate together, we have the tendency to resort to being crass with each other.

Very crass.

Not about you - we would never do that. We are angels about you. But about each other - non stop. We are as enamored with our male anatomy today as we were when we first discovered what existed between our legs in the infant era. We have come to accept one of the sacred truths in life: Penises are funny, and we must make many jokes about them.

Go ahead men - grab that stone on the dirt floor, pick it up over your head and hold it in a raised, ready to throw posture. But before you do - whom of you when in very specific contexts hasn't let loose about all manner of prudish things? What about that certain roommate in college who paraded around in specifically selected "clothing" while the rest of us were on the floor bursting with laughter? Very recently, I visited with a couple folks whom I respect as men of deep faith (who shall remain anonymous) and the jokes were in constant throw all night. It was fun, and we bonded deeper as a result.

This of course justifies everything.

Which leads me to "The Hangover" a movie directed by the guy who brought you "Old School." "The Hangover" is about a group of guys who decide to drink the night away in Vegas for a bachelor party. Problem is, they wake up the next morning with a baby, several animals, a missing groom, and no recollection of the preceding "fun" from the night before. The movie then has the guys piecing together what happened for the next 90 minutes.

To the movies credit, the premise is actually really clever. The idea of a gradually unfolding mystery added in with the raunchy humor actually gave more reason to watch than other films of this ilk. If nothing else, I wanted to know what happened next. It also had more than one funny scene.

The problems though added up for me pretty fast. I guess it's hard for me to care about the characters because they are all so care-less. Seriously, who ever thought it was a good idea to have their bachelor party 2 days before their wedding, especially if the plan is to get as trashed as possible? While some of the guys are genuinely endearing, I can't feel too much love for a group of guys who don't care in the first place.

Second, while the premise is clever, I wanted the writers to do more with it. I don't want to reveal spoilers, but certain characters magically re-appear at the mid point of the movie. It was too convenient. The writing got soft and lazy as the movie played out. You can accuse me of over thinking, but I have been accused of worse.

Third, while many of the jokes were funny, not all of them registered with me. Before you call me a prude, I think "Role Models" (along with "Wedding Crashers") is one of the funniest films I have seen in the last 4 or 5 years. That movie worked for me through and through. "The Hangover" wasn't nearly as consistent, and it left me disappointed.

So yes, I think raunchy jokes can be funny (and "The Hangover" has a healthy supply), and I knew what I would be getting myself into by seeing this movie. I don't fault the film for that. I fault the film for its characters. There still has to be a sense of groundedness or sensibility at some level. These guys aren't heroes to me, they are ultimately fools. The film also makes limited application of its great premise. And the fact is - next year, when the next movie comes along that relies not simply on a good premise but straight raunch, "The Hangover" won't be as funny. That's why certain movies are products of their era that aren't as funny to new viewers (Anyone still re-watching Porky's on a regular basis?). The movies that last are the ones that have solid characters who we care about, and a great story (regardless of genre).

It's not to say that "The Hangover" is by any stretch a strictly bad movie, it's that I think they could have done more with what is there. I know that millions in cash at the box office disagrees with me, but hey, plenty of commercially winsome movies have never done anything for me. In the range of its context, "The Hangover" for me is slightly below Judd Apatow's directed movies, if only because in those films there is a big heart beneath the raunchy jokes. I liked Steve Carrell in "40 Year Old Virgin" and wanted him to find the right woman. Seth Rogen's character had to grow up in "Knocked Up" and move from being a child to be a responsible adult. In "The Hangover," 4 guys just needed to get home before it was too late.

As a result, it may not be easy for the viewer to remember much of what happened the next morning.

Bruno

2009-08-08T16:11:00.000-07:00

I have already written about some of my observations of Sasha Baron Cohen in a previous post. To summarize, I find him really smart for dressing up as stereotypes and making both viewers of the films and the people who unknowingly star in them interact with the ridiculousness of those stereotypes. But I find Baron Cohen hypocritical for using stereotypes to be the people he interacts with. Second, while attempting to promote tolerance, he unintentionally pushes the question of tolerance too far – namely, when do things in life become intolerable?

Carrying this thought into his latest full length film significantly deflated whatever weight it was meant to carry. I disliked “Bruno” the film. A lot. In fact, I’d go as far to say that of all of the movies I have ever seen, Bruno is among the worst of them. Like, not even a doubt about it. As a comedy, it was flat. As a film, it was boring. As a commentary, its message was obscured by too much filth.

And remember - this is coming from a guy who likes Sacha Baron-Cohen.

I thought that the Ali-G series was mostly great. I found Bruno the character to be really funny and deviously clever in the TV show. Same goes for Borat and Ali-G. As a feature film, I found Bruno to be less than sustainable.

There are several reasons Bruno didn’t work for me as a film. For starters, the novelty is gone. I am not shocked anymore when Bruno humiliates himself or someone else on screen. It feels one trick, which is interesting because the series didn’t. But Baron Cohen’s relentless attempts to promote Borat to the ends of the earth ended up making the shtick awfully boring. Since Bruno follows nearly the same formula, I didn’t care as much.

Perhaps the series worked so well because the novelty of it was still brand new. Additionally, the short time format as a series works great, but as a movie it doesn't work nearly as well. Could you imagine if MTV made a movie out of Punk’d footage with a plot loosely strewn in?

Second, Borat's American overexposure clearly made those previously unaware of Baron Cohen newly aware. As a result, much of what is on screen feels staged. The best example would be the Richard Bey show sequence. I could swear that the audience was half made up of actors and actresses, as all of their expressions felt too rehearsed.

Third, it just wasn’t funny. Perhaps this relates to the novelty aspect, but I was hardly laughing or in shock. Not that the movie wasn’t shocking – there is plenty of outrageous behavior for all to see – but if it Baron Cohen interactions with people feels staged, then the joke is lost. Most of the shock was seeing people’s foolishness on display. Here, it feels more about Baron Cohen and the film suffers for it.

As was previously mentioned, the “mission” or “message” of Baron Cohen feels really hypocritical due to the stereotyping he engages in, and the movie features loads of it. Perhaps this is best displayed in the well publicized cage fight finale in Arkansas where Baron Cohen makes a huge display of being straight before nearly having sex with another man in the ring. Each crowd member is hand picked from the stereotyping of hillbilly country. What if this was done in another part of the country?

Lastly, much of the content of the film went beyond comfortable for laughs and it didn’t work at all. It was trash. The ridiculousness of the opening sequence where we see Baron Cohen and his lover engaging in all manner of sexual experimentation was too stupid to illicit any laughs from me. Yet the film goes about 8 miles further during a swinger house party sequence. It was completely filthy and in poor taste. Baron Cohen's point may have been that if these individuals treat sex with such disregard, then so can he and ultimately the viewer. It was as though Baron Cohen made the naked fight in Borat the base level for humor in Bruno, whereas in Borat it felt like the spike in content.

Through a popular movie website, I was linked to a film through a top 10 type list about mocumentaries. One particular film (which I refuse to mention) has been described as being among, if not at the top of, a list of the world's most objectionable films ever made. As I read about the film, I learned that its defenders called it "art" because of the final line in the movie: “maybe we’re the ones who are the real cannibals.” Somehow this line made all of the films brutally explicit gore, sexual violence, and on screen animal killing acceptable. I can't help but ask - Where is the point when one goes too far to make a point for all their "art" or even good intentions?

I am not equating Bruno with aforementioned film, but the analogy works closely enough for me.

Sacha Baron Cohen Is A Big Fat Hypocrite

2009-08-08T16:05:00.000-07:00

(Originally posted on July 10th, 2009)

Have you ever met a Mexican? If not, here's what to expect: Mexicans are lazy and uneducated. All of the males make cat-calls at white girls while drinking Corona's like triathletes drink water. The majority of adult males are day laborers who sit on the corner by Home Depot. All Mexicans are illegal, especially in California, and all of their children are in gangs (it's a genetic thing). I even hear that some are firing pistols straight out of the womb. All female Mexican teens get pregnant before graduating high school and they all wear crazy eye liner with teardrop tattoos. Adult Mexican women wear fluffy dresses with the colors of Mexico (I know because I saw it at a restaurant that serves Mexican food). And all Mexicans keep Tapatio bottles in their back pockets next to their wallets.

Yup, that's exactly what all Mexicans are like.

Or maybe not. But if you don't regularly converse with different ethnic, religious, or other cultural groups, you may start to believe what you see on TV or hear from your friends who watched that one movie that totally nailed it. Like Saved! for evangelicals, Crash for Los Angeles, or Reno: 911 for cops.

Or like Borat for Kazakhstanis.

Which brings me to Sacha Baron-Cohen. If you don't know the name, he is the guy responsible not only for Borat, but for Ali-G and Bruno. Baron-Cohen popularized these 3 alter egos on his hilariously offensive, biting, and painfully watchable TV "sereez" on HBO called Da Ali-G Show.

I felt that Borat's legitimate point was overshadowed by its relentless mission to cross the line. Bruno went even farther. As such, I'd like to consider Bruno the character for a moment.

Sacha Baron-Cohen's characters work because they stand on the building blocks of assumption. Consider the aforementioned 3 alter egos. Borat represents what Westerners assume to be a foreigner: gleeful to be in America yet blissfully unaware of cultural norms. He is smelly (while in character, Baron-Cohen reportedly did not shower or use deodorant for extended periods of time), he has a thick mustache, and he frequently mispronounces common words. Ali-G is a crass, walking hip hop cliché with something like a southern drawl-gone-British accent. He throws up gang signs during interviews with esteemed world leaders and uses hilariously concocted slang words such as "respek." Ali-G is hip-hop culture according to the assumptions of an older generation.

And now Baron-Cohen has given us a feature length version of the 3rd of his alter egos: Bruno.

If you spend your time in a community where conversing with openly gay people is rare to non-existent, you are in Baron-Cohen's crosshairs. His goal is to hold a mirror to your face and show you just how ridiculous your gay stereotypes are by embodying the stereotype itself. Many assume that all homosexual males are obsessed with fashion and phallic symbols and talk with ridiculous lisps. Plenty of films and tv shows reinforce the stereotype. How many romantic comedies exploit the awkward, gay "drama queen" who is boisterous and all too in tune with what women want?

So if you are from the Castro, seeing Bruno on the street may be no big deal. But if you encountered him in, as Bruno says on Da Ali-G Show, "the gayest state in America - ALABAMA!" your reaction may be quite different.

And that is why the character works so well. Our own conceptions of homosexuals today may vary widely, but without actually spending time with anyone who openly identifies as gay or lesbian we can be suckered into believing that Bruno is the homosexual poster child the same way a Latino dude with a shaved head and a mustache is an 18th street gang member.

The trouble is, Sacha Baron-Cohen falls into his own trap, and it dupes both his fans and the casual movie going audience: he is often caricaturing his targets in the same way his targets caricature him.

Take the scene from the trailer where Bruno is awkwardly sitting with hunters around a campfire and makes a gut-busting Sex and the City reference. As I watched the hunters' reactions, I even found myself thinking "dumb hicks- what part of the Midwest are they from?" And this is exactly the point: as much as he wants to shake America's perception of the homosexual community by presenting such a ridiculously over the top gay caricature, he shows almost equally over the top examples of the cultural groups he aims to humiliate. And that gets us nowhere.

I know Baron Cohen and director Larry Charles have a disdain for my culture - white Christian male. Over the past several years, I have felt that disdain and turned it inwards on myself. I feel a little dirty just typing the words "white Christian male." But it's true of how I identify. It makes me wonder: as much as I am being preached at to be tolerant of others, why are others so rarely tolerant of me? Could it have anything to do with the conclusions about white male Christians that Baron-Cohen forces his viewers to draw?

I think Baron-Cohen is a brilliant improviser and hilarious comedian. His comments on American culture are often convicting. And yes - I realize that in these outlandish acts, the man is interacting with real people. Real people who really say and really do all the stuff on camera, which means there are real examples of Baron-Cohen's targets. But as I've argued, Bruno takes the extremes from his interviews and casts them as normal, thereby caricaturing and stereotyping whole groups of people on a few edited interview pieces.

Those who think that Baron-Cohen is simply out to shock are missing the point: Bruno isn't funny or engrossing based only on hilariously flamboyant outfits or new catchphrases. Just like with Borat and Ali-G, the impact is in the underlying message that for all our posturing about being in touch with ourselves and the world around us, we really aren't that in touch at all.

It's a message Sacha Baron-Cohen may need to consider for himself

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

2009-08-08T15:57:00.000-07:00

(Originally posted in November 2006)

Where to begin in discussing a movie like Borat? The whole thing has been talked about and publicized to the point of over-saturation, and people seem to have an opinion on it that is largely positive. The universal opinion of Borat has been "offensive yet hilarious." According to rottentomatoes.com, 96 percent of critics who have seen the film gave it a positive score (making it the highest rated film of the year). Having been a fan of the comedic mastermind behind Borat (Sacha Baron Cohen) from his set-up on the Ali G show, I knew a bit of what to expect going into this. It would be crass and tasteless at times, but poignant and hilarious at others.

First things first, Cohen is a master at improvisation and comedic timing. Every one of his unsuspecting guests has no idea what to expect, and he keeps pushing them and pushing them without cracking a smile. It's truly amazing to watch him do this and his talent is evident. He pulls out all the stops and crosses every line imaginable. There is full frontal male nudity, a huge heaping of anti-Semitism, and vulgarity that will cause the curious to be disgusted and walk out in the first 10 minutes. Once it starts, it only escalates. No one is safe from Borat; not churches, not celebrities, and certainly not the Midwest. Friends of mine have compared Borat to Tom Green, but I disagree. Whereas Tom Green was out to do disgusting things for the sake of being disgusting, Borat does what he does for a reason. This brings up 2 questions: How much "purpose" behind something causes a justification of such foul behavior? And what is the purpose of Borat's mischief?

I think Cohen creates these characters, particularly Borat, to put a mirror up in front of ourselves as privileged Americans. Are people really that naïve to think that this is what a man from Kazakhstan is like (By the way, Kazakhstan is the perfect location for this type of a stunt - a place known and yet entirely unknown)? Are Americans still this culturally intolerant? The resounding answer (from the edited footage) is "absolutely." We meet people who hate Muslims, college students who take misogyny to a whole new level, and various other characters who will make you embarrassed to be an American. I know I felt both embarrassed to be an American as well as embarrassed to be a Christian. If while laughing outloud you also don't feel sad at some level, you are missing the point.

Underneath all of the mischief is a serious and heartwarming point that definitely resonates, and the subtext throughout is sure to cause much discussion. However as a movie, it didn't work all of the way for me. The scripted parts which helped move along the story were uninteresting and slowed the pace, there were several scenes that seemed like set-ups on both sides of the coin, and some of the targets seemed misguided. For example, it seems like Cohen would appreciate what feminists are doing today, so why would he humiliate them on screen? Also, I know that Cohen is Jewish, but the ant-Semitism was just too strong for me. One scene of this had me about get up and walk out. Then again, other scenes had me laughing hysterically ("What kind of a gun do I need to defend myself against Jews?"). The last problem is we don't know what got cut and how this movie was edited. We have heard reality television get slammed for falsification of the story (I don't understand why writers are hired to construct REALITY television?) and I bet that many of the cut clips would show tolerant, reasonable individuals.

Overall, it was offensive and funny, but I doubt I'll watch it again. The commentary is poignant and the laughs are here, but I can't justify how far Cohen goes and then call it good entertainment. You can't help but feel pity for the unsuspecting interviewees in a couple scenes and how the joke is on them.

I feel that what Baron-Cohen is saying needs to be said. I just wish he found a different way to say it.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose

2009-08-08T15:47:00.000-07:00

(Originally posted in November, 2006)

Let's make one thing clear: The Exorcism of Emily Rose is not a horror film. Yes it's creepy, it's suspenseful, and has some "jump" moments, but it is not a horror film. Exorcism is a story of what happened to a girl told through two sets of eyes: science and faith. The story goes that a girl in a strict catholic family gets accepted into a college with a full ride scholarship. You get the impression that she has a genuine faith in God and is generally a good person. Upon getting to college however, frightening things start to happen: items in her dorm room move invisibly, demonic forces assault her, and horrific images begin to appear at random - all of which greatly distresses and breaks down Emily. Finally, the problems turn self violent and manifest themselves in all sorts of supernatural ways.

Or is that psychological ways? In a smart move, the audience gets to decide. Emily's story is also told via the courtroom. A Methodist Lawyer is prosecuting a catholic priest. The catholic priest is being defended by an Agnostic. It is a tantalizing conflict of ideologies that lends itself to a great premise for a film. The prosecutors allege that Emily experiences epileptic seizures, and as a lack of using her prescribed medications (as was encouraged by her priest) she loses her life. The defense claims that she lost her life because of demonic forces. The Director does his best to let the audience be the jury.

Were the movie to be held strictly in the courtroom, it would be a strictly objective one. However, we also follow the life a female defense lawyer who experiences mild coincidental manifestations throughout the trial. This becomes rather spooky and unsettling in certain scenes and it smartly keeps the pace of the film tense and mysterious. It also points to a direction that the filmmakers are going in, namely the implication that the supernatural is at work.

Overall, this is a great movie. Aside from a personal bias (The writer/director Scott Derrickson and I went to the same undergraduate college), it succeeds in delivering a fantastic story with interesting characters. Emily Rose is really likeable, and we care about her and hate to see her experience such inexplicable torment. The cinematography is frequently excellent, capped by an exhilarating exorcism scene towards the end. I found very little to fault the movie with, and found it to be creative and surprisingly different. The marketing sets up the movie for something like "The Ring" or "The Grudge," but "Exorcism's different direction really throws the audience off. It culminates into an exciting, thought provoking, and ultimately discussion causing experience.

I Vitelloni

2009-08-08T15:39:00.000-07:00

(Originally posted in October 2006)

I Vitelloni (Federico Fellini, 1953)

A Vitellone is an italian way of saying "eternal student." Not the academic student, but the wandering student who doesn't leave his parent's home, won't get a job, and lives his life each day for the sake of pleasure. In Freudian terms, vitellone's are 30 something id's that have sacrificed their superego. If there is pleasure, nothing else matters. If there is responsibility, it is largely ignored. However, there is something relatable and likeable about this - a soul adrift in a sea of transition between purpose and meaning, responsibility and freedom. With "I Vitelloni," Federico Fellini displays these wandering souls and constructs another heartbrakingly beautiful movie.

5 drifters in a small Italian town near the beach do what all teenage boys do - they talk about women, go to parties, and stay out at all hours before crawling into bed (in their parent's home). However, these 5 drifters are not teenagers - they are all grown men. They are in their late 20's, early 30's looking for meaning and purpose in the region they grew up in since birth. Their world is altered when one of them finds out he got his girlfriend pregnant (who is also the sister of one of his best friends), and thus must marry her. After a failed escape attempt, he marries and gets a job. Responsibility is now forced upon him and he must transition to being an adult provider from being a child who plays without boundary. The responsibility is agonizing to him, and nothing changes in his personal life. He still constantly looks for other women to hook up with, and gets caught up in a scheme revolving around his job. I won't say more than that, other than each character has a bit of a subplot that Fellini gives care and attention to equally.

The movie is above all strikingly relevant today because the theme of "purpose" is one all can relate to. I'd go as far as to say that nearly every college male about to graduate would be shocked at how much they see themselves in these characters. They all refuse to grow up and accept the responsibility of life and the maturity that comes with age. There is one exception in the group of guys, who happens to be an autobiographical depiction of Fellini.

The movie is pure Fellini, moreso the neorealist "La Strada" Fellini than the nightmarish and surreal "Juliet of the Spirits" Fellini. It features many of his familiar thumbprints - a carnival is held, great camerawork is on display, and rich and vibrant characters populate the world of the Vitellone's. Particularly moving was a scene that found all of the characters on the edge of a dock on the beach contemplating jumping into the water for money.

The one flaw I found was the ending sequence seemed rushed. However, the rest of the movie was perfect. It is authentic and timeless in its principles of human nature. I particularly think that it is a must see for males. I Vitelloni is at the top of my list of favorite Fellini movies, right next to Nights of Cabiria. Were it not for my qualms about the ending, it would easily be my favorite.

About Film and Therapy

2009-08-08T15:20:00.001-07:00

Warm Greetings!

Welcome to Film and Therapy. This blog is devoted to critical thinking about film. Probably like you, I have always been drawn to great films and the feelings derived from watching great films. Whether feeling outraged at a films idea, or hypnotized by a films ability to make me emotionally engaged, I love it all.

I am also a therapist. I work with people every day from a variety of cultural heritages and belief systems in southern California. I have experience working with children diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, college students through a private University, and low income families in downtown Los Angeles.

Therefore, integrating my love for - and belief in - film's emotional resonance with its practical application to affect personal growth is deeply exciting to me. I have included film reviews and editorial comments. Additionally, I have included some questions you can ask yourself about a particular film that may cause you to think differently about yourself or others around you.

All of my initial posts appear originally on my facebook page, and thus dates are included of their original posting. Should you decide to link anything to this blog, please give credit where it is due. I welcome and appreciate your comments, and of course thank you for reading.