Well I was told that Michael Caine’s latest film, a low budget British crime thriller, was basically the UK version of Gran Torino.  There are indeed a good few similarities between the two, no more so than in the basic premise of an elderly gentleman who can’t take the violent youth gangs any longer.  However Harry Brown is really very different to Clint Eastwood’s enjoyable, if over rated, story of vigilantism in pretty much every other aspect.

Caine plays a widower living in a grimy old high rise flat who is continually dismayed by the extremely violent gang culture that is prevalent about  the area.  When his friend is murdered he can take no more and, utilising his long suppressed military training, seeks justice the Old Testament way…

Harry Brown is not, however, a Death Wish style picture.  It’s very slow and surprisingly gritty and it only takes moments to make you consider how wonderful your life, your neighbourhood and, especially, your neighbours are when seen in contrast with those of the titular character.  Director Daniel Barber’s pacing is extremely slow giving Caine the opportunity to shine as the lonely old man who has nothing left to live for.  The cinematography too is noteworthy, sitting somewhere along the David Fincher ‘Seven’ style of gloom and fluorescent bulbs and the very sparse musical scoring makes the gun bangs consistently loud and shocking.

Yeah it’s bordering on fascist in its political take on how society should deal with her failures and, though very, very depressing, I can’t help feel Harry Brown is a marvellous work of very British film making.  It’s a low budget pleasure and takes a normally glamorous genre and shows it as bloody, believable and most of all unpleasant.

4 out of 5

I just finished watching “Unforgiven” on AMC; it’s one of my all-time favorite movies along with “A Soldier’s Story” and “The Five Deadly Venoms” (shout out to all my old school Channel 5 Kung Fu Theater heads out there).

“Unforgiven” is a 1992 western starring and directed by Clint Eastwood,who plays the lead character, William Munny.  Munny is a man who tried to change his life of crime but is drawn back to what he is.  He , his best friend and fellow reformed outlaw Ned (played by Morgan Freeman), and a young gun called “The Schofield Kid” (Jaimz Woolvett),  seek to collect a bounty placed on two men who cut up a town whore.  During the search, Ned is killed by sheriff Lil’ Bill (Gene Hackman) and Munny realizes that he has to be who he is, an outlaw without conscience and killer of women and children.  The climax of the movie is the final confrontation between Munny and Lil’ Bill and his band of deputies.  Munny kills them all and rides off into the dark rainy night.

“You better bury Ned right, and you better not cut or otherwise harm no whores.  Or I’ll come back and kill all you sons of b*tches.”

That got me to thinking…when we say that we’ve changed, are we just lying to ourselves?  Do we ever really change or are we what we are and is all that “change” just fancy window dressing?

I know that we change. We grow physically, become more educated, and even (supposedly) mature with age.  But does that change who we are?  We go through trials and tribulations and are molded by experience, but do we really change at our core?

William Munny thought he changed.  He married and had two children.  He and his family took to farm life, raising crops.  They lived in peace. But Munny really wasn’t good at farm life; it really wasn’t what he wanted, even though he tried to embrace the change  After his wife died and he was left to raise his children on his own, it got even harder.  Eventually, he went back to what he was good at, “killin’ folk”, as he put it.  In the end, he was what he was,  even if that was a ruthless killer with an evil disposition.

Sometimes,  I hear people talk about how relationships, having a good man or woman in your life,  will foster change, or that if you “find God”, that  will add something that will bring the best out in you…

(Note:  I always shake my head when people say they “found God.”  That is something people said to puff up their pride and feel good about themselves.  You don’t “find God”.  God was never lost, you were; God finds you when he thinks you’re ready to accept him.  I always wondered about that.  Anyway, back to the topic at hand.)

I disagree with that.  I think that we all have a core set of values, beliefs, and even mannerisms that define who we are.  Those don’t really change, and I don’t think any relationship or experience will change that.  Think back to all the times y0u promised yourself you’d change something.  Did you always follow through?  Is it so hard to accept who we are?

I’m not trying to imply that change isn’t good.  If you’re an absentee or a bad father, dammit, do right by your kids and become a better one.  But what do you do if it’s just not in you? How do you go against who you are, the fabric of your being, and become something you weren’t meant to be?

How do you accept who you are, even if that isn’t who you want to be?  I don’t think William Munny wanted to be a ruthless killer, or else he wouldn’t have tried to change…but in the end, that’s who he was.

Can you accept who you are, even if it’s not who you want to be?  And be honest with yourself? Do you think we can change who we are at our core?  Feel free to comment.

Clint Eastwood’s Gran Torino received acclaim from critics immediately after its release in January 2009. Its well-intentioned depiction of the Hmong immigration experience was revelatory to several Americans, and Eastwood’s directing was lauded by several viewers, including the Asian-American demographic. However, the film ultimately fails in portraying the Hmong people as individuals, adhering to familiar stereotypes to heavyhandedly employ its point.

The story follows Korean War veteran Walt Kowalski, a misanthropic, severely racist curmudgeon. His scathing characteristics give him a heightened sense of masculinity, and with that, he alienates himself from those around him.

Much to Walt’s disdain, his neighborhood has become more heterogeneous. By chance and annoyance, he begins protecting his Hmong neighbors after they suffer a great deal of harassment from a group of teenage Hmong gangsters. Walt establishes a relationship with his seemingly feeble neighbors, juxtaposing his image of masculinity and redeeming himself of cynicism.

Although Walt is written with great depth, none of the Hmong characters are multilayered. All of Walt’s neighbors are weak and passive, capturing the essence of the Model Minority. Specifically, the character that Walt comes closest to is a quiet, nerdy, frail boy-the quintessential Model Minority. Meanwhile, the gangsters, who are carelessly characterized by their urban vernacular, are uneducated and highly dangerous, exemplifying the Yellow Peril that frightens other White Americans in Walt’s neighborhood. Both of these representations are discriminatory primarily because of the extremeness with which they’re displayed. All Asians in this film fall under the two aforementioned stereotypes, and it’s surprising that not too many critics cited this as an issue. The lack of range that comes with all of the Hmong characters in this film is a testament to the poor penmanship of screenwriter, Nick Schenk.

In February of 2009, director Danny Boyle’s film, Slumdog Millionaire, received the honor of highest degree-the Academy Award for Best Picture. His rags-to-riches fairy tale was instrumental in introducing westerners to the world of Bollywood cinema, a Hindi-language based genre of the Indian film industry. Slumdog Millionaire, which is technically an homage to Bollywood rather than an actual addition to the brand, certainly brought several worlds together, and its great reception on the Western hemisphere proved that American moviegoing has become more panoramic.

The film revolves around Jamal Malik, a boy raised in the slums of Mumbia, India who, despite having a severe upbringing, surpasses his country’s expectations when he flourishes on India’s version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Although the story occurs in a foreign environment, it’s very representative of the lives of many Indian-Americans here. Just like Jamal, several Indian-Americans have drifted through numerous adversities before finding fortune and success. Unfortunately, immigration for all Asian ethnicities has always been incredibly taxing, and not every newcomer has found success.

The balance of harshness and opportunity is evident in Slumdog Millionaire’s visceral style of filmmaking, and it was highly success in drawing attention to the experiences of several minorities. The film’s generous response in the West has strengthened the identities of Indian-Americans. For example, the skilled all-Indian cast exhibited talents of Asian-Americans that not many white Americans may have ever noticed, and the movies’s featured song, “Jai Ho” (literally translated to “Be victorious!”) became a renowned expression of hope, determination, and unity. The hit song, which has been inspiration for several minorities, has been another 2009 spectacle of America’s progressive shift towards the acceptance of other cultures.

Two of Summer’s best films, Up and Drag Me To Hell, featured Asian-American characters without highlighting their race as a hindrance or an aid. Sam Raimi’s horror comedy, Drag Me To Hell,  has an Asian-American character, Stu, antagonize the main character, Christine, at her work place. Both are competitors for the same promotion, and although the film has a handful of opportunities to exploit Stu’s race for humor or further hostility, he is impartially utilized as a simple villain without regard for skin color. Stu could have been constructed as a model minority, but with sharp writing and impressive acting, he’s just a conniving person who could belong to any ethnic group.

Pixar’s most recent effort, Up, is also antithetical to the Hollywood image of Asian-Americans. One of the film’s principle roles, Russell, is racially ambiguous,  but many have inferred that he is of Asian descent.

Russell is an overachieving but clumsy Wilderness Explorer. However, his ambition doesn’t stem from his race, an easy conclusion one could jump to; rather, he is neglected by his father, and each wilderness badge he obtains partially satiates that void in his life. The experts at Pixar could’ve gone with a much simpler route, promoting his Asian heritage as a basis for his high achievements. However, they crafted an emotional and believable dimension to complement his character without accentuating his physical appearance in the process.

In addition to Pixar’s thoughtful character design, Russell was voiced by Jordan Nagai, an Asian-American voice actor. This surpisingly significant choice by Pixar opposed Hollywood’s old penchant for casting white actors to voice or even portray Asian-American characters.

In contrast to Drag Me to Hell and Up, another successful Summer comedy, The Hangover, capitalizes on Asian stereotypes for effective yet shallow humor.

The plot follows three thirty-somethings around Las Vegas as they recover from a hangover with intentions of unscrambling the previous night’s events. The inherent simplicity of the film is a means to introduce bizaare situations and outlandish peripheral characters. One particular scenario is when the main trio discovers a naked Asian man, fittingly named Leslie Chow, in the trunk of their car. What ensues is undoubtedly hilarious (like the rest of the movie), but the humor comes at the cost of Leslie Chow’s physical appearance and overall demeanor.

Leslie is extremely effeminate, and his flamboyant characteristics directly allude to the stereotype that Asian men are feminine and even childlike. His scenes are definitely funny, but the inspiration for this humor begs for interrogation. Why is it that Asian men are seen as womanly? Furthermore, why is it hilarious when we witness this stereotype?

And thus abruptly ends my examination of the roles of Asian-Americans in some of 2009’s films. The importance of my identity and how it relates to one of my biggest passions-cinema-helps me understand not only myself but also the world at large. If you read this entire post, I thank you. Any comments on the subject would be greatly appreciated.

Yumuşak versiyonlar nedir? Müzik defterinin gelenekselleşmeye başlamış olan bu dosya konusu; orijinali bazen sert bazen değil, klasik parçaların kadın vokallerle yumuşamış versiyonlarını toparlıyor. Yumuşak versiyonların birinci, ikinci ve üçüncü versiyonları için rakamların üstlerini tıklayın. Dördüncüsü için de aşağıya buyurun…

FLUNK – True Faith (New Order)

80’lerin en karakteristik parçalarından biri; New Order’dan True Faith. Orijinal havayı tamamen değiştiren cover’lar arasında başı çekmeye aday Flunk cover’ı ise parçayı önce 80’ler pistinden alıp çıkarıyor, sonra sakinleştiriyor. Hissedilir şekilde True Faith anavatanı Manchester’dan uzaklaşıp bir Kuzeyli oluyor. Norveçli kadının muhteşem sesinde ayrı bir güzelliğe bürünüyor.

BAT FOR LASHES – A Forest (The Cure)

The Cure’ın en depresif, gözlerimi kapayınca gerçekten de karanlık bir ormanın ortasında beni  yalnız başınıza bırakan bir parçası ‘A Forest’… Bat For Lashes ise karanlık bir ormanın içinden yanında tavşanlar ve bisikletiyle beliren korkusuz ve etkileyici bir kadın vokal (tıklayın, izleyin). Şahsen kinci albümü asla birincisi kadar tatmin etmese de Natasha Khan’ın ilk göz ağrılarından bu parça unutulmaz; karanlık bir ormana çok yakışmış…

CHROMATICS – I’m On Fire (Bruce Springsteen)

Bruce Springsteen parçalarından I’m On Fire, hatta ‘Ooo ooo ooo I’m On Fire’… Johnny Cash, Tori Amos tarafından da yorumlanan parçanın burada yer vereceğimiz güzel yumuşak versiyonu ise Chromatics’in sesinden olanı… Kate Bush cover’ları Running Up That Hill ile bilinen topluluğun I’m On Fire cover’ı da kendini ardarda dinlettiren parçalardan…

GOD HELP THE GIRL – Funny Little Frog (Belle and Sebastian)

Belle and Sebastian’ın 2006 yılında çıkardığı The Life Pursuit albümünden içimi açan parça Funny Little Frog’u, geçtiğimiz ayların oldukça konuşulan yazılan çizilen yükselişlerinden God Help The Girl yorumunda aslında çok da yabancı bir durum yok. Çünkü projenin sahibi zaten Belle and Sebastian’dan Stuart Murdoch. Bu versiyondaki vokal ise Catherine Ireton…

MASHA QRELLA – Talk To The Trees (Clint Eastwood)

Masha Qrella’nın Morr Music’ten geçtiğimiz aylarda çıkardığı albümü ‘Speak Low – Loewe and Weill In Exile’, Broadway klasiklerinin Masha yorumlarını içeriyor. Tamamı yumuşak versiyonlar olan albümün buraya uygun gördüğümüz parçası ise ‘Talk To The Trees’; Clint Eastwood’un Paint Your Wagon’da ormanın içinde seslendirdiği parça… Albümle ilgili detaylar için tıklayın..

NOUVELLE VAGUE – God Save The Queen (Sex Pistols)

Yumuşak versiyonlar yazılır da Nouvelle Vague konu edilmez mi… Geçtiğimiz aylarda çıkardıkları yeni albümde yine farklı yorumları yer alıyor. Burada adı geçen –başlığa niye onu seçtiğimi bilmiyorum- Sex Pistols klasiğinin yanı sıra albümde; All My Colours (Echo & the Bunnymen) –birinci favorim-, The American (Simple Minds) -ikinci favorim-, Master & Servant (Depeche Mode) –üçüncü favorim-, Blister in the Sun (Violent Femmes) gibi cover’lar da var.

TAKEN BY TREES – Sweet Child Of Mine (Guns N’Roses)

Yine kadın vokal, yine Kuzey’den naif sesler… Taken by Trees’in Guns N’Roses klasiği Sweet Child Of Mine yorumu yumuşak versiyonlarda yer almazsa tabiri caizse ‘ayıp’ olurdu. Hem The Concretes’in, hem Taken by Trees’in kadını Victoria Bergsman aynı zamanda Young Folks’tan da hatırlayabileceğimiz bir vokal…

ANNA TERNHEIM – China Girl (David Bowie)

Asla David Bowie ve orijinali gibi olamaz tabii… Ama yine Kuzey’in yine naif seslerinden Anna Ternheim’ın China Girl yorumu fena değil. Pek yorum diyesim gelmiyor aslında, çünkü orijinaliyle gerçekten bağımsız sayılabilir. O yüzden bunu bir versiyonmuş gibi değil de bambaşka bir Anna Ternheim parçasıymış gibi dinleyince güzel oluyor…

CAT POWER – I Found A Reason (Velvet Underground)

Velvet Underground parçası I Found A Reason’ın sert bir parça olduğu zaten söylenemez. O yüzden yumuşak versiyonu demiyelim de, kadın vokal versiyonu diyelim ve cover kraliçelerinden Cat Power’dan dinleyelim: “Oh i do believe, in all the things you say, what comes is better than what came before…” Güzel, derin sesli kadın…

IMOGEN HEAP – Hallelujah

Bu da ninni kıvamında bir klasik zaten. Özellikle bir Jeff Buckley’den, bir Rufus Wainrightan dinleyince… Her birinde tadı ayrı güzel parçayı bir de boğuk sesli İngiliz kadın Imogen Heap’ten dinlemek lazım. Bu versiyon sanırım OC’nin 3. sezon finalinde duyulmuş…

Es el resultado de grandes actores, historias o directores que marcaron una huella en el cine. Estas son algunas de las escenas que marcaron hito en el cine:

CASABLANCA: ¿Quién no ha visto esta escena? Casablanca llevó a un nuevo nivel las despedidas entre enamorados.

MATRIX: ¿Qué película hoy en día no posee los efectos que vimos por primera vez en Neo? Prueba de su éxito es la cantidad de veces repetida y su infinita cantidad de parodias.

TAXI DRIVER: Escena que lanzó a Robert De Niro a la fama ¿hace falta decir más?

EL PADRINO: Para algunos la película más importante de todos los tiempos, pero no es famosa por magia, sino por Marlon Brando… perdón Don Vito y un jóven  Al Pacino

STAR WARS: La Saga más famosa de George Lucas sorprendía a todo el mundo cuando en su quinta película (segunda en ser lanzada) nos enterábamos de…

HERE’S JOHNNY: Una de las mejores piezas de un inmenso director. Para algunos ninguna película de terror podrá ser comparada con The Shininig y ningún villano, monstruo o ser sobre natural podrá ser más a terrador que Jack Nicholson

DIRTY HARRY: ¿Do you feel lucky? Es una asociación directa.

SCARFACE: Otra genial película en la carrera de Al Pacino esta vez como Tony Montana.

PULP FICTION: La película más conocida de Tarantino con el papel que creó la percepción de Samuel L. Jackson que todos tenemos

CHAPLIN: Si Orwell representó los regímenes totalitarios en la literatura, Charlie Chaplin fue el genio que los llevó a la perfección en la gran pantalla.

¿Tienes otras en mente? Coméntalas

A Book, Etincelle – MY XTRA TIME, From Steven SPIELBERG To Clint EASTWOOD, By Mike FULLER, PhD To Write The Fred VIDAL Acting Memories 2003-2009 As FRED KELLY, New AKA Of Fred VIDAL, Is On Stage For Sketches (COMEDY IMPRO) Beginning This Week, In Los Angeles!

B.N.:

SUNDAY: As HeRe CoMeS Th NiGhT HITS On Youtube At almost 250 Views now, PARLOPHONE RECORDS 25th Friend Of FRED VIDAL Official Since This Morning!!

Preview: Fred VIDAL’s Acting Memories Will Be ALPHABET, From A To Z, By NAMES Of Actors He Met, DIRECTORS & Producers Who Hired Him As XTRA!

VIDAL’s ACTING Memories BooK-PosT Includes MARTIN SHEEN For Episode THE WEST WING, 1st ever DAY SAG WORK 2005, ImportanT SET!

Who Is Frederic VIDAL? A Fictional name? no, An actor Who Appears AlwaYs At the Right & GOoD Time! On SET or NOT!! more to come

A Book, Etincelle – MY XTRA TIME, From Steven SPIELBERG To Clint EASTWOOD, By Mike FULLER, PhD To Write The Fred VIDAL Acting Memories 2003-2009 As FRED KELLY, New AKA Of Fred VIDAL, Is on Stage For Sketches (COMEDY IMPRO) Beginning Next Week, In Los Angeles!

The Comple Text ASAP.

On TWITTER FV, http://twitter.com/fredvidal

As He Prepares the WritinG Of A Post Of MEMORIES Of His Acting Best Days: My Working Days on A Set With SPIELBERG And EATSWOOD,  Fred KELLY ready To IMPRO onstage.

W-FV: A Book, My EXTRA Time, From Steven SPIELBERG To Clint EASTWOOD, By Mike FULLER, PhD To Write The Fred VIDAL Acting Memories 2003-2009!

EASTWOOD , It was In 2005 or 6? BUT It Was For A Movie From The FUTURE Due To QUALITY WORK, So 2009!

MY EXTRA TIME WITH SPIELBERG AND EASTWOOD? I Like That! (a publisher) Fred’s Mr. SPIELBERG Friend On MYSPACE!! I checked! Good! Congrats!

Before To Begin A General Writing Of My 6 Years SETS Memories, I Want To Express My Gratitude To EverybodY, Including YVONNE STRAHOVSKI Of The CHUCK TV-Show Serie (and not series). On the Set Of this OnE, I Felt Not guilty To find Her LOVELY!! Fred VIDAL, November 27.

FRED KELLY onstage IMPRO tour 2009 Holiday Season: Will Be, Not As BILLY CRISTAL’s A. Awards HOST, But a Non-Singing BOB DYLAN freewheelin’!

But BILLY CRISTAL (also seen In Long Beach in the Past) aNd Jerry SEINFELD Will Be The TOP MASTERS Of Fred VIDAL Game & PLAY!! onstage Only!

He Plays Well THE GUITAR, He Has A GOOD VOICE (even if criticized), He’s Writing His Lines ON TWITTER ALL THE TIME, So Y Not On Stage Too?!

CHARLIE CHAPLIN featured AS THE GREAT DICTATOR, Featured In Article’s NEWSPAPER ‘IMPRO-MEMORY-COMEDY’ Now Blog To InforM Subject FV Stage!!

It was Chaplin’s first true talking picture, & more importantly was Only major film of its period 2 bitterly satirize Nazism & Adolf Hitler!

NO CONFUSION: CHARLIE CHAPLIN Is THE 1st IN THE MOVIE INDUSTRY Who Criticized A DICTATOR, And It Was A TRIUMPH 4 His Masterpiece In The 30’s

The Great Dictator is a comedy film written, directed, produced by, and starring Charlie Chaplin. First released in October 1940. Music Too!

It was Chaplin’s first true talking picture, & more importantly was Only major film of its period 2 bitterly satirize Nazism & Adolf Hitler!

The Great Dictator is a comedy film written, directed, produced by, and starring Charlie Chaplin. First released in October 1940, it was Chaplin’s first

Thanks WIKIPEDIA! Some don’t Agree because There was Also The Dictator Himself Showing He was a BEST CLOWN IN TOWN, In Germany, fortunately!

FRED VIDAL Acknowledges He’s FAN CHARLIE CHAPLIN. Even If Thomas SPEARS Met CHAPLIN In Hollywood (+ PARIS, one told me), FRIENDS Vs NAZISM!

In Alternate HISTORY You never Sure About WhO You Meet, You OnlY KnoW That you’re NoT in Another Dimension, You IN ANOTHER SPACE! scientific

PARALLEL OR ALTERNATIVE?? THE TWO OF THEM, A PLANET!

TOM CRUISE Had PROBLEMS 2 PRODUCE Valkyrie, VIDAL TOO For SILENCE THOMAS SPEARS But He Has Not The MONEY Of TOM, So NO FILM, A One Man Show!

When You Want To KILL A DICTATOR, You Must WAKE up EarlY & BUILD A STRATEGY. HERO FILM VALKYRIE Do ThE Same The Best He Can, V. Good Movie!

In Silence Thomas Spears ONSTAGE (He already Did It In 30’s After Betrayal HITLER), You part of ALTERNATIVE AND PARALLEL PlaneT, Not Earth!!

In Silence Thomas Spears ONSTAGE, It’s A Ticket To An ALTERNATIVE (or Alternate) AND PARALLEL Earth! A PREMIERE, the 2 Concepts TOGETHER!!

When You OUT The Theater/Music Hall, You BACK ON Your earth!!!

It’s LIKE CRISS ANGEL, For A PLANETARY CRUISE/TRIP!! (CyB, H. Blvd) Parallel-Alternate, Nice Place!! SAD SPEARS couldn’t Kill HITLER Here!!

YES, sure, BuT On The Other Hand, HE KILLED HIMSELF (Hitler)!! But a little too late!

But THE JEWS Will Find HIM And Kill Him A SECOND TIME, Back In The 1930’s, In The GERMAN SPY Universe!! another chapter of the book

DON’T KILL HIM Too Much, PUT ONE In NUREMBERG, To Give Information!! (FAN STS) laughs

It’s In The MOVIE, if a movie one day

Basically HITLER Had probably Several PHOTO DOUBLES. Consequently We Are sure Only That Real ONE Died In 1945 In our Reality (not P&A Earth)

Fred VIDAL Was On The P&A (Parallel & Alternative) EARTH last Summer! He Found Nothing Interesting, BUT It Was in 2009. SPACE-TIME Explains!

BRÛLE CE SCENARIO SANS PLUS TARDER!!!

Ahem. Pardon. Laissez moi reprendre depuis le début.

Cher Quentin,

J’ai déjà évoqué il y a quelque temps dans un article centré sur Inglourious Basterds les grosses réserves que j’avais à ton sujet, mais si je m’adresse à toi aujourd’hui, ça n’est pas en tant que détracteur, mais en tant qu’ami.

Il semblerait que tu sois en train d’écrire un scénario pour Johnny Hallyday.

A moins qu’il existe un autre Johnny Hallyday, un obscur acteur américain dont je n’aurais pas entendu parler, dois-je comprendre que toi, le cinéaste star, pour qui tous les acteurs du monde rêvent de tourner (sauf cette rabat-joie d’Isabelle Huppert, apparemment), tu as décidé d’écrire un rôle pour la momie orangée aux lèvres de mérou qui fait ses adieux à la scène tous les six mois au pied de la Tour Eiffel ? La vieille chose tirée jusqu’à l’agonie qui pose à côté de Laetitia en couverture de Paris Match une semaine sur deux, qu’on prend d’abord pour sa grand-mère avant de réaliser qu’il s’agit de son époux ? Le clown en décomposition avancée qui a fait 70 ans de carrière en traduisant (mal) en français des tubes américains ? L’ex-mari croulant d’une des Filles d’à Côté ? La muse fossilisée d’Optic 2000 ?

Alors oui, tu parles beaucoup, et les trois-quarts de tes projets ne voient pas le jour, mais rien que le fait d’y avoir pensé est déjà un vaste problème.

Quentin, dois-je te rappeler que tu es le papa de Reservoir Dogs et de Pulp Fiction ? Que tu as une responsabilité envers ces films ? Et qu’à chaque faute de goût, tu jettes un peu plus d’ombre sur tes glorieux débuts ? Parce que Jackie Brown avait la classe, et parce que Kill Bill Vol. 1 avait le mérite d’être rock’n'roll, on t’aurait presque pardonné ton obstination Madonnesque à vouloir faire l’acteur, bien que tu sois franchement indécent de nullité lorsque tu commets l’imprudence de passer devant la caméra. Avec Kill Bill Vol. 2, le vide émotionnel et intellectuel du grand attardé que tu es commençait à se faire douloureusement sentir. Idem pour Death Proof, où ta propension à t’écouter bavarder pour ne rien dire virait à l’indigence masturbatoire. D’autant que son jumeau Planet Terreur, enfanté par ton pote Robert Rodriguez, moins prétentieux, moins célébré, pas sélectionné à Cannes, lui mettait sa race sur le terrain de la jubilation débile assumée.

Puis il y a eu Inglourious Basterds, sur lequel j’ai dit ce que j’avais à dire.

Et maintenant, Johnny. Qu’avons nous fait pour mériter ça? N’est-ce pas suffisant qu’un Clint Eastwood grabataire se compromette avec une volaille, et qu’un Woody Allen sénile soit au bord du discrédit en invitant la femme la plus cauchemardesque de France à tourner pour lui ? Doit-on en plus assister à la chute irrémédiable de ce qui reste de Quentin Tarantino ?

Je me doute que Vengeance de Johnnie To t’a fait mouiller ton pantalon et donné tout plein d’idées, mais l’as-tu bien regardé le Johnny ? L’as-tu déjà entendu parler ? Sais-tu à quelle genre de musique apocalyptique il est associé ? Et surtout, l’as tu déjà vu chanter Le bon vieux temps du Rock’n'Roll en duo avec Sylvie Vartan?

J’en viens à me demander si la récupération systématique des ringards de tous bords qui est depuis toujours ton fond de commerce n’est pas un prolongement de ta mégalomanie croissante (comme l’a très justement fait remarquer le génial compositeur Alexandre Desplat au sujet de ton refus d’utiliser de la musique originale). Si ta résistance de plus en plus persistante à faire tourner des grands acteurs/noms (non, Brad Pitt et Uma Thurman ne sont pas des grands acteurs) n’est pas la manifestation d’une peur panique de partager tes précieux lauriers. Si le fait de choisir des tocards, des has-been ou des inconnus n’est pas tout simplement pour toi la meilleure façon de t’approprier le succès de leurs performances, ou du moins la primeur de leur découverte. Imagine: si tu tournais Reservoir Dogs aujourd’hui, tu offrirais sans doute les rôles principaux à Treat Williams, Tom Berenger, ou même David Hasselhoff, juste pour faire ton malin. Et crois moi, ça serait beaucoup moins bien.

Alors laisse-moi te donner un conseil d’ami: descend de ton putain de piédestal, souviens toi de l’époque où Tarantino rimait avec Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Steve Buscemi, Samuel L. Jackson ou Christopher Walken, et essaie de nous donner un peu envie.

Parce que Johnny Hallyday, même avec toute la bonne volonté du monde, comment te dire?

Non.

Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds comes out on dvd in December. To celebrate, here’s my unabrigded interview with the director earlier this fall. Two 20 minute sesssions, along with two different Swedish journalists. This is session one. Read the original story here and my interview with Col. Landa actor Christoph Waltz here (both in Norwegian).

How long have you wanted to do scene from a French Café?

QT: That’s a good question. The thing is, it’s only natural when we do a World War II movie, especially taking place in Nazi-occupied France, to do a scene in a French café, because I have a tendency to have scenes take place in restaurants all the time. The first scene for the first movie I ever wrote from beginning to end was Reservoir Dogs, and that took place in a restaurant. I’m a big fan of writing scenes that takes place in restaurants, so a French café is absolutely natural for me in the context of the story.

You have put a lot of attention to languages in the movie, which is not alway the case in WWII movies, where the Germans speak English with a German accent.

QT: The languages was definitely always in the script, it was always my intention. Some people are speculating, will that limit the movie’s potential, because of all the different languages? I think it’s the exact opposite. The stuff where the Germans speak like The Royal Shakespearan Company out of The Old Vic, I think that’s what makes those movies old-fashioned. That was like your father’s WWII movies. It was a contrivance you accepted then, but I don’t think people accept that anymore. Literally, that was makes them seem old-fashioned.

That’s one way of looking at it, just from an aesthetic way, but the other way is actually practical as far as the movie is concerned. Your ability with languages, either to understand them or to speak them, was the difference between life and death. Language itself is one of the most important aspects of this movie, as well it would be, in Europe. It wouldn’t even be the same thing if you were trying to deal with WWII as far as Asia was concerned. The movie could take place in China, and you wouldn’t have to speak anything other than Mandarin.

In the case of Europe, all the time you see movies like Where Eagles Dare. In it, Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood are supposed to be able to speak German so magnificently well that they could put on officer uniforms and walk into a tavern and just kick it in German, and they just know two-three-four ways about it. No worries whatsoever! For the contrivance of the movie, you more or less buy it.

But if Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood were speaking German, that would be a senseful element that would be brought into the movie. And because there would be German speakers out there, it would either be completely phony or it would be exciting. But then again, at the same time, it’s like the way a second generation person speaks German, that they learned in either Canada or they learned in America, is not necessarily the way a person who lives in Frankfurt is going to speak it. That’s just a whole aspect of excitement and suspense that I tried to take full advantage of, because it really hadn’t been explored to the depth that I was exploring it before.

Also, you have all these wonderful German actors, and what often happens in international productions. You’ll have American and British actors, speaking in their own language, maybe feign a Spanish accent, but maybe not. Jeremy Irons doesn’t do that, but then Antonio Banderas walks in, and he truly has a Spanish accent, but where the fuck does he come from? So he actually throws the film off by being authentic. With all these wonderful German actors in there, they all had to be speaking the right thing. That was also the reason that I didn’t cast Dutch or Swedish actors as, I wanted them to be German.

How will the movie be dubbed in Europe?

QT: I actually worked on the dubbing myself, especially when it comes to France, Italy and German. I ended up with a story that couldn’t be dubbed, because it wouldn’t make sense if everybody in the movie spoke the same language. What happened, in the case of Italy and France. German is German, but English will be dubbed. In the case of Germany, French becomes French.

There have been made a lot of WWII movies from historical sources. Was it important for you to make up your own story? To keep distance to History?

QT: You described it pretty well, that’s pretty much the same. I did a tremendous amount of research when I started to write the story a long time ago. I found that I was held back by the research, I got enamored with it. Six months doing research, and spent six months of trying to fit the research into my story. I wanted to show off all this knowledge that I gained, I wanted to give a history lesson.

But I had to get over that. When it comes to stuff like German cinema under The Third Reich, I already had a lot of information on that, so I didn’t need to do a lot of research as far as that was concerned. When I picked up the pen to start writing the story again, I already had done research about the occupation in France, so I had a lot of stuff back here.

I just wrote my story, I didn’t look up anything, and anything that I came to that I didn’t know exactly the historical right and wrongs of it, we’re talking about things like when was curfew during the occupation, I just made it up. I made it up so I wouldn’t have to go backwards. So I could just keep telling my story, I got the freedom to tell my the sory the way I would normally tell them. When I got to the end of it, I looked up the facts. And sometime I liked my way better.

This is the way I normally write, by not trying to make it any different. In a script you have tunnels that your characters can get into, and screenwriters put roadblocks in front of some tunnels, because they can’t afford to have their characters go that road if they want to sell it as a movie. I never had these roadblocks, but this time history itself was a roadblock. I was more or less prepared to respect these roadblocks, but when I got to them, I realised “fuck it”: My characters are gonna do what my characters are gonna do.

My characters don’t know that this is history, my characters don’t know that they can’t go down this road. History hasn’t happened yet, they can do it. If one wants to look at my story as a fairytale, then you’re more than welcome to look at it that way. I don’t look at it like that way. I look at like: My characters changed the outcome of the war. Now that didn’t happen, because my characters didn’t exist. But if they had existed, all that happened in this movie is very plausible.

It seems that Inglourious Basterds treats History like a Western movie treats the history of the American West. It’s more like World War II told as a western, populated with characters and myths.

QT: You guys are really good, I would agree with that. I did actually approach this movie as a way that you would approach a western. In westerns, there is reality and myth, and what survives is what survives.

How did you get to work with Brad Pitt?

QT: We always wanted to work together, but we’ve waited for the right character. While I wrote Aldo, it all came together. One of the things that make Brad so iconic for the role is… Brad’s in a great place as far his career and his superstar persona is concerned. He’s been around for a while, done a lot of movies and worked with some of the most talented directors. He knows what he’s doing, and he’s not a boy anymore. He’s grown out of his boyish good looks, and now they’ve become handsome manly good looks.

There is this special thing about working with Brad at this time, at this time in his career, this is one of the most exciting times to work with him. Both as part of his popularity is concerned, and as far his iconic stature and persona is concerned. He gets thrilling when you set up a shot and look through the viewfinder at him. I can imagine this is the same kinda thrill that Sydney Pollack felt when he was shooting Jeremiah Johnson with Robert Redford. He looked through the viewfinder, and thought he was at the movie theatre.

Cinema plays a big part in this movie, but do you think you could ever make a movie from a time where there was no movies?

QT: You mean before the 20th century? Yeah, I could do that. If I did a swashbuckler it wouldn’t be about the love of cinema, or maybe it would? A western maybe, how would that end up working out? I did not think that years ago, when I came up with the idea of Inglourious Basterds, that at the end of the day that the movie would end being this wild love letter to cinema.

I never thought of that when I came up with the idea of doing a WWII movie. But at some point, when I was writing the first scene between Shoshanna and Fredrick Zoller, it ended up as a conversation about Max Linder. Man, I’ll  do a WWII movie and it becomes a movie about cinema. I guess that’s who I am.

You must have enjoyed shooting the movie at the legendary Studio Babelsberg?

QT: That was so exciting! I’m a lot like Archie Hickox in the movie, and I have a fetishist love of German cinema of the 1920’s and those directors. Actually we were not only shooting in the studio, but at the same sound stages where Josef von Sternberg shot Der Blaue Engel. The place where we built the theatre, that was the stage Marlene Dietrich sang “Falling in Love Again”. And to actually walk the streets where G.W. Pabst walked, our productions offices were on Papst Strasse.

To make the movies where Papst made his movies, the fact that the studio logo was the False Mariah from Metropolis. It was more exciting than working at 2oth Century Fox. The history was lovely there, it goes all the way, our production manager’s office was actually Joseph Goebbel’s old office.

You picked your German actors from the very best of the crop?

QT: I was thinking about the international audience, and I didn’t want a famous person playing Hitler. If it’s Alec Guiness or Anthony Hopkins as Hitler you think “oh that’s Anthony Hopkins doing Hitler”. But if I watch a minor WWII movie and Hitler shows up, looking more or less like Hitler, I’ll go “okay, that’s Hitler”. I don’t really question it.

Martin Wuttke, who plays Hitler is very well known in Germany, where he had done one of the best Hitler performances ever, in a Brecht play where Hitler turns into a dog. He actually said no several times, so we had to talk him into it. In the case of Sylvester Groth, who played Goebbels, he played him before in Mein Führer, which was a black comedy. He’s an amazing actor, just look at the way he brings comedy into his Goebbels portrayal, especially at the scene that takes place at their little Hollywood luncheon. That’s the sequence that’s closest to Ernest Lubisch’s To Be or not To Be. I love the idea of dealing with Goebbels, not as this architect of evil, but as his job as a studio head. Dealing with him in this practical job, that he considered his number one job, and was the production of all these movies. He’s not like Louis DeMille, he’s not a businessman, he’s an artist at heart, much closer to David Zelnick.

And doing a WWII movie got you an opportunity to portray nazis, which you can say are very stylish villains, fashionwise.

QT: Well, whatever you want to say about the Nazis, you really can’t complain about their fashion sense, ha ha. They definitely had a very striking look, even their architecture was something to behold. It was a lot of fun, going through the uniforms and learning about them. Even the two guards outside Hitler’s opera box, those were special uniforms done for Hitler’s guard, and they have never actually been captured on film before. That was eye-opening and interesting.

What do you think of Stockholm? (obligatory question from Swedish journalist)

QT: This is my seventh visit to Stockholm, and it’s a very nice town, with a couple of bars I like. Also, you have one of the most amazing records stores in the world, Pet Sounds. Whenever you bring the name up to a vinyl collector, you think of the highest quality when you hear the name.

Part two of this interview will be published tomorrow.

The stunning setting for the Debutante's Ball

The Crillion Ball, it’s every girls dream, slipping on a couture dress, mingling with the likes of Royalty, socialite’s and Hollywood’s elite, and lets not forget…your debut into society. Taking place this coming weekend, “Le Bal” as it is formally known in Paris, is now in its 19th year and still holds its social status in high society.

The gorgeous setting of the Hotel de Crillion is something that you would expect from a Hollywood movie, and with the array of famous faces watching in awe as their daughter’s take centre stage, it is more than a glitz and glamour event that us mere mortals could only dream about.

This year the stage will be set for the likes of Clint Eastwood’s daughter, Francesca Eastwood, Designer Allegra Hicks daughter, Angelica Hicks and Princess Diana’s niece, Kitty Spencer, to name a few. Infamous blogger, Jane Aldridge, will also be appearing at the event, wearing Chanel none the less. Being deemed as the “Cinderella” of the bunch, Aldridge is a unique exception to the “Billionaire’s Ball.”

Fashion is the obvious topic of conversation and you can only guess why, with many designers throwing Haute Couture gowns at the young women, they will be spoilt for choice. From Chanel to Jason Wu, each Debutante will undoubtedly be dressed head to toe in glamour.

Ya hace algunos años que me había alejado en mis lecturas, de la novela negra, pero tuvo su momento, y los clásicos, Hammett, Chandler, M. Cain, Jim Thompson, Sciascia, Simenon, o Patricia Highsmith, me hicieron disfrutar con las historias que sus creativas mentes habían concebido.

He observado con escepticismo el giro que las editoriales han dado para alejar a los devoradores de bestsellers, de la literatura que se ha estado consumiendo estos últimos años (que marcó “El código Da Vinci”), conduciéndolos hacia la novela negra (con la trilogía de Stieg Larsson a la cabeza). Y seguía sin intención inmediata de volver a introducirme en el género (no me gusta que me dirijan en la elección de lo que leo), pero, visto el retraso con el que se iba a estrenar una película que ha despertado en mí gran interés, si que me planteé comprar un libro que pertenece a la novela negra. Me refiero a “Shutter Island”, de Dennis Lehane, que Martin Scorsese ha llevado al cine, y que se estrenará en Estados Unidos el 19 de febrero próximo.

Con “Shutter Island” me ha ocurrido exactamente lo mismo que con “The road”, llevada al cine por John Hillcoat, sobre la novela de Cormac McCarthy, y pendiente todavía de estreno. En ambos casos, tener que esperar su llegada a la pantalla, me ha “obligado” a leer antes la novela.

Pero en realidad, no es de “Shutter Island”, ni de “The road” de las que voy a hablar en este post, como ya habréis podido imaginar por su encabezamiento, pero como una cosa lleva a la otra…

Como llevar en mente comprar “Shutter Island”, me llevó a comprar antes “Mystic River”.

Y fue casual.

Aunque conocía la noticia de que una editorial había lanzado una nueva colección de libros de bolsillo dedicados a la novela policíaca para la venta en kioscos, no me había despertado ni el interés de conocer los títulos que la componían. Pero hace unas semanas, recargando la tarjeta del bus en uno de esos kioscos, reparé en la entrega que se había puesto a la venta aquellos días. Era “Mystic River”, la novela de Lehane en la que se basó Clint Eastwood en 2003, para realizar una de sus mejores películas.

El recuerdo de la magistral película de Eastwood, mi decisión de leer “Shutter Island”, y, todo hay que decirlo, su asequible precio (4,95€), me decidió a comprarla.

Estaba acabando por entonces “Nocturna”, la novela de Guillermo del Toro y Chuck Hogan (si esto fuera un foro literario, le dedicaría un capítulo aparte, y no muy favorable -pero podéis pinchar en el título y leer una reseña que coincide plenamente con lo que yo diría de ella), y a los pocos días, pasando por alto otros libros que esperaban su turno de ser leídos, comencé su lectura. Aunque, confieso, con ciertas reservas, porque en ningún momento pensé que la novela pudiera ser tan plena como la película. Y me equivoqué.

Sin quitarle ningún mérito a Eastwood, que supo aprovechar al máximo el magnífico material que contiene la novela, el libro sirve en bandeja para su adaptación al cine, una coherente e interesante historia, bien redactada, con unos personajes que derrochan autenticidad y un dominio de los diálogos que la convierte en notable.

Son precisamente los diálogos (y en la novela hay muchos), uno de valores que más he apreciado en esa pequeña joya que es “Mystic River”, y los que al igual que yo, seáis aficionados a la lectura, sabéis a lo que me refiero, pues cuantas veces, un libro que te ha contado una buena historia, te ha dejado un mal sabor de boca porque en la de los personajes han aparecido frases que piensas nadie hubiera dicho de esa forma en la vida real.

Cuando hablamos, sobre todo la gente corriente (que somos los más), no preparamos las frases para que suenen bien, ni introducimos palabras de adorno en ellas. Todo es espontáneo, y salen de nuestra mente comentarios, preguntas o contestaciones que no suelen tener una segunda oportunidad de ser rectificadas como cuando escribimos. Y ese es el fallo de muchos escritores. Por mejorar la forma, abandonan el realismo, lo natural de los diálogos. Y Lehane lo domina. Jimmy Markum, Dave Boyle, Sean Devine (los protagonistas), y todos los personajes que aparecen en la novela e interactúan con ellos, se expresan como lo haríamos cualquiera de nosotros en sus circunstancias.

“Mystic River”, la novela, no es tan sólo una buena historia del género negro o policiaco. Su profundidad en el tratamiento de sus personajes, de sus sentimientos y reacciones, la convierten en algo más.

Si habéis leído este post desde su principio, sabéis que este libro ha sido mi primer contacto con Dennis Lehane, pero… ahora estoy por la mitad de “Shutter Island”.

No voy a hablar de ella hasta que no vea la película de Scorsese, aunque sí quiero comentar una opinión compartida con una amiga tan aficionada y veterana en la lectura como yo. Es nuestra opinión, y discutible, pero nos hemos confirmado con el tiempo, en la idea de que en la producción literaria de un autor (hablamos de los buenos), siempre hay una novela que sobresale sobre las otras. Un libro “redondo”, al que prácticamente no puedes encontrar ningún defecto. En el resto de sus escritos, anteriores o posteriores, volverás a encontrar muchos de los valores de esa gran obra, pero nunca la igualan, y menos, la superan. Creo que “Mystic River” es la obra “redonda” de Lehane.

LA PELÍCULA DE CLINT EASTWOOD

No es mucho lo que puede añadir mi opinión personal a un film aclamado en su momento como uno de los mejores realizados por Eastwood, nominado a seis Oscar en la edición de 2003, y ganador de dos (Mejor Actor, Sean Penn y Mejor Actor de Reparto, Tim Robbins), pero quiero alabar su trabajo.

La película arranca, como en la novela, una tarde de verano, en la que Jimmy Markum, Dave Boyle y Sean Devine, tres niños de once años, juegan en las calles del barrio obrero East Buckingham, situado a las orillas del río Mystic. Una pelea por un desacuerdo entre ellos, ocasiona que un hombre que se identifica como policía, salga de un coche, y obligue a Dave a acompañarle, ante la mirada impotente de sus amigos. Dave aparece unos días más tarde. Ha conseguido escapar del hombre y de su compañero, pero todo el mundo sabe que ha sido víctima de abusos sexuales. La mala conciencia de Jimmy y Sean, que no hicieron nada para evitar que Dave subiera al coche, hace también que su amistad acabe diluyéndose. Veinticinco años más tarde, la vida de cada uno de ellos, ha seguido un rumbo diferente: Jimmy (Sean Penn), que se inició en la delincuencia y pasó un tiempo en la cárcel, se casó muy joven, tuvo una hija a los 17 años y está casado en segundas nupcias, porque su primera mujer murió tempranamente de cáncer, regenta ahora un pequeño supermercado en el mismo barrio que le vio nacer. Sean (Kevin Bacon), en cambio, es policía y abandonó el barrio al casarse, pero su mujer le ha dejado. Dave (Tim Robbins) no ha dejado el barrio, se ha casado y tiene un hijo, pero aunque aparentemente es un hombre normal, lo ocurrido en el pasado continúa atormentándole. Un día, la hija Jimmy de 19 años, desaparece, y su cuerpo sin vida es encontrado a las pocas horas en un parque. Esto motiva que las vidas de los tres vuelvan a cruzarse, pues Sean, junto a su compañero Whitey (Laurence Fishburne) es el encargado de investigar el asesinato, en el cual llega a relacionarse a Dave por una serie de circunstancias que lo convierten en sospechoso. Jimmy, por su parte, inicia una investigación paralela a la de la policía, porque quiere vengar la muerte de su hija…

Muy poco altera Eastwood, el desarrollo de la novela, y a los principales personajes en su película (Whitey, que es un hombre blanco en el libro, y su personaje está más elaborado, sería una de esas mínimas alteraciones), y pone con magistral acierto, escenario y rostros, para contar la trama, en la que los diálogos, tanto exteriores como interiores, al igual que en la novela de Lehane, son los protagonistas.

Y se ve su mano al dirigir a los tres actores principales, sacando lo mejor de cada uno de ellos. El comedimiento de Sean Penn (excelente actor, pero que si no es bien dirigido tiene tendencia a los tic y al histrionismo), aún en la escena más desgarradora de la película, sus expresiones, con las que nos cuenta su tortura interior… La aparente apatía del personaje de Tim Robbins, pero que con su mirada y movimientos, nos dice que algo está ocurriendo dentro de su cabeza… Y la corrección de Bacon, en la que yo diría, la mejor de sus interpretaciones…

Si los tres actores principales nos ofrecen magníficas actuaciones, no quedan atrás las de Marcia Gay Harden (que da vida a Celeste Boyle, la esposa de Dave), y Laura Linney (la esposa de Jimmy Markum), personajes secundarios, pero importantes en el desarrollo de la historia.

Magistral es también el tratamiento que ha dado Eastwood a la violencia contenida que subyace a lo largo de todo el film, y que en algunas secuencias llega a sobrecogernos. Arropado todo, por una adecuada banda sonora compuesta por él mismo.

Y mucho más podría extenderme comentando la película, pero no quiero repetir lo que otros ya dijeron cuando se estrenó.

Lo que sí quiero, es recomendar la novela a los que no la hayáis leído, pues sea o no, vuestro género favorito, sé que os satisfará su lectura. Igualmente recomiendo el film. He vuelto a verlo después de leer el libro, y me he confirmado en la idea de que es una gran película.

-

Para ver la ficha de la película, pincha aquí

-

Swanson 

We end this month’s Director’s Spotlight on controversial director Spike Lee with his most recent picture, 2008’s Miracle at St. Anna. After viewing Clint Eastwood’s 2006 war pictures Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima, Spike Lee stated at the 2008 Cannes Film Festival that Eastwood should have included black Marines in his movies. Eastwood responded that they were specifically about the Japanese soldiers and the Americans who raised the flag, that there were black soldiers at Iwo Jima but they were segregated and therefore not directly involved, and that Lee should “shut his face”. Lee countered that Eastwood was acting like an “angry old man” and that he should have included them anyway. Thus, Miracle at St. Anna was born.

Alternating between the 1940’s and the 1980’s, the film opens on Hector Negron (Laz Alonso, Jarhead), a dark-skinned Latino WWII veteran and current employee of the U.S. postal service, watching The Longest Day and murmuring to himself, “We served our country too”. The next day, he seems to recognize an Italian-accented customer, who does the same before Negron shoots him dead. A young reporter (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, the chief reason I saw this movie) is thrown a bone by the jaded investigating detective (John Turturro) and witnesses the discovery of a lifetime: a long-lost marble statuehead of a destroyed Italian bridge, found in the perp’s closet. As the reporter pushes Negron for the story behind it, he recounts a tale of four members of the Buffalo Soldiers: one righteous and authoritative (Derek Luke, Antwone Fisher), one smooth and skeptical (Michael Ealy, Barbershop), one a linguist and optimist (Negron) and one huge and innocent (Omar Benson Miller, Transformers). Together, they survive the ambush of their squad in Nazi-occupied Italy and hole up with a fascist-supporting Italian family and a mute boy they rescued. The climactic finale includes betrayal (both romantic and political) and tragedy, but the film’s title is true to its word: hope surrounds the epilogue and Negron’s ultimate fate.

George, as soon as we get out of Nazi-occupied Italy we'll get a little place of our own where I can tend the rabbits...

This is a thoroughly unimpressive epic. It was billed as the African-American version of Saving Private Ryan, and that would be an insult to both that war classic and African-Americans in general. The plot has an interesting premise and starts relatively strong, but quickly loses its Wuthering Heights comparisons and slows to a halt once the soldiers arrive in the village. The characters are all very two-dimensional; there’s a cliched love triangle between Luke, Ealy and an Italian woman, Benson is basically a black version of Lennie from Of Mice and Men, and the protagonist’s only real depth is his survivor’s guilt. And of course, as this is a response piece from none other than Spike Lee, white men are shown in every opportunity to be prejudiced and hateful (one of the unnecessary flashbacks-within-a-flashback features a great character actor, John Hawkes, in the most pointed attack on a group of people I’ve seen this year), and his direction does nothing but beg his audience to cry for the plight of the downtrodden black man.

I understand what Lee was going for, but he went about it in all the wrong ways. There’s a convoluted and overdrawn structure, distracting cameos by the likes of John Leguizamo and Kerry Washington, underdeveloped protagonists and an agressiveness in garnering sympathy for the director’s heritage; none of these are what I look for in a movie. Overall I give the film 1 1/2 pitchforks out of five; Spike Lee got in over his head this time, and I hope he sticks to what he’s good at next time.

dirigir um filme é dar a direção. dirigir um filme é visualizar e comandar a construção de um universo, um tema, uma proposta e comandar tão claramente esta construção junto aos outros artistas que eles o transformam em algo com uma dimensão completamente nova e incontrolável.  dirigir passa portanto por dialogar com o diretor de fotografia, o diretor de arte, o produtor e, em especial, com os atores. um diretor que ignore a preparação e direção dos atores está deixando de lado uma das dimensões artísticas mais relevantes para a veracidade e beleza de uma obra cinematográfica.

dentro do método e da maneira que estudamos e ensinamos no actor studio sp brasil, atuar e dirigir atores são duas funções dentro de uma mesma equipe. é impossível atuar sem entender o ofício do diretor e vice-versa. o diretor está para o ator assim como o maestro está para a orquestra. da mesma forma que um maestro sabe perfeitamente identificar o que determinado músico deveria fazer para se alcançar o resultado desejado, ao diretor não pode  bastar simplesmente saber se a cena ‘funciona’ ou não. é preciso saber identificar em que ponto o ator está pecando e como dialogar com este ator para conseguir o que se quer sem que isto se torne algo mecânico, coreografado.  da mesma forma, um ator experiente não terá dificuldades em dialogar com outro ator orientando-o para a direção que visualiza para o filme.

em hollywood, não são poucos os atores que se aventuram, com sucesso, na direção de filmes. sean penn, clint eastwood, robert redford, denzel washington, jodie foster são só alguns dos nomes mais notórios, alguns sendo indicados ou até vencendo oscars de melhor direção.  seus filmes são quase sempre centrados na atuação, mas não por isso menos visualmente arrebatadores. talvez seja a ‘fome por participação criativa, a fome de arte’ que tommy lee jones (outro ator que se envereda pelos caminhos da direção) se referiu. talvez seja simplesmente a sensibilidade de grandes artistas, que já dominaram a técnica de atuação e que se valem da sensibilidade e experiência para interagir da mesma forma com os artistas das outras áreas.

quer ver mais filmes com diretores-atores? confira: ‘menina de ouro’ ou ’sobre meninos e lobos’, ‘gran torino’ de clint eastwood, ou ‘na natureza selvagem’ de sean penn.

Since this college semester is coming to a close in a few weeks, I’ve decided to post my current Top 10 films list for a two part blog, giving reasons and a video showing a clip from each film.  Now, I won’t go and call myself the best film critic by any stretch of word and there are still plenty of movies I have yet to see.  But I figure there’s no harm in constantly updating your list and for a good while, this has been what the top has looked like.  So here it is, part one:

10. Forrest Gump

This is definitely a clear contender for a most popular film list; and with good reason.  Many scenes, characters and lines have been mentioned, quoted and spoofed countless times, but this is all the more reason it’s such a great movie.  Sure, we’ve all seen it only a billion and a half times already, but it never loses its charm.  Although Forrest might not be the brightest apple on the tree, he’s one of the most naturally good at-heart.  A big part of what makes this such an easy film to follow is how Forrest’s adventures and, at times, struggles are a fair representation of what many common Americans go through.  The film has recently been criticized for having a constrained view on some of these moments but this is more a misconception than anything.  What Forrest deals with and notices are intended to be passed off from his view, which is as neutral and unbiased as you can possibly get.  Some might think the film struggles with its message(s), which it doesn’t but this is only more reason the film relates so easily to us (multiple messages and some not being so clear at first).

“What’s my destiny, Mama?”

“You’re gonna have to figure that out yourself.  Life is a box of chocolates, Forrest.  You never know what you’re gonna get.”

9. Stand By Me

I’ve become a fairly big fan of Stephen King in the past couple years.  I feel that he’s (mostly) offered some of the best stories out there, whether they detail strong characters or have striking scenarios, he’s almost never left me underwhelmed.  And despite how much I might praise his other works; I think the story that hits home the most for me is the film adaptation of Stand By Me.  The plot is very basic and gives us little more than the little journey that our four main characters go through.  But this simplicity gives the film a lot of room to detail the characters and we definitely get a strong dose of that, namely from Gordie and Chris.  The relationship between all four characters feels natural and realistic, with great agreements and sometimes bitter arguments sprouting out.  Anyone who’s seen the film unedited knows that it doesn’t try to sugarcoat anything but you’re not getting morbid or depressing images either.  It’s a kind of film that can easily to speak to anyone because of it cleverly maintaining a mid-ground mood.

“**** writing, I don’t want to be a writer.  It’s stupid.  It’s a stupid waste of time.”

“That’s your dad talking.”

“Bull****”

“Bull true.  I know how your dad feels about you.  He doesn’t give a **** about you, Denny was the one he cared about and don’t try to tell me different.  You’re just a kid, Gordie.”

“Oh, gee!  Thanks, Dad!”

“Wish the hell I was your Dad.  You wouldn’t be goin’ around talkin’ about takin’ these stupid shop courses if I was.  It’s like God gave you something, man, all those stories you can make up.  And He said, ‘This is what I got for ya, kid.  Try not to lose it.’  Kids lose everything unless there’s someone there to look out for them.  And if your parents are too ****ed up to do it, then maybe I should.”

8. Letters from Iwo Jima

This might sound blasphemous to some, but I’m pretty late to the Clint Eastwood party.  In fact, this and Flags of Our Fathers were my introduction to his work.  But as we all know Mr. Eastwood has seldom missed the mark and he definitely did a great job with Flags of Our Fathers.  Then there’s Letters from Iwo Jima, which trumps its American sibling in every conceivable way.  Despite telling the tale from the Japanese point of view, this film actually hits home harder than Flags of Our Fathers.  Giving us an idea of what the conditions were (probably) like for the Japanese soldiers who worked, fought and died on Iwo Jima is one of the film’s strongest aspects.  And it’s carried out throughout the entire runtime with pure excellence, giving us strong performances from the entire cast (especially Ken Watanabe) and dramatic moments matched by a solemnly peaceful score.  War has taken many forms and become the inspiration for a wide variety of films-this is one that gets my utmost recommendation for even the remotely curious.

“If our children can live safely for one more day it would be worth the one more day we defend this island.”

7. The War

Don’t be confused, this isn’t that forgettable film featuring Jason Statham and Jet Li.  Instead, this is a picture from 1994 staring Kevin Costner and a young Elijah Wood playing part of a dirt poor family in 1970.  I will say I’m definitely biased towards this film mostly because it hasn’t gotten much recognition and has thus become more of a cult favorite.  The synopsis doesn’t sound terribly interesting on paper and the happy-happy-joy-joy DVD cover indicates a very bland film.  However, this is a movie that, like most of the films on my Top 10 list, hit close to him simply for its characters.  The relationships are mostly believable and the acting is solid all around.  This leads to a real shame about the film: only two (three if you count Lucas Black) of the actors made it.  Many of the supporting characters were filled by people who looked like they had plenty of potential yet only Wood and Costner hit it big.  A number of messages are told throughout the film and although they aren’t emphasized quite to the extent of, say, Forrest Gump, it helps keep the film from feeling like it’s preaching.  I’m sure most who are reading this haven’t seen the film and likely won’t find it at their local video store.  But I highly urge even buying it since it can very easily grow on you and a number of scenes contribute to give it plenty of re-watch value.

“I hope you know them’s the kids who just beat me up.”

“I know who they are, son.”

“Then why’d you give them Ma and Lidia’s cotton candy?”

6. Schindler’s List

Of all the films on my Top 10 list, this is the one that I can never bring myself to watching multiple times.  I’ve only seen the movie one time, but that single viewing alone leaves such a mark on you that it’s almost impossible to forget the details.  This is a very different film for Spielberg which turns out to be a wonderful shift and only makes me wonder why he hasn’t done more dramas.  On the flip side, part of what helps Schindler’s List work so well is that we haven’t gotten very many films that even come close to hitting the serious mark it has.  Those who haven’t seen it should be aware that this is a very unapologetic viewing which, given the subject matter, is very important.  What’s best is that we get this inspired tale of a single setting in the Holocaust and it never loses the tight grip in the three hour runtime.  Schindler’s List very clearly deserved its Best Picture win at the Oscars for a number of reasons, including how unrelenting, convincing and absorbing it is.

“I could have got more out.  I could have got more.  I don’t know.  If I’d just…I could have got more.”

“Oskar, there are eleven hundred people who are alive because of you.  Look at them.”

“If I’d made more money…I threw away so much money.  You have no idea.  If I’d just…”

“There will be generations because of what you did.”

“I didn’t do enough!”

“You did so much.”

“This car.  Goeth would have bought this car.  Why did I keep the car?  Ten people right there.  Ten people.  Ten more people.”

“This pin.  Two people.  This is gold.  Two more people.  He would have given me two for it, at least one.  One more person.  A person, Stern.  For this.  I could have got one more person…and I didn’t!  And I…I didn’t!”

Invictus (Dec. 11th, 2009) is Clint’s next great coming alive flick. Mr. Eastwood is going back to the universal language of sports in order to bring out our human emotions. This film is based on the South African President Nelson Mandela’s idea of change that had the 1995 Rugby World Cup as the main ingredient for unity.
All I have to say is, Morgan Freeman plays a great Mandela!
Clint Eastwood is a film making machine. I can’t wait to wrap my mind around this one. Also, starring Matt Damon as Francois Pienaar, the South African Rugby team caption.

America loves her stars to be tough when they deliver an American message. Clint Eastwood got the ‘Badass’ Tough guy crown this year from GQ Magazine.

Go Clint! A profound filmmaker, storyteller and actor into revealing aspects of the human condition.

Rock on Dirty Harry!

~Posted by Horiwood.Com, Hollywood California USA. 11.23.09~

I am going to warn you that for today and tomorrow you’re going to be treated to reviews on French comedy.  I know what you thinking:  ”Miseur FilmWipe this is le horrifique.  The French are non humorous”.  Well my doubting army of followers I disagree with you.  I am not entirely sure about the horror that is tomorrow’s film Le Diner de Cons, which i am hoping is as funny as plot synopsis suggests (essentially it sounds like a cross between Lars Von Triers The Idiots and today’s film in question Francis Veber’s Tai-Tois!). But the film we focus on today is a comedy magnifique (for non French speakers among you that means magnificent film (if you’re stupid enough to have taken my French seriously then I will ask you politely to close down your computer and then book a trip to your local mental hospital)). Anyway lets focus on the here and now.  As I said today is Tai-Tois and you’re in for a treat.  Not only is this one of the funniest films to have come out of France in the naughties, but it is also a film that Hollywood producers should look at with a certain sense of trepidation.

The film follows Quentin (Gerard Depardieu), a kind hearted simpleton thief who inadvertently annoys every person he meets to the point that either consider killing him or themselves.  He finds himself in prison with Ruby (Jean Reno), a brooding outlaw.  Ruby attempts a solo escape but finds himself lumbered with Quentin.  What ensues is a race to find the other criminals that Ruby was involved with before he went to jail in order to find the person responsible for the murder of his lover.

The film is made by two of the best leading male performances in recent comedy history.  The pair play off each other wonderfully.  Reno is the straightest of straight men.  This contrasts superbly with Depardieu who creates one of the most lovably annoying and outlandish characters seen in film.  Earlier I mentioned Von Triers The Idiots, and frankly it is as if he stolen moments from that film but dramatically accentuated them.  The break out from the prison will leave your sides so split that you will be wandering if your liver is about to collapse on to the floor.

Conveniently writer/director Francis Veber also performed his acclaimed double act on tomorrow nights film.  He is clearly an ageing director of some talent.  Now in his early 70s (he is probably one of the few directors who gives Clint Eastwood a run for his money in the elderly stakes) Veber is still knocking out films like a girl from Essex fires out children in her attempt to overpopulate the world.    However, he is possibly one of the finest comedy directors still working.  His control over the film is remarkable.  His comic timing is exemplary.  This is the type of film that could quite easily have run out of control but he manages to stop it becoming silly and annoying.  The invention that he allows is second and his reminiscent of classic Hollywood comedy’s.

Overall I recommend this as one of the finest films that you can beg, borrow or steal from your local video store.  If you’re a Jean Reno fanatic (like me) then you will gobble this up like Richard Blackwood rediscovering food after his coffee enema.

8/10 – Enjoy

Por Efraín Jarquín Hernández.

PELÍCULA: GRAN TORINO (Clint Eastwood).

Lo que el director Clint Eastwood quiso transmitir en esta película, es la historia de un hombre ya viejo lleno de racismo y lleno de prejuicios que se queda solo y que no es querido por sus hijos y prefiere familiarizarse con los vecinos.

Al ver la película luego recordé aquellas personas que son abandonadas por sus hijos, por eso ellos deciden tomar venganza no dejándoles nada de herencia y mejor prefieren dejárselo a las personas que cuidaron de ellos.

Esta película fue escrita bajo inspiración de la realidad como contexto que se estaba viviendo en el lugar como el producto de las guerras producen el vandalismo y posteriormente hay muchos hijos que no tienen buenas relaciones con sus padres.

Otras obras del mismo director son las siguientes: Escalofrió en la noche (1971), Infierno de cobardes (1973), Licencia para matar (1975), Duro de pelear (1978), En la cuerda floja (1984), El principiante (1990), Camino de la fortuna (1995), Poder absoluto (1997), Deudas de sangre (2002),Banderas de nuestros padres (2006), entre otras y su tema más recurrente es el de las guerras donde hay rudeza, armas y aspectos duros.

Película de género dramático, dirigida y protagonizada por Clint Eastwood, se empezó a rodar en julio de 2008 se filmó en varias partes de Estados Unidos como Highland Park, Detroit, Center Line, Warren, Royal Oak, y Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan. Gran parte de la comunidad Hmong fue utilizada como extras.

Calentando motores para los Oscars.