The film is exactly what it intends to be. It is suspenseful and wildly entertaining, with enough of a veneer of authenticity to allow you to suspend disbelief for the duration of the film. It opens with the old-school Warner logo (circa 1979), and the film is peppered with real news broadcasts from the time with recognizable news anchors. The six Americans being rescued from Iran bear striking resemblance to their real-life counterparts (as we are shown during the closing credits). President Carter’s voice even makes an appearance during the credits.

The film has been criticized by some for lacking historical accuracy. Complications in the plan are added to create a more suspenseful story. The credit is given primarily to the US, and minimizes Canada’s role in the rescue. Britain and New Zealand’s roles as protectors of the six were not acknowledged in the film. Director Ben Affleck notes in the Sunday Telegraph: “I struggled with this long and hard, because it casts Britain and New Zealand in a way that is not totally fair. But I was setting up a situation where you needed to get a sense that these six people had nowhere else to go. It does not mean to diminish anyone.” The film also adds a last-minute cancellation of the plan, which Mendez ignores, forcing his colleagues back home to scramble to get plane tickets lined up for them. In real life, the tickets were purchased long in advance. The choice to present Mendez as the man with the plan is a way to streamline the narrative and provide the audience with an emotional anchor.

I’d also like to suggest that the film honestly presents itself as a Hollywood creation. The film is filled to the brim with recognizable character actors and movie stars, so you’re constantly reminded, this is a movie. John Goodman plays John Chambers, a movie makeup artist who won an Academy Award for his work on Planet of the Apes, and who also did work for the CIA. He is the CIA’s entre into Hollywood, and he’s also one of the most recognizable faces in the movie. I don’t think this is an accident. Most of the Hollywood segments are played for laughs, and play on Hollywood cliches. Despite taking place during a golden age of Hollywood film, the films referenced in Argo are primarily science fiction (mostly Star Wars), with little resemblance to reality. I think this is intended to mitigate the “creative license” the filmmakers take with historical fact.

One more thing to support this idea: the film opens with comic-book like images depicting Iranian recent history. Only later do we see what these images are: storyboards. Storyboarding is a step in filmmaking to help plan out production, literally boards with drawings on them to convey the story and camera positions. Tony Mendez brings storyboards with him to Iran as a prop for the fake movie they are making, as proof that it is real. In a tense scene late in the movie, the storyboards are employed to convince militants that the movie is real. I think the storyboards at the beginning of the film are a reminder that even though the film is based on a real story, we are entering Hollywood movie territory, where history is being employed as a tool to tell a story and entertain the audience. Therefore, take all within with a grain of salt.

Why can’t the film be accurate and still be a good movie? It can happen, but more often, cleaving too closely to the source material results in a poorer film. Whereas creative license coupled with faithfulness to the spirit of the source material can have brilliant results. And that’s all I’ve learned from watching Harry Potter movies.

For me the one criticism of the film that does stick is that it portrays Iranians in a bad light. It’s impossible to watch this film and not think about current attitudes by Americans and Middle Easterners about each other, and the film does acknowledge the parallels. I don’t think it goes far enough, though, to balance the many images of militant Iranian revolutionaries. My husband noted that he wished the film had been longer, to flesh out the Iranian housekeeper’s story, and I agree. More of her story would have gone a long way to present more balance in representation.

It’s funny to me to write about a movie called Seven Psychopaths on Election Day. But the film actually has nothing to do with the election… or does it?

Seven Psychopaths is hilarious, a satiric comedy/drama about a screenwriter named Marty who is struggling to finish a screenplay titled… Seven Psychopaths. (Note that the film itself is written and directed by Martin McDonagh.) His friend, Billy Bickle (Sam Rockwell) wants to help him write it, and Billy’s dedication to this end is eventually revealed. There are frequent movie-ized sequences of stories told by or about an assortment of psychopaths, with intentionally silly, over-the-top violence, but there are moments of real emotion, too.

Seven Psychopaths seems to be playing a bit of devil’s advocate with the audience, asking us to consider what does it mean to be a psychopath, and can you sympathize with a psychopath? Three of the psychopaths only kill other killers, and two others are pacifists. One of them is strongly attached to his Shih Tzu. It suggests a monk who self-immolated himself in a plea to end the Vietnam War was channeling a psychopathic tendency in order to help others. And of course, one of them is a writer, a special brand of psychopathy.

Christopher Walken, as a pacifist Christian psychopath, is perfect. And Tom Waits makes an extended appearance with an albino rabbit.

If you haven’t yet voted today, please do so! Click here to for a non-partisan laugh.

Skyfall and feelings and UGH

When he hides out on a boat after being accused of poisoning a man with one such cocktail, he finds himself on Dodd’s boat, and is welcomed to attend Dodd’s daughter’s wedding on board, later that day. Dodd takes an immediate liking to him, saying that Quell seems so familiar to him, and also expresses admiration for what he drank out of Quell’s flask. It seems strange that Dodd would take to Quell so quickly, a stowaway who seems shady, and is subject to violent outbursts. But then also it might seem odd that Quell also takes to Dodd, too. When Dodd questions him according to the methods of The Cause, Quell can’t get enough. Their intense back and forth is appropriately followed by a cocktail and a cigarette.

The relationship between these two men is both master/acolyte and father/son, with a bit of star-crossed lovers. They each represent an aspect of American identity, seemingly opposites, neither one particularly positive, but romantic and and somehow sympathetic despite all. It’s telling that things just aren’t the same when they move to England.

The film is particularly novelistic. It felt more like reading than watching. I lost track of time completely the way you can when you’re immersed in a book. Whether or not the story or characters appeal to you, whether it all adds up to anything for you, it still provides so much to discuss and contemplate and reconsider. Who is the Master? Perhaps it Paul Thomas Anderson.

It might sound like dry stuff, but for a lover of cinema, it’s actually really wonderful, to spend ninety minutes with some of the most prominent and influential filmmakers of our time (Martin Scorcese, David Lynch, David Fincher, Christopher Nolan, George Lucas, James Cameron, Lars von Trier, Lena Dunham), and a whole host of film editors, cinematographers, and post production crew. It gives you a great sense of how these recent innovations fit historically for cinema as a whole, how particular groundbreaking films made certain innovations acceptable (The Celebration, 28 Days Later, Slumdog Millionaire).

It also provides a basic understanding about how a feature film gets made. I love film and its been a major part of my life since I was in high school, but I never had a great sense of what it was like behind the scenes (despite having seen many movies about making movies!), what the actually process of making a hollywood movie was like, from developing the film, adjusting color levels, how editing is different when cutting film vs editing digitally.

The third great thing about this film is that it explains what’s coming for Images Cinema with its imminent conversion to digital cinema exhibition. It’s a huge step for the cinema, historic even, and it’s good to understand how we fit in with the system at large.

It’s playing now through Thursday, October 25. Check the schedule (Queen of Versailles is also now playing).

Film Podcast “THEY CAME FROM THE NORTH“ features a uniquely Canadian perspective on the career and canon of renowned filmmakers.  Released through DVDVerdict.com and available on iTunes, the podcast is hosted by the diabolical Steve Power (Newfoundland), Jon Mercer (Newfoundland), Andrew Forbes (Ontario), and Gabriel Girard (Montreal).

Each week, these Canucks offer up a hearty discussion regarding the “Good,” the “Bad,” and the “Ugly” from each filmmaker’s body of work:

The “Good” selection is often a film held in the highest esteem, for quality and enjoyment.

The “Bad” selection is more middle of the road, though NOT NECESSARILY bad!  It can be a good film, but has some flaws that keep it from greatness.  It can also be a film that doesn’t quite fit in with the rest of the canon.

The “Ugly” selection is the true bad selection.  It is considered the lesser or least of the director’s films, and can be skewered Mystery Science Theater 3000 style.

For episode #22 of THEY CAME FROM THE NORTH (Podcast #1189 on DVD Verdict) the crew invited me as a special guest, and we had a grand time looking back on Hyams’ oeuvre.  You can download the podcast here, but BEWARE!—this 2 hour discussion is for movie geeks only:

http://traffic.libsyn.com/dvdverdict/1189.mp3

Join Jon, Steve, Andrew, and special guest Michael McVey as they celebrate and denigrate the life’s work of director/cinematographer Peter Hyams. End of Days, Timecop, Sudden Death, Capricorn One, Outland, 2010, what’s not to love?

You can play along at home with IMDB and Youtube pages open, looking up the facts and clips as we go.  Here is the trailer from the 1983 sci-fi classic “OUTLAND”—watch heads violently explode in the wake of Sean Connery’s machismo:

I had the honor of being a guest on my buddies podcast, “Found Footage Films“.
Host Doug McCoy and I share the same love for the 2007 movie “Trick ’r Treat“.
We get into deep moral discussions on the core of the film, along with some interesting views on werewolves. Have a listen!

DOWNLOAD: Found Footage Films “Trick ’r Treat”

Mike Birbiglia is hilarious. His monologues on This American Life are always a highlight (funnier than David Sedaris, perhaps?), and he’s been in a few films (including Your Sister’s Sister, which was at Images this summer). Sleepwalk with Me is his directorial debut, and he also stars (playing a character very similar to himself – it is based on a true story, after all).

Sleepwalk with Me is very funny, but not in the constant jokey way of a typical comedy. It’s funny the way real life is, often mixed with other emotions, nothing neat about it. Things are left tangled and unresolved.

My favorite moment in the movie is [spoiler alert] when Matt off-handedly mentions that Abby is married with two kids now. Her story continues beyond the bounds of the film, and the film acknowledges it. Without expressly saying so, Birbiglia suggests that while one problem in his life has been contained, others continue. There are always going to be loose threads, for every character, in every story.

Sleepwalk with Me is playing at Images through Thursday, 10/4. Arbitrage starts Friday, 10/5.

After watching Cosmopolis last night, this morning my husband made a joke about how it was City City, and then, no maybe, it was a Russian Metropolis? Which got us both wonder what is the exact meaning of the root of cosmo? Wikipedia says it is “an orderly or harmonious system,”  antithetical to chaos. Usually used as a synonym for the latin, Universe. This got my brain buzzing, thinking about the order of Eric Packer’s tricked-out limousine, compared to the chaos going on outside. Also, Wikipedia told me, Russian cosmism is a “philosophical position that mankind is an insignificant aspect of a universe at best indifferent and perhaps hostile.”

Cosmopolis, is based on a novel by Don DeLillo of the same name, and like James Joyce’s Ulysses, follows its protagonist on his way through the city, on an ordinary day. In this case, it is Eric Packer, a 28-year old billionaire, on his way across town to get a hair cut. Except it’s not just an ordinary day for Eric Packer, although we do get a good idea of an ordinary day is for this guy.

Cosmopolis has been seen as a “return to form” for director David Cronenberg, after making three “more mainstream” films (A History of Violence, Eastern Promises, A Dangerous Method), Cosmopolis is edgier and stranger, more like the work that preceded A History of Violence. It is telling that the screenplay for Cosmopolis was also written by Cronenberg, unlike the three films listed above. Which isn’t to say Cosmpolis is better than these films. It’s received very mixed reviews from critics.

I for one really enjoyed the film, though. I found it to be funny, and it provided a point of view that is usually not seen in movies. We are shown the absurdity of extreme wealth (Packer wants to buy the Rothko Chapel in its entirety; he gets a physical from his doctor every single day), but also the silliness of some political protests (we are shown the chaos of a political protest that seems to go no where; later, we meet a man who hits people in the face with cream pies as an act of political defiance). We simultaneously are repelled and attracted to the main character. Robert Pattinson as Eric Packer reminded me of a young Marlon Brando, a smooth, pale face unburdened by emotion. We both admire his skill but suspect that what he is doing is unethical.

This might be irrelevant, but all the scenes that take place in the limousine remind me of being in a cinema, surrounded by small screens instead of one large one. It’s almost as if what is going on outside the car isn’t real, but a projection, which, for Eric Packer, might be accurate. The data flowing into smaller screens in his car is more real that what is happening on the streets. Once he becomes unburdened by the data, it is then he can go out into the dirty, dangerous world and find his fate.

The final scene of the film, a long conversation between Packer and Paul Giamatti’s character, is my favorite. This feels like he’s crawling into the projectionist booth, looking for the man who is going to make the next thing in his life happen. This man he encounters is physically the opposite of Packer’s unruffled, tidy appearance, but they speak the same language of data and currency. Giamatti is like the projectionist. We can’t see him, but he can see us, he knows everything there is to know about us, and he makes the next thing happen because that is what defines him.

I don’t know what this movie means, but it’s fun to think about. Now playing through Thursday 9/27 at Images Cinema.

DOWNLOAD: My Movie Collection Ep. 6 “The Nutty Professor”

My special guest: Caitydid

Jerry sings “Old Black Magic”…

Hi, it’s me, Anna again.

I get a lot of flack for saying I like pretty much every movie I see. People ask me, “Did you like the movie?” and I say, “Yeah, I did.” and they say, “Oh, you like everything.”

In a way it’s true. I love movies. The experience of going to a theater, sitting in my favorite seat, eating popcorn. Or laying in bed at home with Netflix, or watching a movie from up in the projection booth at work. The experience of watching a movie. That someone made this thing, put a lot of time and energy into it, that a whole group of people did this– and now I’m watching it. I love that. I love being told stories. I love the dark, the light. So, in a way, I like every movie I see simply because it is a movie.

So, I guess I’m in the right line of work here at Images.

But this does not mean I have no real opinion. A better question than, “Did you like it?” would be “What do you think about it?” As I pose this question to myself in regards to Ruby Sparks, I have a lot to say.

Calvin, the protagonist, is a writer, and he invents his perfect girl in Ruby– who then becomes a real flesh-and-blood person. This works out great at first, but then Ruby starts to become her own person, not always doing or saying what Calvin wants her to, and not always finding Calvin himself so charming.

When you first meet someone, it feels as if the universe invented them just for you. You fall in love. He/She is perfect for you in so many ways. You enjoy just being in their presence and smile at everything they say. You can’t imagine not being attracted to them or they to you. And then time passes, and it changes. Because you are both real people and being a person is complicated and hard.

Calvin’s brother, Harry, admonishes him at first for writing about his “perfect girl” and that he knows nothing about real women. He tells him that the honeymoon always ends, and then the real relationship begins. We’ve all been there: at the end of the honeymoon period when we have to decide if this thing is worth it, if we love this person with all their faults and all their human-ness, and if we are willing to compromise, share, open up. And this is why I think most people will relate to Ruby Sparks and find lots of things to think and talk about– especially if you bring your significant other.

What gives this film an extra layer of “Meta” is that the movie was written by Zoe Kazan, the actress who plays Ruby, and that she and Paul Dano (who plays Calvin) are a real life couple. So, a woman writes a movie about her boyfriend writing a book about her.

Plus there’s a fun soundtrack of French pop songs.

Ruby Sparks is now playing at Images Cinema through Thurs. 9/20. For info, showtimes, and to watch the trailer go to our website.

~ Anna

PS – I still don’t know how I feel about the ending.

Movie podcasts can be a lot of fun.  Film Podcast “THEY CAME FROM THE NORTH“ features a uniquely Canadian perspective on the career and canon of renowned filmmakers.  Released through DVDVerdict.com and available on iTunes, the podcast is hosted by the diabolical Steve Power (Newfoundland), Jon Mercer (Newfoundland), Andrew Forbes (Ontario), and Gabriel Girard (Montreal).

Each week, these Canucks offer up a hearty discussion regarding the “Good,” the “Bad,” and the “Ugly” from each filmmaker’s body of work:

The “Good” selection is often a film held in the highest esteem, for quality and enjoyment.

The “Bad” selection is more middle of the road, though NOT NECESSARILY bad!  It can be a good film, but has some flaws that keep it from greatness.  It can also be a film that doesn’t quite fit in with the rest of the canon.

The “Ugly” selection is the true bad selection.  It is considered the lesser or least of the director’s films, and can be skewered Mystery Science Theater 3000 style.

For episode #20 of THEY CAME FROM THE NORTH (Podcast #1175 on DVD Verdict) the crew invited me as a special guest, and we had a grand time looking back on Burton’s oeuvre.  You can download the podcast here, but BEWARE!—this 2 hour discussion is for movie geeks only:

http://traffic.libsyn.com/dvdverdict/1175.mp3

You can play along at home with IMDB and Youtube pages open, looking up the facts and clips as we go.  Here is the first track off the Edward Scissorhands original soundtrack to set the mood, composed by Danny Elfman…

This week, the man that is responsible for my geekiness regarding Star Wars and Star Trek joins me on his first solo podcast. My brother is the guy that got me into sci-fi movies and really kick started my love of films joins me to talk about his favorite films and some of his passion for old cheesy fifties movies and his love for Godzilla.

LISTEN:

Download/Stream                                              RSS                                                        iTunes