Fandango (Kevin Reynolds, 1985)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089126/

Fandango was Kevin Reynolds’ debut film. Infamous for one of the biggest screw-ups the film industry has ever seen – the wet and wild, Waterworld (1995) – I was hoping for a similar mess. Waterworld may be the best so-bad-its-good film of all-time. So when I decided to watch Fandango, I couldn’t help being intrigued. Full disclosure: I came across Fandango by way of Tarantino – it’s cited as one of his favorite films.

In 1971, five college friends embark on a trip to nowhere, in the Texas heat. The Vietnam War is hanging over their heads, but first they must come of age.

Kevin Costner and Judd Nelson are the most recognizable names. Costner is Gardner Barnes, the loner, the partier, the bad boy. He’s not unlike Judd Nelson in John Hughes’ The Breakfast Club (1985), the much more favorable film of the same year. In Fandango, Nelson is on the straight and narrow, ready and raring for the jungles of ‘Nam. The other characters are predictably annoying or annoyingly predictable – I was too annoyed to choose. But Fandango is fun for other reasons.

Even though it was made in 1985, the film’s set in ’71, making the soundtrack a blast of flower power. A stoned skydiving instructor, Truman Sparks, is slapstick stupid. His cutoff jean shorts and space case drawl mix well. There are moments of suspense, too. Judd Nelson goes skydiving, but his ‘chute’s filled with laundry – the action is heart pounding.

Fandango is Animal House (1978) mixed with Easy Rider (1969). What makes it interesting is the dark cloud of Vietnam. The Vietnam War, such a dividing and nation-altering event, is a backdrop pregnant with drama. However, in the year 2013, it is safe to say the war, the draft, the drama has been used in every conceivable scenario, and will be recycled until we experience some sort of Vietnam 2. But Fandango stands out because of the fun it has despite the stakes. It’s silly, stupid and predictable, but there is a well-kept twist at the end, some laughs along the way, and some true, if insultingly unsubtle, dramatic weight – war is war.

Fandango will slip through the cracks until it hits rock bottom. I might advocate its existence, but it is all rough – no diamond. Saying a film is entertaining enough is akin to saying someone is nice enough. We aren’t in grade school anymore, honey, and nice enough doesn’t cut it. I like my movies like a like my friends – exciting, regardless of quality. I wish Fandango had been worse, so I could rip it a new one, or much better, so I could gush. Instead, I am indifferent. I wanted something to love – or hate. Sometimes, black or white is better than gray.

See It? Your Call

Top 100? No

In order to kickstart this website with daily content, I thought a weekly round up of all the films watched by myself was a good way to begin the posts.

I’m starting on a bizarre tuesday as this is where the inspiration has come from, however I might possibly change the day of these posts to a Sunday or a Monday, depending on my schedule.

IAs I was so busy with starting up university last year, I didn’t get a chance to check out all of the Oscar nominees for the Best Picture award, and now, as university is finished for summer, I thought it would be a perfect time to catch up on some of the films of 2012 that I have heard many times being both praised and criticised. Therefore this week’s round up will feature last years Oscar nominees, and I’ll save the newer/older films I have watched this past week for my next round up (this isn’t only confusing me.. right?).

1. SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK. dir. David O. Russell.
(Starring: Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro)

I was going into this film with a completely open mind. The only thing I had heard about it was that it featured some characters with mental illness’. I was perhaps thinking that the film would involve cliche performances and characters, following in the footsteps of many previous films dealing with the same issue (I do not rate Forman’s ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’ at all).
I was excitedly surprised when watching this film, however. The stellar performances from both Cooper and Lawrence made the film extremely enjoyable to watch. These amazing performances combined with the interestingly dark, yet comedic script made for one of my favourite films of last year.

2. LIFE OF PI. dir. Ang Lee.
(Starring: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan)

I think my appreciation for this film was slightly hindered by the masses of the public raving about its brilliance. Without prior praise, I would have said that the film was good, the CGI was incredible and groundbreaking and the acting was also good. However, after hearing all the positive reviews, I couldn’t help myself watching the film with my expectations higher than ever. And I really wish I could have changed this.
Starting off on the best part of the film, the CGI was absolutely breathtaking. Combined with amazing editing, this tiger who is not even a real creation has the audience sympathising through the emotion of his eyes. This film is, technologically, the most groundbreaking piece of cinema of our time and it would be ignorant to ignore that when reviewing the film. What was slightly under par was the story. I’m fully aware that this may not be the filmmaker’s fault as the film was an adaptation, but I felt that the plot lacked so much more depth that it could have held. I was losing interest, and I think that it was possibly due to the fact that we know Pi is going to survive from the outset. Perhaps featuring an older Pi at the start was a mistake, making all of his struggles out at sea not half as effective as they would have if the ending was not clarified.
Overall the film was beautiful and a pleasure to watch, fully deserving of the technological praise and awards it has received.

3. SKYFALL. dir. Sam Mendes.
(Starring: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Ralph Fiennes)

My enjoyment of this film was the one that surprised me the most. This is one of those films that I would never choose out of a bunch, but boy, am I glad I chose to watch it.
I am not an avid James Bond fan, in fact I have seen probably less than a handful of films featuring 007 himself. This film featured absolutely stunning cinematography by Roger Deacons and was a joy to watch. The excitement levels of the film were maintained throughout and the plot twists and turns more than a day at Thorpe Park. With stunning performances from Judi Dench, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw and of course, Daniel Craig, this film makes the audience gasp out loud both in awe of the brilliant action sequences and also with a sneaky cliffhanger at the end.

4. ARGO. dir. Ben Affleck.
(Starring: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston)

This film was a well deserved winner of the Oscars last year. The film gave me goosebumps several times and featured a closing half hour that is quite possibly the most tense of any movie I have ever seen. With absolutely amazing performances by all actors, a flawless plot and beautiful cinematography and scenery, this film ticks all the boxes and is a classic example of what a winner of the Best Picture award should feature.
This thriller is the best I have seen in a long time, with dramatic moments, comedic moments and breathtaking moments, there is no words that can do this cinematic masterpiece justice. Perhaps the film has so much effect as it is relevant in the terms of numerous uprising countries at the moment, giving the audience a lot of reason to empathise with the six escapees of the hostage situation, or perhaps the movie has mastered every technique of filmmaking and that is the reason behind the success. In any case, this film will definitely be one I will be putting on my favourites list and will be looking our for more of Ben Stiller’s work in the future.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Morgan Freeman has one of the great American voices.

I wouldn’t have expected a movie about an aspiring female boxer to get this kind of critical and popular attention.  However, it hits on two important things. First, as Freeman’s character says in the opening voiceover, “People love violence.”  No contesting that – human history reaffirms the love daily.  Secondly, the ending of the film ties into a debate that has repeatedly returned to haunt us: the right to die.

I’m not here to pontificate or make a political statement, but the question of the final section of the film intrigues me.  Does a person have the right to end their life on their own terms?  I’m not generally a fan of suicide, but on the other hand there do seem to be times when keeping someone alive artificially seems to me to be more for the benefit of the survivors than the one hooked up to the machines.  In such extreme cases, it is rare that the person in question can express their own wishes, since I’m referring to those in vegetative states or who are actually brain-dead. Maggie’s situation is yet more ambiguous.  Maggie is the female boxer who is the primary focus of the film.  I really believe that Hillary Swank completely deserved the Best Actress Oscar she won for this role – it’s a stellar performance.

Sucker-punched during a fight, Maggie falls, hits the corner stool, and breaks her neck.  She is left a quadriplegic.  Eventually one of her legs becomes infected and has to be amputated.  She asks her trainer, Frankie, played by Clint Eastwood, to help her die while she can still remember the cheers of the crowds who watched her fight.  As he struggles with the decision, having always wrestled with his religious faith, she tries biting her tongue repeatedly in an attempt to bleed to death.

And this is the thing about this film, why it spoke to so many and got so much critical acclaim.  It’s not ROCKY, it’s not actually a film about boxing.  It’s a film about persistence, faith, and affection.  It’s a film about the extent of human rights and the black-and-white nature of sin.  It’s emotional without being campy and thought-provoking without being preachy.  Like many of the greatest message movies, MILLION DOLLAR BABY asks hard questions without actually providing any answers.  It sets the stage for the conversation and then quietly backs away, leaving the audience to debate amongst itself.

Crash (Best Picture, 2005)

CRASH exists in an uncomfortable position in the Best Picture lineup.  When it won Best Picture at the 78th Academy Awards, there was a massive uproar.  CRASH beat out the one most of us thought would win, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN.  To be honest, I’d never heard of CRASH before Oscar nominations were released that year. Some think that CRASH benefited from anti-homosexual sentiments among the Academy voters.  On the other hand, Roger Ebert said that in his opinion, the best film won.  He predicted CRASH would win.

I’m on the side that still thinks BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN should have gotten the honor.  It was an astonishing, challenging movie filled with complicated performances, most notably, of course, Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal.  I don’t know how much anti-homosexual prejudice played a role in the Academy voting, and I am uncomfortable claiming or assuming anything since I have no way to prove or disprove the accusation.  I just think BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN was an extraordinary, once-a-decade film.

This is not to say that CRASH did not deserve to be nominated.  In a less controversial year, in fact, it might have been the general favorite.  It does all the things that are predictably favored by Academy voters – it shows America’s underbelly, the petty everyday racism and prejudice that most of us don’t even think about until forced to do so.  CRASH tries to force us to do so.  Nobody in the film ends up really happy or even permanently changed.  It’s pervaded with a cynicism that’s of a different flavor from that of CHICAGO.  CHICAGO grins through the cynicism, making it appear fun and glamorous to play the system for all you can get.  CRASH, on the other hand, is bitterly cynical.  Some of the characters may have a revelation at some point in the story, but we’re left believing that the feeling will pass much sooner than it should and everything will go back to the way it was to begin with.

I realize that the world portrayed by CRASH is very common.  That doesn’t mean I have to like this film.  And I don’t.  I prefer films that show how the world should or could be, something to inspire us to do better and treat each other better.  I think that’s one of the reasons I like the Star Trek franchise so much – it shows a more positive option for our future.  Relentlessly grim stories that show a world without hope for improvement are neither inspirational nor appealing to me, though I can see how others might see the image of the world as it is and say “this must change.”  Stick or carrot, I guess.  I prefer the carrot, the image of something for which to strive.

Next Up: The Departed (Best Picture, 2006) and No Country For Old Men (Best Picture, 2007)

Even the Academy Awards (whether you agree with them or not) have celebrated the love of musicals over the years, awarding Best Picture to films such as Chicago (based off a non-musical movie of the same name), The Sound of Music and West Side Story (a modern retelling of Romeo and Juliet). In fact, in Barbra Streisand’s screen debut in 1968 earned her an Academy Award for Best Actress for her role as Fanny Brice in Funny Girl. It was the first, and only time there has been a tie for the Best Actress Award, which Streisand shared with Katherine Hepburn. Incidentally, Hepburn has won more Academy Awards for Best Actress than any other actor, ever.

So I think it’s safe to say that if the Academy was torn between two women, one being Katherine Hepburn and the other a stage performer who had only starred in one film (a musical no less) then the screen musical was a pretty serious thing.

But perhaps it is the fun, the joy and the happiness that musicals allow us to feel, sweeping us away into a world of powerful song and dance, beautiful love affairs and intense drama. There are even some frights like with Sweeny Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, in which the title character bakes his costumers into pies. And still, musicals such as Cabaret, which is celebrated not only for Bob Fosse’s meticulous direction and dance routines, but also has the distinction of famously being a musical for people who don’t like musicals. So it seems, musicals are for everyone, either you like them, or pretend not to.

Moving From Stage to The Big Screen

When studios are looking to adapt a musical for film, the source material is generally already in musical form. The latest and most popular being 2012′s Les Miserables was adapted to screen with amazing results, and even if you didn’t like the film, the sets and costumes were astounding.  There have been recent screen adaptations of Rent, Dream Girls and Hairspray (which is a musical movie based off a stage musical based of a non-musical movie by John Waters). And of course there are those timeless classic musicals adapted for screen such as Annie Get Your Gun, The Unsinkable Molly Brown,  Showboat and of course The Rocky Horror Picture Show. This process of adapting stage to screen seems like a natural progression for musicals, many of the elements are there and all it needs is the skillful eye of a director to make the leap.

From The Screen to The Stage

Stage productions have been adapted from everything from books to folklore and even non-musical movies over the years. There have been screen to stage musical adaptations of Billy Elliot, Catch Me If You Can, Legally Blonde, Grey Gardens and even the amazing Toronto production of Evil Dead: The Musical (no joke, it was astounding. I saw it three times). Most famously there has been The Phantom of the Opera,  My Fair Lady (adapted from the stage play and movie Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw), Little Shop of Horrors, Sunset Boulevard, Sweet Charity (based off Nights of Cabiria), Carrie, The Wedding Singer and Gigi. Even though it wasn’t a musical, there was a production of Aliens on ice a few years ago down in Austin, TX. And believe it or not, a Back to the Future musical is in the works with Robert Zemeckis on board as producer. I wonder if it will feature a real Delorian on stage…

So what is it about making a non-musical movie into a stage production? I won’t lie, I have always thought of what some of my favourite films would be like if they were musicals. Some movies seem to lend themselves easily into a musical, like Priscilla, Queen of The Desert, Dirty Dancing or  Footloose which are already filled with great songs and dance numbers.

These films would make a great musical for the stage.

A League of Their Own - If you watched the TV show Smash, you’ve seen some pretty fantastic musical numbers about baseball. Now picture something like that performed live with a team of female baseball players singing and dancing their way across the stage while driving home the importance of a pre-WWII all-American professional women’s baseball team. Lots of numbers with short baseball skirts and baseball bats, the fun that can be had! And since most of the original cast would be too old to reprise their roles, you wouldn’t have to worry about Madonna having anything to do with it.

Hocus Pocus - Because not only does everyone already love this movie, but it already has two super creepy musical numbers in it. Yes, Wicked has set the bar pretty high for musicals about witches, but that isn’t based on a movie featuring three hilarious women. Just imagine those flowing witches gowns flying above the audiences heads and they cast their spells and fly through prop graveyards. It can be frightful family fun.

The Exorcist - Ok now hear me out on this one. It would be something in the vein of Miss Saigon, Kiss of The Spider Woman or Sunset Boulevard, serious stuff. But also think Evil Dead: The Musical for it’s catchy songs and fun times. Add a little green vomit projecting over the audience in a “splatter” zone and you’ve got an added effect. It wouldn’t be for everyone, but it could definitely be a lot of fun for adults.

Mean Girls / Easy A - It’s hard to decide which of these two would make a better musical because essentially the story is the same for both: a high school girl intentionally ruins her own reputation and then has to work hard to patch things up.

However despite their similarities (they have many differences too) they are two of the funniest movies of the past 10 years and both have amazing one liners. Imagine to yourself a big number for Mean Girls that takes place in a high school cafeteria and all the cliques are there; Cool Asians, Unfriendly Black Hotties and of course The Plastics. Genius.

Mommie Dearest - Ok, all around the world drag queens have already been performing this a la Rocky Horror style for years, just give it a youtube search and you’ll see for yourself. Not only has this film been championed by John Waters himself (he provides an audio commentary on an anniversary edition) but the story is just plain over the top outrageous. Of course, a drag queen would have to play the role of Joan Crawford, and perhaps Kristin Chenoweth could take on the role of an adult Christina Crawford.

Picture by Diana Han

“Beasts of the Southern Wild” catechistically instigates us to contemplate the origin of our existence.  Is life an evolving conversation between past action and future possibility?  Is one’s survival best informed by obedience to a natural order, or adaptability?  Is modernity a gift or a curse?  “Beasts” also wants us to examine what responsibilities we hold for self and others, and at what costs.  What tutelage best prepares a child for impendent life after parents passing?  What is one’s obligation to self and community? The film’s success lays in positing such weighty and philosophical questions, situating the audience as contemplative explorers in search of answers instead of passive observers.  However, the way the movie itself unfolds and investigates these questions becomes its own Achilles’ heel; the exploration and exposition are duplicitous.  Both are mired by unexamined stereotypes, entangled within meandering abstractions, and mishandled juxtapositions of past and present.

*****

The film’s presentation of masculinity and fatherhood is wrought with typecasting.  Resuscitated is the portrayal of an African American man as inept, damaged and uncivilized.  He is ill-equipped to take care of his own life and the lives of those for whom he is responsible.  He holds no steady job, and seemingly does not draw in sufficient income to sustain his family’s current living or future prospects.  The housing Wink provides himself and his daughter Hushpuppy are makeshift and dilapidated, discarded trailers that harbor few resources or necessities, brimming with debris.  The foods provided to Hushpuppy are a putrid mixture of gravy and cat food which she has to mix together herself, and roast chicken supposedly kept “sterile” in a dirty cooler.   He is a scavenger of the land. Their transportation is a truck bed made afloat by plastic drums.  Livestock and wild animals run rampant, uninstructed by fences, inappropriately comingling while also left to fend for their survival, garnering what little food he tosses to them.  Wink is presented as inadequate in providing for self, daughter, and animals in his charge.

Wink is portrayed as enfeebled by responsibility.  He falls short in several physical and educative duties that a parent is expected to fulfill.  While he “teaches” his daughter independence by having her live in a separate shack, a dress rehearsal for life after he dies, his instruction-for-survival is left to her inference.  Other than when Wink actually demonstrates for Hushpuppy how to fish by snatching a catfish from the water with bare hands and in his words “whacking it in the head,” he is rarely shown teaching her specific roles, responsibilities, or rituals that will help her survive in life.  “Feed up time” is an insufficient summoning of Hushpuppy to come over to his quarters and eat as a family, as they are never shown breaking bread together.  Instead she squats on the rubble underneath his living quarters in a crude coup where she scarfs a chicken carcass in solitary.  During a community meal when a friend of a family begins teaching Hushpuppy how to open a crab with a tool, her father brutishly interrupts, instructing her to “beast it” by cracking it open with her bare hands. The film is seemingly attempting to convey Wink as a dutiful father struggling to make ends meet and make the frayed parts of life hold together.  But instead, its illustration of such character traits makes Wink come across as unprepared, unskilled, and drunken.  He is a vivified aberration and mockery of the Biblical endowment of humans having dominion over the earth.

Perversely, Wink’s paternalism is portrayed as a cloaked form of “tough love.” The lacking of material and emotional provisions is supposed to result in Hushpuppy becoming self-sufficient and better able to deal with strife and struggle.  Sadly, the dearth that prevails perpetuates a hackneyed representation of Wink as an incompetent man and father. This portrayal diminishes an otherwise potentially powerful message of fathers facilitating their offspring in garnering grit and resilience.  It is unclear in the movie exactly what kind of life this father is preparing his child to live. However, to the film’s credit, adverse to the commonplace assumptions and depictions of African American men abandoning their families, it at least magnifies Wink’s resolve to remain in Hushpuppy’s life and raise her after her mother disappears.

The film does attempt to portray Wink as a man and father that assumes paternal and shepherding responsibilities. Although shabby provisions, he provides food and shelter. He protects her when the major storm hits.  He spends time with her.  He gives her advice. He embraces her when she is scared.  However, his character is permeated with the harmful representation of an African American man as inhuman, savage and reckless.  Its treatment of Wink’s character and way of life embraces the formulaic imaginings constantly associated with men of color.  Unable to deal with life’s trials, “they” lash outward and inward.  When Wink becomes enraged, things get hurled. When stressed, he indulgently and excessively gulps down bottles of liquid sedation. When around fellow community members he is loud and brash.  When rescued, he becomes ireful, grunting and shoving rescue away workers who are trying to save his and his daughter’s lives.  This is not to suggest that there is a best, absolute, or singular way to portray characters on film. However, the opportunity to render an informed and multifaceted African American male character is left untilled and unsown.

Yet to the film’s credit, Wink is a plausible character.  Dwight Henry renders a compelling embodiment of a flailing protagonist in a world where scarcity abounds.  It must have been toilsome vexatious work for Henry as an African American man to embody one epitomizing so many stereotypes and potentially no redeeming qualities. Yet Henry does, and imbues Wink with humanity and genuineness.  Because of Henry’s skillfulness to empathize, he renders Wink as more than his physical, economic, cultural and social ineptitudes. Despite the clichéd scripting of Wink as broken, Henry infuses Wink’s character as one of deep convictions with an undeniable resilience to uphold them.  Wink comes across as a man fervently adhering to living out his beliefs no matter what. Because of Henry, there is no doubt that Wink loves Hushpuppy with ferocity and devotion, a love supreme.  Amidst the pyre of stereotypes, Henry’s rendering of Wink makes him exhibit the qualities of a phoenix. Wink is ever-rising from the ashes of deteriorating health and an economic scrapheap to prevail for his daughter.  Despite the preponderance of one-dimensional writing of Wink as hapless and helpless, Henry’s industrious portrayal of Wink redeems his storying as an African American man and father.   Consequently, yet beneficially, his portrayal of Wink emanates with determination.

*****

Portrayals of the African American woman do not fare better.  Her womanhood is limited in scope, shrunken to shortcomings and body parts.  Her absenteeism is an unraveled bow that, paradoxically, binds them together.  We are not made privy to her heart, soul, and thinking. We are not made aware of a chronology of her interactions or involvement with both Hushpuppy and Wink as individuals or as a family. Yet ,her presence is seemingly so central to who they have become and their current predicaments.  The audience’s closest understanding of this woman pivotal to Wink’s and Hushpuppy’s reality comes through these two characters’ sparse memories.  Life lessons, familial impartations and spiritual teachings are veiled, thinly suggested, or just plain absent. For Hushpuppy, “mother” is only a voice that softly lulls and talks back from a tattered jersey strewn over a worn dining room chair.  For Wink, her disappearance is fondly distilled into a sexually charged flirtation.  For both, she is disintegrated, fragmented, enshrouded within a characterization of absence, allure, and arousal.

The film entertains an extended but dichotomous metaphor of an African American woman’s sexuality as sensual and manipulative, seismic and predatory.   Raptorial eyes that invite, penetrate, and capture.  Flames instantly alight under pots as her hips sway pass; water yields to boil.  Frost from the fridge exhales and surrenders white emissions when she bends down to open it.  In one particular flashback, while outside lounging with Wink, she spots an approaching alligator, draws a riffle, and blasts it.  Then, in intentional slow motion, she is shown strutting, assumes a model stance, and spreads gleaming legs apart (rifle propped beside her), revealing animal blood splattered solely over the front of her new bright white briefs.  This imagery is problematic, seemingly exaggerating the mother’s sexuality for titillation, proliferating sex over substance in character. What the film perpetrates and perpetuates is a ridiculous and irrelevant melding of gender, sex and violence, eroticizing menstruation and associating slaughter with foreplay.  Consequently, the film’s treatment of the Black woman and her body are exploitative, reviving the Hottentot Venus.

The film’s myopic focus on a woman and her sexuality is again revisited when it hyperbolizes prostitutes as maternal surrogates.  Hushpuppy and several young girls endeavor an emancipatory swim after returning from the rescue center to The Bathtub. They happen upon the Elysian Fields, a brothel barge.  After boarding, the innocents survey the unfamiliar setting, when the prostitutes then congregate around them, affectionately welcoming and marveling over them. Several take it upon themselves to embrace and cuddle each girl; the scene resonates in the imagery of mothers reuniting with their missing children.   It is also here Hushpuppy happens upon a young cook strongly resembling her mother.  She is immediately endearing toward Hushpuppy. She takes it upon herself to fry alligator to feed her (perhaps harkening back to the erotic rifle episode), administers advice, holds her, slow dances with her and then in tears departs, leaving her alone, again.   A jarring collection of images and associations, the film is unclear in explicating why maternal affirmation and acclimation would be readily available in a place where conventionally no one would want to purchase it.

To its credit, “Beasts” promotes the idea that the provision of love is not limited or exclusive to biological progenitors.  It can be found anywhere and given freely from anyone.   To this point, in a muddled melding of motherliness and “love for sale,” prostitutes are elevated as parental replacements.  However, a contradiction then surfaces.  Selecting female prostitutes as its exemplars, the film’s supposition endorses a sex-based stereotype that there is a maternal instinct infused within the genetic coding of all females, transcending station in life, whether or not one has given birth.  When called upon by the universe or happenstance, the genetic calling will activate action, and any female courier in the vicinity will instantly comply to deliver love.  It is an overreaching generalization and presumptuous assertion to make.

Yet amidst equivocal typecasts and askew representations, females in some respects are positively portrayed. In spiritual and natural form, and across age ranges, there are several occurrences in the movie where females are consulted for guidance, information, and assistance.  Hushpuppy’s “mother,” teacher and surrogate incarnate are there for her in critical moments and turning points.  While cooking, Hushpuppy takes down her mother’s basketball jersey from its shrine and drapes it over a dining chair; they begin conversing, with the mother “checking in” and affirming her daughter.  This suggests that, no matter what, a mother’s love is always within reach.  The cook, a woman alluded to as Hushpuppy’s real mother,  admonishes her on how to handle the bitter and the sweet in life. She advises her as if knowing Hushpuppy’s immediate circumstances and forecasting what she will later experience:

“When you a child, people gonna life is all happy and honky dory. I’m here to tell you that it’s not, so get that out your head right now . . . One day everything on your plate gonna fall on the floor. Nobody gonna be there to pick it up for you.  It’s gonna be all on you.  You understand what I’m saying?  So smile girl, cause nobody like a pity-party-having-ass woman.” 

In another example, Hushpuppy’s teacher remains resolute throughout the movie. She is an educator, griot, and nurturer.  Despite teaching from a one-room schoolhouse, she is depicted as resourceful and resilient in giving what she believes best equips her students to survive.  Hushpuppy’s teacher offers her several herbs to use with her father when facing a health crisis. In another scene, she checks on Hushpuppy to find out what she needs when no one picks her up from school.  At the beginning of the film, she puts forth a crude lesson about the survival of the fittest; admonishing them to prepare for an eminent storm, and that hardship is a cyclical and necessary part of life:

 “Meat. Every animal is made out of meat. I’m meat, y’all asses meat, everything is part of the buffet of the universe.  This here is an auroch, a big fierce mean creature that used to walk the face of the earth back when we all lived in caves.  And they would gobble them cave babies down right in front of the cave baby parents.  The cave man couldn’t do nothing about it, ‘cause they was too poor and too small.  Who up in here think the caveman was sitting around crying like a bunch of pussies? Y’all gotta think about that.  Any day now, the fabric of the universe is coming unraveled. Ice caps gonna melt, water’s gonna rise, and everything south of the levee is going under. Y’all better learn how to survive now.” 

Hushpuppy is a character who also references female archetypes; in her case, as consoler, guardian and informer.   In her father’s dying days, Hushpuppy tenderly fulfills a dying wish, feeding him his last supper,  sharing with him the nourishing vestiges bestowed upon her while on the barge. It is an endearing moment of affirmation and ushering provided by a daughter.   She also shares a dual role as a character and omniscient narrator. She personifies an “old soul,” enabled to witness relationships across different plains.  She is a medium between natural and spiritual worlds, constantly listening to animals, placing them to her ear, attentive to what they have to say.  She is an observant conduit between prehistoric and current times, keenly aware of the impact of imbalance.  Throughout the movie, she relays premonitions and warnings about what will occur if humankind and nature do not strike a balance.

However, two things become problematic with the way Hushpuppy is constructed and rendered.  One problem lies within the dual role of Hushpuppy as simultaneously omniscient narrator and young character. How much can she know about natural order and only be all of six years old?  And given her age, how can she articulate mythic/prehistoric shortcomings of mankind?  Second, the archetypal aspects of her character that are positively represented become beclouded and muddied by the imagery of a pickaninny. Uniformed in wild hair, tattered clothes, dirty white galoshes and underwear worn as outer clothing, she reinvigorates the image of a “nappy-headed,” “backwater” wild child, which conflicts with the exaltation of her as a keenly aware wise child.  Although the film is attempting to maintain consistency across the situational context of the story and its setting by having Hushpuppy look and dress as she does, instead, her depiction echoes back to a depreciative doppelgänger.

*****

Place plays an important role in this film.  Set in a seemingly pristine pre-Katrina expanse, the inhabitants of The Bathtub on the fictitious Isle de Charles Doucet keep to themselves. And want it to stay that way. Though part of Louisiana, The Bathtub functions solely within a self-exiled enclave.  It is disconnected by choice from any state-based identity, holding ties only as deep and wide as its own exclusive commune.

To the film’s credit, it situates The Bathtub within a larger narrative about the impact of modernity on people, how despite conveniences offered what can result is unforeseen consequences such as materialism, indulgence and over-reliance.    The residents of The Bathtub are portrayed as minimally dependent on contemporary trappings and accoutrements.  Their reliance on herbs to heal, the catching of shellfish and fish with bare hands, and owning few material possessions, illustrates the residents as observers and preservers of simplicity.   This suggests that The Bathtub is a kind of paradise, and its inhabitants as frugal Adams and Eves.

Residents of The Bathtub intentionally make no attempt to interact or connect with the land and people on the other side of the levees.  As stated by Wink while floating on the water with Hushpuppy, The Bathtub is deemed as unspoiled, versus the other side of the levees as ugly and tainted by modernity. Hushpuppy at her young age recognizes and adopts the dichotomous distinction between “them” and “us”:

“They ain’t got nothing we got.  They only got holidays once a year. They got fish stuck in plastic wrappers. They got their babies stuck in carriages.  And chicken on sticks.”

Modernity is situated as a threat that is believed will contaminate and dismantle their way of life if allowed.  Modernity is foreign, and therefore, equated with being adversarial, inimical, and unhelpful. Yet, the residents of The Bathtub come across as being so imbecilic that even if modern means are the only ones that can save them, then they will resist and refuse them.  The attempt to portray them as preservationists makes them come across as ignoramuses. If not accepting the benefits that come with change kills them, so be it.  Literally.  In one such case, Wink vehemently refuses the benefits of medicine, even if it means increasing his longevity for his daughter.  We witness him marching back home from the hospital, still wearing the bracelet and gown issued to him when admitted, rebuffing needed care.  This will not be the only time he or fellow residents either flee from or flat out refuse such help.

In another instance, against better judgment to relocate to a safer place, several residents choose to remain in The Bathtub during a massive storm. Afterwards, those that survived are salvaged, evacuated from the rubble, and relocated to a rescue facility—kicking and screaming.  At the shelter, the food is different, so Wink admonishes Hushpuppy to not eat it. The clothing is different, as Hushpuppy is shown uncomfortable and awkwardly standing still when wearing a clean dress.  Then, in a hasty mass exodus, several of the residents flee from the “Open Arms” rescue facility, mocking inmates breaking out of prison, making a run for freedom back to their flooded Bathtub.  Although the film celebrates their spirit of preservation against modernity, it exacerbates the typecasting of rural residents, characterizing them as too callow to accept help even when facing dire circumstances. Their actions at the shelter and their fleeing is an exhibit more so of panic than deliberate and calculated rebellion.

Residents of The Bathtub, and by implication rural Southerners, are depicted as shiftless, unemployed, and alcoholic.  In all their vehemence against modernity, rivers of alcohol run abundantly.  Residents, in solitary and in groups, consume alcohol to excess.  At no time in the movie are the residents shown as resourceful.  No one is shown working, farming, repairing, etc. They are only and simply scavengers of the land succumbing to folly.

Yet while the film attempts to elevate The Bathtub’s residents’ vigilance and preservation of land and customs as good things, it actually undercuts and undermines these postulations via regional and economic typecasting.  While good-intentioned, what occurs instead is a morphing and caricaturing of them as boozy, loutish, and unconcerned.   The film perforates its own intent with stereotypes around regionalism and class.  Rural southerners of few economic resources do not come across as resourceful, resilient, and innovative, as “make way or “make do” people.

*****

The film’s attempt “to go deep” succumbs to the weight of doing it well.  The intermixture of exploring how inhabitants of a bayou live out a belief of libertarianism/self-governance, complemented by Hushpuppy’s harkening of prehistoric times, makes the movie implode on itself.  Blending these two threads falls short because the film tries to do so with underdeveloped arguments, ambiguous allegories, and unexplained symbols. The argument of all life being interconnected between time and space, and that responsibility must be exercised in preserving such connection, is imprecisely and vaguely explored. References to aurochs, their thawing out and their stampeding toward The Bathtub to restore order, are anachronistic. What does this specific group of animals who are not from the region or time period have to do with what is currently occurring?  The presentation of aurochs as a symbol of the past coming to correct the present is obfuscated by myriad questions of why the writer and filmmaker selected this particular species.  Combining these two storylines, one of the past coming to render judgment on the present, and the trials of survival within a specific bayou,  creates cacophony rather than co-informed clarity.  Such abstracted associations detract from what could otherwise be a potent message.

“Beasts of the Southern Wild” sets forth on an ambitious experiment amalgamating several conflicts within one film.  Character versus self, character versus nature, and character versus society each receive treatment and examination within a combinative narrative.   As if not challenging enough, it valiantly explores them blending numerous genres, culling from avant-garde, fantasy, magical realism, ethnography, coming-of-age and memoir.  Yet it is the scope of multiple conflicts and genre blending that eclipses its potential genius.  As well, the film’s effort in exposing how race, class, gender and regionalism inform these conflicts and complicates their resolution is equivocal.

More about the broadcast here.

Featuring F. Murray Abraham, Elizabeth Banks, Adrien Brody, Ellen Burstyn, Glenn Close, Hope Davis, Viola Davis, Jennifer Ehle, Ben Foster, Paul Giamatti, Jack Huston, Stephen Lang, Lindsay Lohan, Janet McTeer, Jeremy Piven, Oliver Platt, David Strathairn, Lili Taylor, Uma Thurman, Marisa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood. Written and directed by Liz Garbus; produced by Stanley Buchthal, Liz Garbus and Amy Hobby; executive producer, Anne Carey; executive producers, Olivier Courson, Harold Van Lier and Enrique Steiger; edited by Azin Samari; cinematography by Maryse Alberti; music by Philip Sheppard; co-producer, Julie Gaither.

reel 2013a

►

Two-time Oscar winner, renowned for his villainous roles in Quentin Tarantino‘s ‘Inglorious Basterds‘ and ‘Django Unchained‘ Christoph Waltz; rising actor noted for his LGBT work in last year’s indie teen romance film ‘The Perks of Being A Wallflower‘ Ezra Miller; as well as English and ‘Skyfall‘ hottie Ben Whishaw front Prada‘s Fall/Winter 2013-14 Menswear Ad campaign.

The hunky trio, representing three generations of Hollywood leading men, were lensed by photographer David Sims and styled in sartorial separates from the Italian fashion house’s latest collection.

Email: @epapiki@gmail.com
Twitter: @EmmanuelTjiya

Photos Via Vogue

Click link below picture

.

Happy Birthday, Johnny Depp!

The Hollywood hunk turns the big 5-0 today, can you believe it? (Because we can’t.)

Not only has he captivated audiences around the world with his good looks and stellar acting skills, Depp has also dabbled in the music world, proving that he can rock with the best of them.

From films like “Edward Scissorhands” and “Pirates of the Caribbean” to “Alice in Wonderland” and “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” Depp has wowed, playing iconic characters including Captain Jack Sparrow and Willy Wonka. Not to mention he’s been nominated for three Academy Awards and won a Golden Globe in 2008 for his role in “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.”

.

.

.Click link below for story, slideshow, and video:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/09/johnny-depp-turns-50-photos_n_3411412.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

.

____________________________________________________

Boachi Bushido: Code Of The Forgotten Eight (Teruo Ishii, 1973)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0142773/

A cornerstone of the Pinky Violence genre – Japan’s formerly trailblazing exploitation films – Boachi Bushido deserves a perverted respect.

A down and out ronin is brought under the wing of the Bohachi – the Clan of the Forgotten Eight. They are without feeling, spit in the face of morality and remorse, and run a successful prostitute ring. Our ronin is coerced into running the pimp-less ladies of the night out of town – killing their competition, literally. But Boachi Bushido is so much more, including spattering blood, relentless swordplay, and a bevy of birthday-suit beauties.

Like with most exploitation films, and especially with sexploitation films, there is almost too much nudity. Its presence is numbing, though I dare not ask it to stop. It’s the old conundrum: sexual arousal versus the critic within. This is type of film to watch with friends – it lessens the sleaziness, or at least spreads it around.

This is my first foray in the land of Pinky Violence, but already I notice a difference from the American exploitation genre. There is humor, but less so and sillier. The fighting scenes are artful, even ridiculous, with limbs and heads flying through backdrops of dark blue and shadow. The sex scenes are excuses for softcore porn, but some of them, excluding the rape scenes, resemble the best of the free love era – rubdowns, sitars, kisses and colors, man, the colors.

What I love about exploitation films is their lack of conscience. It is fun to champion them in spite of their reason for existence, playing devil’s advocate in the name of art, entertainment and debauchery. But there is room for admiration. Boachi Bushido exists as two experiences. There is the taboo and discomfort associated with the shallower aims – the sex, violence, etc. But then there are scenes that transcend the conventions. They are both beautiful and hypnotic. It is something even my most favorite American exploitation flicks ignore. Like Thriller: A Cruel Picture (1973), a film out of Sweden, there is something transcendent in moments of Boachi Bushido. We can respect director Teruo Ishii as we do Jack Hill or Bo A Vibenius – if we respect them, that is. It’s finding a way, no matter the circumstance, to make a mark as a filmmaker.

Plus, there are so many naked women…

See It? Your Call (but yes)

Top 100? No

This is the Susquehanna River, in my hometown, Harrisburg, PA. We took a quick trip over the weekend to visit family and do a joint birthday celebration for my sister and me. Me and my sister. My sister and I. Pick one.

Fun, useless fact: Did you know that Girl, Interrupted was filmed here? This is the Market Bridge, featured many times in the flick.  The movie starred Angelina Jolie  - in her Oscar-winning performance – and Wynona Ryder before her shoplifting days.  And that poor gal Britney Murphy, before her dead days.  The title of the post is an homage to one of her lines in the movie (she’s one of the patients in a mental hospital and is obsessed with owning a home with an “eat in chicken…um..kitchen” She’s also obsessed with eating whole chickens. It was a great movie. This was not a major plot line but I think of this line whenever I see a whole, roasted chicken. Freakish but true).

We came home to the below monsoon.

Shashi Kapoor in the 60′s

… Meryl Streep  
Kapoor produced and starred in the art film, Junoon (1979), which was based on Ruskin Bond’s (1) novella, A Flight of Pigeons, and his short story Susanna’s Seven Husbands, was turned into a Bollywood Blockbuster called 7 Khoon Maaf (2011) which also starred John Abraham (2), who appeared in Water (2005) which was directed by Deepa Mehta (3), who also directed Camilla (1994) which starred Bridget Fonda (4), who happens to be the niece of Jane Fonda (5), who appeared in Julia (1977), which also saw Meryl Streep (6) in her debut performance; though she had very little screen time, her role was crucial to the plot.

… Sushmita Sen
Kapoor, who comes from a great line of Bollywood royalty (he is from the second generation of Kapoor’s, today the forth generation of Kapoor’s is taking the film industry by storm), starred in many a movies with the most popular Bollywood superstar from the 70’s till date, Amitabh Bachchan (1), and they share a great friendship, and  Bachchan is married to actress Jaya Bhaduri (2), and their son Abhishek Bachchan (3), is married to Bollywood’s most famous import into the international market, superstar Aishwarya Rai (4), making the Bachchan’s a modern day Bollywood Royalty, second only to the Kapoor’s, and Aishwarya Rai was the second Miss India to win the Miss World title in 1994, the first being Reita Faria (5) in 1966 (she wasn‘t only first Indian to win the crown, but also the first Asian to do so), and socialite/actress Sushmita Sen (6) was the first Indian beauty queen to win the Miss Universe crown, for her beauty and brains, a rare trait among contestants today, she became Miss Universe in 1994, the same year as Rai.

… Emily Mortimer
Kapoor’s daughter Sanjana Kapoor (1) had a glimpse of a role in the superb Indian art film which ended up being the second Indian movie ever to be nominated for the ‘Best Foreign Film’ category at the Oscars, Salaam Bombay! (1988) which was directed by Mira Nair (2), who later directed the not so great Vanity Fair (2004) in which Tom Sturridge (3) had a small role, who happens to be the son of British actress Phoebe Nicholls (4) who starred in the television mini-series, Brideshed Revisited (1981), which was based on a novel by renowned author, Evelyn Waugh (5), who also wrote the novel Vile Bodies, which was the basis for the film Bright Young Things (2003) which starred Emily Mortimer (6).

… Anouk Aimée  
Kapoor acted in A Matter of Innocence (1967) which co-starred Hayley Mills (1), who happens to be the daughter of actor John Mills (2), who played the ‘village idiot’ taunted by the bullying villagers of an Irish coastline, in Ryan’s Daughter (1970), which was directed by David Lean (3), who also directed Lawrence of Arabia (1962), with Peter O’Toole (4) and Omar Sharif (5), and Sharif starred alongside French actress, Anouk Aimée (6) in The Appointment (1969).

… Natalie Portman
Kapoor’s first English language venture The Householder (1963), was Merchant Ivory productions very first feature film (an Indian English language venture); Merchant Ivory productions was founded by a trio of friends with aesthetically superior taste, the trio comprised of a Producer, Ismail Merchant (1), a Director, James Ivory (2) and a Writer, Ruth Prawer Jhabvala (3); and Merchant Ivory productions later were responsible for the British movie, Howards End (1992), which starred Emma Thompson (4), who appeared in the television movie Wit (2001), a unique superbly farcical film which completely focuses on the character, played by Thomson, who is dying of ovarian cancer; beautifully made by director Mike Nichols (5), who also directed the very modernistic British Art Film, one of the best to come out in the noughties, Closer (2004), which also starred Natalie Portman (6), who turned 32 on Sunday (day before yesterday).

… Aparna Sen
Kapoor and actress Hema Malini (1), both looking smart as ever, dressed in very elegantly tailored bellbottom trouser suits et al, are seen playing golf, tennis, romancing and even doing actual yoga, in Trishul (1978), set amongst New Delhi’s elite; for a change set in the capital (New Delhi), unlike most Bollywood films, which are normally set in the streets of Bombay (now known as Mumbai); and Malini did a double role in Sita aur Geeta (1972), which co-starred Sanjeev Kumar (2), who acted with Suchitra Sen (3) in Aandhi (1975), and Sen’s granddaughter, Raima Sen (4) appeared in the Bengali English Language art film, The Japanese Wife (2010), which was based on a short story by Kunal Basu (5), and was directed by Aparna Sen (6), who is unrelated to any other Sen mentioned here.

Nuwan Sen’s Film Sense (6°)

——————————————–

Where was I again? Oh yes; The King’s Speech, the most critically successful to date of Hooper’s films, bagging a Golden Globe, seven BAFTAs and four Oscars. For the four of you who never quite heard what the plot was about, our gaze is cast back to 1925 and onto the then Duke of York, Prince Albert (Colin Firth), second in line to the throne after his older brother David (Guy Pearce). Albert is among of the most interesting Royals in (relatively) recent history and was the father to our current Queen, but the part of his character we are most interested in now is his heavily pronounced stammer. This impediment is hardly conducive to him being comfortable in a heavily public role, and he tries multiple methods to cure himself; but this is the early 20th century, and we are yet to see the extraordinary advances in medical science that came along during the decades after the Second World War. As such, the treatments offered are somewhat Victorian in nature and don’t work, leading to increasing frustration from the Prince regarding the issue, to the point where he basically decides to give up. His wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), however, is more determined, and puts him in touch with Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), an Australian speech therapist with somewhat unconventional methods (and indeed mannerisms) for the time.

The changing relationship between Logue and the Prince is the central plot thread for the remainder of the film; one a rather bluntly-spoken commoner and the other who has spent his entire life being served in deference to with the complex rules of formality and tradition acting as his social bodyguard. That this is going to cause tension is obvious from the opening scene, and is indicative of one of the film’s most prominent flaws; the near-total lack of anticipation. This does not half to be a bad thing necessarily; many a good film has been so without any need to resort to tension or anticipation, but every scene of The King’s Speech can pretty much be calculated from the first five seconds, and sticking around to watch frequently doesn’t add anything to the central plotline.

It’s a shame really, because there are other aspects (and other scenes) that the film gets magnificently right, particularly those scenes that focus on the transitional state of the world at the time. This particular point in history was a turbulent one; times were changing, the new and old were trying (and in many cases failing) to coexist, and the establishment was frequently struggling to cope with all this newness. No establishment embodied this more than the royalty; these were the last days for nobility in all its pomp and finery, the days when it finally realised how much of its power had been stripped away and how it could not go on pretending to be a divine figure of authoritative power. As the film makes clear, monarchies had been falling across Europe, and others were to be reduced to puppets beneath new regimes, and while this theme is never explicitly mentioned or made a central part of the film, it subtly pervades all around it in a way that makes one feel genuine sympathy for the characters concerned. It is present in the way the prince treats the children and the stories he tells of how his father treated him, in the methods that work for him and the methods that don’t, even in the way characters address one another. All in all a wonderful piece of directing to work in there; I only wish it had taken centre stage more frequently. Perhaps then it wouldn’t perpetually feel as if it were 15 minutes away from finishing.

Mention must of course be made of the actors; Colin Firth took three ‘Best Actor’ prizes for his role as the king, and I found his portrayal incredibly interesting. Firth has always brought a particular brand of confidence, even cockiness, to the roles he plays and is frequently cast in controlling figures of power for this very reason; but here he is required to express both the power and authority of a monarch and the fragility of a patient. The film’s plot, and in particular Geoffrey Rush’s perfectly executed character of Logue, mean that these two opposing images must frequently share the limelight and come into conflict with one another, whilst all the while having to make themselves felt through the Prince’s stammer. This would be a mean task for even the most skilled of actors, and for someone such as Firth who I have never seen portray weakness in this way, it is a particularly interesting challenge. I wouldn’t say that he pulls it off perfectly, or that I find his performance massively compelling (he doesn’t quite manage to express how hard he’s trying, from my point of view), but it is nonetheless a good attempt at a very challenging role. This may have been somewhat hindered by the fact that, as usual, Bonham Carter manages to steal the show, once again showing her extraordinary versatility as an actress with a striking, and occasionally even funny, portrayal of the Duchess (a woman we would now refer to as the Queen Mother). That she and Rush only took home one ‘Supporting Actor/Actress’ role apiece is, to me, quite an eyebrow raiser, even if it was up against The Fighter. Some other performances, most notably Timothy Spall turning up as Winston Churchill for no readily explained reason, are less beneficial to the film and often feel as though they are taking screentime away from what’s important (there’s a fine line between ‘interesting cameo’ and ‘why the hell are they here?’), but thankfully they are not prevalent enough for this to be a massive problem.

To me, The King’s Speech is far from a perfect film; it is not terribly compelling all too frequently, large pieces of the plot seem to serve very little purpose, the script takes significant artistic liberties with historical fact (yes, I know that shouldn’t be important, but I’m too much of a nerd about these things), the plot is somewhat formulaic and predictable and it can’t quite seem to make up its mind over what it is, thematically speaking, about. However, it is executed so exquisitely that these flaws, in part, hardly matter; yes, they’re there, yes the film is imperfect, but that’s no reason not to sit back and enjoy the experience. Did The King’s Speech deserve two ‘Best Picture’ awards? Perhaps not. Is it a bad film? Not a chance. Perhaps not worth digging through to see, but certainly worth watching if you get the chance.

In the late nineties, when there was talk about a Rasputin film all over Hollywood, my pick for an actor who could play the role wouldn’t have been Leonardo Dicaprio, but in his defense, he was in his mid twenties then. Nothing against Leo, cause I think he can pull off mysterious, but what about Russian? I will get to the heart of the matter, but I need to get this off my chest. It’s been years that Hollywood’s been toying around with a Rasputin film. In the past, actors like Daniel Day Lewis and Gary Oldman were originally considered for roles. Let me say that again Gary Oldman and Daniel Day Lewis, this is what we in the smelting business like to call “striking while the iron is hot”, but nothing became of it. Fast forward several years and this new hot shot screenwriter Jason Hall (American Sniper, a new film directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Bradley Cooper) has been given an unprecedented opportunity by Warner Brothers Pictures to create a script from scratch and what does he do? He creates a Rasputin script and pins Leonardo Dicaprio to star. Sure from a business stand point it is a very smart move, the film will be under the Dicaprio umbrella seeing as how it’s being produced by Leo’s company Appian Way. But what’s really the reason? I’m not talking conspiracy, I’m talking “why Leo?”

According to Deadline

The film will be produced by Langley Park’s Kevin McCormick, by DiCaprio’s Appian Way partner Jennifer Davisson Killoran and Peter Morgan, who’s a producer on the Hall-scripted adaptation of American Sniper, which Steven Spielberg will direct with Bradley Cooper playing Navy SEAL elite sniper Chris Kyle. McCormick brought the project to Appian Way and the deal was made yesterday while he was in London, where the Sam Mendes-directed stage play Charlie And The Chocolate Factory is in previews. This becomes another strong project for Appian Way, which will see Ben Affleck start production in Live By Night, the adaptation of the Dennis Lehane novel that Affleck scripted, will star in and direct for Warner Bros. Appian Way has three major films releasing this year, with the Martin Scorsese-directed The Wolf Of Wall Street starring DiCaprio, the Brad Furman-directed Runner, Runner with Affleck, Justin Timberlake, Gemma Arterton and Anthony Mackie; and Out Of The Furnace, the Scott Cooper-directed revenge tale for Relativity with Christian Bale, Zoe Saldana, Woody Harrelson and Casey Affleck.

This press release is like playing 8 degrees of Kevin Bacon. Everyone is connected. This synergy is fine and all and everybody knows everybody and wadda wadda wadda, but is Leo really perfect for one of the most prolific characters of the turn of the century? People swoon over Dicaprio’s role in The Aviator, which I thought was just okay. Did I love him in Django Unchained? Yes, in fact I thought that it was one of the most powerful roles I’d ever seen Leo play, but Rasputin? A man who some regarded as the devil himself for his ability to wield mystical powers and charm the shit out of the Russian royal family the Romanov’s and let’s not get into the man’s mysterious death or death’s as the case may be.

I realize this movie deal is pretty iron clad, but I’d like to submit my suggestions for the lead, presented in no particular order, but before I do here’s a brief history lesson on Rasputin.

Via Wiki:

There have been numerous movies made about Rasputin and the controversial role he played in the Russian court, but there were new elements here unearthed by Hall that sparked DiCaprio’s interest and gave psychological depth to the so called “mad monk.” To his enemies, he was a charlatan who prolifically bedded women, possibly including the Tsar’s wife. DiCaprio liked the complicated elements of a child who lost the better part of himself when his brother died, and was capable of kindness but also a ruthlessness. Rasputin, who earlier had survived being stabbed, was shot, strangled, shot again, all in one night, and finally drowned when thrown into the icy Neva River.

Got it? Now here are my picks for the role.

Mads Mikkelsen. His credits include the surreal viking story Vahalla Rising, the NBC series Hannibal and Casino Royal. His darkness and versatility is a given, plus he has that level of “well traveled” that would lend itself well to the dreary Russian backdrop of the early 1900′s.

Next  Daniel Day-Lewis…do I really need to get into why he’s one of my obvious choices?

And lastly…Christoph Waltz. His work in films like Inglorious Bastards and Water for Elephants showed off his range as an actor. But what’s really thrilling about handing someone like Christophe a role like this is seeing where he would take it.

I’m under no illusions and I realize that Leo will be playing this role, but I think that there are a few others I would’ve pegged as shoe-ins before him. I mean seriously, how can you look at the one’s I suggested and think that Leonardo Dicaprio should play this role? I couldn’t. I get that Leonardo is pushing 40 nowaday’s and should look as seasoned as some of the others I posted, but he doesn’t. He’s still too baby-faced and I don’t trust him with a Russian accent, even though I know they’ll get lazy with the production and go all  sudo-British. This is a worldly and epically Gothic romantic story, Leo is non of these things, in my opinion. One last thing, although I think he may be too old now to play the role, Liam Neeson would have ultimately been my first pick..hands down!