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 

Atores vão a São Paulo para promover a sequência de “Crepúsculo” e mostram-se espantados com o tamanho da cidade

Matéria publicada no Caderno 2 do jornal A Tarde no dia 3 de novembro de 2009, na página 3.

Astros de “Lua Nova” levam pequena multidão enlouquecida a hotel onde deram coletiva.

Lucas Cunha

São Paulo

Dois minutos para fotos, 30 para entrevistas: Kristen Stewart e Taylor Lautner, estrelas da série vampiresca, são dois jovens simpáticos que parecem estar assustados, mas gostam da fama.

Em uma manhã ensolarada em pleno feriadão de finados, anteontem, centenas de fãs se aglomeraram em frente ao Hotel Grand Hyatt, em São Paulo, para ver os atores Kristen Stewart, 19, e Taylor Lautner, 17, astros da série vampiresca teen “Crepúsculo”, em rápida passagem pelo Brasil para divulgação do novo filme da série, “Lua Nova”, que chega aos cinemas no dia 20 de novembro.

Os presentes, em esmagadora maioria meninas de 12 a 20 anos, não dava trégua para os seguranças e até para os jornalistas que entravam para o local da coletiva. Histéricas, elas imploravam para mandar lembranças aos ídolos ou mesmo para ter qualquer registro físico da passagem do casal pelo Brasil (até a sacola da distribuidora do filme era solicitada).

Simpáticos

Tudo era extremamente cronometrado: dois minutos para fotos com os atores, mais 30 minutos para a coletiva, na qual estava proibida qualquer pergunta que não fosse relacionada a “Lua Nova”, sob risco de o jornalista que não seguisse as regras ser expulso da sala.

De perto Stewart e Lauter são dois jovens simpáticos, que parecem estar assustados, mas, ao mesmo tempo, desfrutam da fama que a série “Crepúsculo” tem lhes proporcionado.

A dupla não escondeu ter pouco conhecimento sobre o Brasil. Mostrou surpresa por SP ser “tão grande”.

Stewart, por ser mais velha e mais experiente como atriz (participou, dentre outros, de “Na Natureza Selvagem”, de Sean Penn) é mais segura e direta nas respostas do que o parceiro Lautner.

É ela quem define melhor as principais diferenças entre a produção de “Crepúsculo” e “Lua Nova”: “O primeiro não era um filme tão esperado, era um trabalho de uma escala menor. A diretora (Catherine Hardwicke, que tem sua carreira mais ligada ao cinema independente) coincidia com a qualidade que o tom daquele filme pedia”.

Com o salto de uma média para uma superprodução, para os padrões hollywoodianos, houve troca na direção, com a entrada de Chris Weiss, responsável por adaptações de sucessos da literatura mais ligada ao público jovem, com “Um Grande Garoto” e “A Bússola de Ouro”.

Só com sua chegada que Lautner foi confirmado no papel de Jacob. O novo preferido das capas de revistas do público teen feminino tinha participado de quatro cenas de “Crepúsculo”, e não estava garantido novamente com a grande expectativa criada para a sequência “Lua Nova” e o crescimento de seu personagem.

“Disseram que havia uma briga pelo papel. Mas, como estávamos esperando a definição do novo diretor, me concentrei no que podia controlar”, diz.

Logo após o fim das filmagens de “Crepúsculo”, mesmo sem ter certeza da sua participação, Lautner começou um intenso treinamento para aumentar o vigor físico, já que seu personagem é um forte lobisomem, o que faz o filme usar e abusar de cenas com o rapaz sem camisa.

Lautner ganhou 14 quilos, a maioria massa muscular, dos treinamentos até o início das filmagens de “Lua Nova”. “Isso mostra que estava determinado a ganhar o papel”, diz Stewart, dando força ao colega de filme.

Triângulo amoroso permeia a trama do novo filme, que chega à tela dia 20

Apesar de conter mais cenas de ação, com a entrada de Lautner e sua trupe de lobisomens, inimigos mortais dos vampiros, é no triângulo amoroso com a dupla Stewart – Lautner, e o galã do primeiro, Robert Pattison, que a trama se desenvolve.

No livro, Edward (personagem de Pattison, que não esteve no Brasil) aparece pouco. Sua presença é mais uma imagem presente para Bella (Stewart) quando a mocinha permanece em risco.

“Quando Bella tem a sensação de medo, é a voz do Edward que a tranqüiliza. Mas fica melhor, do ponto de vista visual, sua aparição. Não é só para colocar mais o Robert em cena para atrair mais público, apesar que sabemos que isso acontece”, diz Stewart.

“É também uma boa maneira de fazer o triângulo amoroso. Se você não fosse lembrado da imagem do Edward a todo momento, isso ficaria mais fraco”, completa Lautner.

.

A começar nas estrelas de Hollywood, as mulheres na casa dos 40 e 50 anos começam a preferir homens mais novos. Demi Moore e Madonna já mostraram publicamente que a sua preferência recai sobre homens bem mais novos. A actriz namora com Ashton Kutcher, de 31 anos e a cantora Madonna namora com o modelo brasileiro Jesus Luz, de 22 anos.

Segundo uma pesquisa do site de encontros Parship, as mulheres na faixa dos 40 e 50 anos, estão cada vez mais dispostas a sair com homens cinco ou mais anos mais jovens. Tendo como amostra 4,5 mil solteiros inscritos no site, 34% das mulheres com 40 anos e 38% das mulheres com 50 anos namorariam homens mais novos. Em 2005, esse número era de 8%.

Outro dado curioso da pesquisa mostra que as mulheres não procuram apenas relacionamentos casuais com os rapazes mais novos, mas sim relações longas e até casamento.

No entanto, esta tendência não se aplica aos homens. Apenas 8% sairiam com uma mulher mais velha.

(Notícia i online)

.

A começar nas estrelas de Hollywood, os homens na casa dos 40 e 50 anos começam a preferir mulheres mais novas. Bruce Willis e Ron Wood já mostraram publicamente que a sua preferência recai sobre mulheres bem mais novas. O actor namora com Emma Heming, de 30 anos e o músico namora com a garçonete russa Ekaterina, de 20 anos.

Segundo uma pesquisa do site de encontros Pareopreconceito, os homens na faixa dos 40 e 50 anos, estão cada vez mais dispostos a sair com mulheres cinco ou mais anos mais jovens. Tendo como amostra 4,5 mil solteiros inscritos no site, 34% dos homens com 40 anos e 38% dos homens com 50 anos namorariam mulheres mais novas. Em 2005, esse número era de 8%.

Outro dado curioso da pesquisa mostra que os homens não procuram apenas relacionamentos casuais com as raparigas mais novas, mas sim relações longas e até casamento.

No entanto, esta tendência não se aplica às mulheres. Apenas 8% sairiam com um homem mais velho.

(Notícia BrancaINPura)

Até o rebelde, esclarecido e "anti preconceito" Sean Penn (49) terá perguntado a Madonna se ela tinha um novo filho, ao vê-la com Jesus Luz. Isto depois de ele ter trocado Robin Wright Penn (43) por Petra Nemcova (28), Jessica White (25), etc

O preconceito é triste e infelizmente, contagioso. Esteja atento aos sintomas.

I saw Sarah Palin in the Greta Van Sustren show and I listened to the interview. The woman uses the word “crap” and her trademark phrase is, “You betcha!” How can you not love her for it? She’s a down home woman that speaks down home values. Go, Sarah Barracuda!

What’s up with Martha Stewart? First, she gets catty about Rachel Ray and now Sarah Palin. Loosen the straps Martha. It’s cutting off your circulation. What’s the matter Martha? Are there too many other women in the world to suit you, or just too many conservative women?

Did you see the new Barbie dolls from Mattel? They now have a “Burkah Barbie and a Sugar Daddy Barbie”. What’s next Mattel? Are you going to have a Jihadi Ken wearing a white robe, a checkered headband and carrying an AK47?

Barack has taken three months to consider sending additional troops to Afghanistan at General Stanley McCrystal’s request. He says he needs time to consider an “exit strategy”. It’s a good thing that that wasn’t needed in WWII, isn’t it? We might have lost and all be speaking German now.

Will the Jihadi Ken be tried in civilian court in New York City and be read his Miranda Rights? Well, what say you Eric?

The progressives want to levy a new 5% tax on the wealthy to cover the cost of the war in Afghanistan. Are the Jihadis only attacking the rich in this country? Is there a America for the rich, another for the middle class and another for the poor?

The progressives have declared that Sarah Palin is the devil disguised in a dress.  I thought Barney already had that role, but apparently not.

The Congressional Budget Office has given up on trying to calculate the cost of the health Care bill and called for assistance from the trajectory scientists at NASA. The first Super Cray Computer at NASA over heated and melted down when trying to figure the cost of the federal budget despite the liquid nitrogen coolants.

Barack Obama’s approval rating keeps dropping. Yes he can! Yes he can! The White House claims that the polls are not fair because the Chinese Red Guard were not polled.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammod will be allowed to tell Americans what is wrong with America. Anita Dunn, Ron Bloom, Van Jones, Sean Penn and Jeneanne Garafalo have all bought box seats to the event.

As the world turns.

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.

Este fin de semana he visto la película Into the Wild (Hacia rutas salvajes), dirigida por Sean Penn. Es de hace un par de años. Cuenta la historia de un joven estadounidense de clase alta, llamado Christopher McCandless, que a los veintidós años decide abandonar la vida que lleva y vagabundear por el país rumbo a Alaska. Destruye toda su documentación, dona su dinero a Intermón, se cambia de nombre y se echa a la carretera. Por lo que yo comprendí se guiaba por el rechazo de la sociedad del bienestar y el consumo en la que las personas buscan solo su propio interés y se hacen daño impunemente entre ellas. La reacción a eso es la búsqueda de la soledad y la relación con la naturaleza. Así se plantea un viaje en solitario de dos años que quiere acabar en Alaska, pasando allí los meses de invierno con un rifle, un saco de dormir y las provisiones básicas. Vive de lo que le trae el porvenir, trabaja esporádicamente y conoce a distintos personajes a lo largo de su aventura. El final de su historia es trágico: muere de inanición en medio de una zona deshabitada de Alaska.

La historia me parece interesante en sí pero también porque trata de contar la historia real de McCandless, que vivió e hizo más o menos todo lo que cuenta la película. Según he leído en la Wikipedia, para la gente de Alaska McCandless no fue más que un irresponsable. Seguramente para ellos la búsqueda de la soledad y la comunión con la naturaleza enfrentándose a las adversidades con pocos recursos no tiene sentido porque les viene impuesto y es contra lo que llevan lidiando durante generaciones. Dicen que McCandless tenía refugios a seis millas de donde se había instalado con provisiones para resistir un invierno y también que la carretera estaba solo a veinte millas de su campamento. Los refugios los encontraron destruidos, dicen que por obra del propio McCandless.

Sin embargo, para otra gente se ha convertido en una especie de gurú difícil de interpretar, ya que su filosofía es prácticamente ágrafa. Solo se conservan las anotaciones de su diario, que eran escuetas y más bien descriptivas de su rutina, sus lecturas y los testimonios de la gente que le conoció. Con ello escribió Jon Krakauer un libro que se convirtió en súper ventas y que dejó a Sean Penn tan noqueado que pudo esperar hasta diez años para conseguir los derechos sobre la historia de Christopher y entonces echar el resto para rodarla a todo trapo.

La historia de Krakauer va por el lado íntimo y es más amable: según él, McCandless murió casi por mala suerte: comió por equivocación unas raíces venenosas que le impedían ingerir alimento. Sin embargo, en las autopsias no se ha encontrado rastro de ningún veneno conocido. Su muerte es más dramática aun cuando se comprende que en un momento determinado, pasado el invierno, McCandless intentó regresar pero no pudo porque el deshielo había quintuplicado el caudal de un río que antes del invierno era perfectamente vadeable. Había un paso cuatrocientos metros más arriba del lugar por donde intentó cruzar, pero eso, como las cabañas con provisiones, no lo vio o no lo quiso usar. En sus últimas anotaciones también decía: “La felicidad solo es real si es compartida.” Esto le da ya el toque dramático definitivo porque probablemente es el hombre que más solo haya muerto de toda la historia.

Entonces, ¿qué? ¿Es un modelo o es un chiflado? Yo supongo que un modelo, porque los modelos son perfectos y están terminados y eso los convierte en ejemplos radicales de su especie. La coherencia de su actitud le conducía inevitablemente a que Alaska se lo comiera con patatas: el hombre sin algún tipo de civilización tiene pocas probabilidades por fuerte y listo que sea de sobrevivir a la naturaleza. Pero él creía en ello y lo hizo. Así que en realidad McCandless se auto impuso un proyecto que le convirtió inevitablemente en un mártir de su causa. Aunque en algún momento él deseó regresar y no pudo. Pero su deseo de ese momento no tenía suficiente fuerza como para compensar el compromiso que ya había adquirido: había sido demasiado coherente hasta ese momento como para que su historia le dejara libre. Así es como lo veo yo. Y se ha convertido en una especie de símbolo del rechazo a lo que la sociedad actual propone: bienestar personal, consumo y relaciones personales estandarizadas.

I hate, hate, hate people who look at movies–especially older movies–as just a step in the line to the movies we have today.  It’s a slap in the face to life, by extension, and I will explain why. (Foswi, this is primarily for you.)

I am a staunch historian, and I thoroughly believe in the value of studying history.  If you do not, you might as well stop reading this blog.  We’ll just never get along.  To that extent, is it useless to study ancient warfare in a modern context?  Are there no pracitical applicable lessons to be learned from tactics that defy era, technology, or weaponry?  I think you out there in someplacewhereyou’restaringatacomputerscreen should be thinking to yourself, “No, there is value in knowing that stuff…”  Because  you’re right.

Or, let’s think of this in terms of books.  Does it make sense to stop reading  Hamlet, To Kill a Mockingbird, 1984, The Lord of the Rings, Black Boy, Brave New World, Romeo and Juliet, The Giver, etc. just because there are the Harry Potter series, the Twilight books, the Time Traveler’s Wife, and various James Patterson and Stephen King books topping the New York Times Bestseller list?  Should we leave the past behind and only allow only what is new and pretty and shiny to be let in?

I think not.

The problem is the genre of film allows this to easily happen.  And many people who watch movies (or passively read about movies) tend to think only the little that is said without thorough investigation into the actuality of history.

Point 1: Michael Bay is awesome…but not really.

The Island

Michael Bay, as many know, is the champion of all things pretty, and mind-numbingly explosive.  After all, you don’t make a name for yourself with blockbusters like Bad Boys, Bad Boys II, The Rock, Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, The Island, Transformers, and Transformers II (directed all by Bay) without some level of skill.  I mean, seriously.  That’s an impressive list of movies, with impressive DVD sales, and everything.

But let us be honest.  The movies star nice looking people, blow a lot of things up, include heart-racing, adrenaline pumping, action and car chases (or meteorite destroying drill malfunctions, what have you), and fun technological advances.  They’re like James Bond films…just without James Bond.

These movies have made millions.  They have loyal fans of adults, teenagers, and children alike.  They’re fun to watch, made millions in the movie theaters.  But they suck.  They have no deeper meaning, make me thoughtful in no way, and generally make me dumber, because I actually could have been learning something while I was wasting time watching pretty people run around.

Point 2: There is more to history than just history.

Citizen Kane

A friend of mine (after reading a former post of mine) responded thusly:

I’ll disregard the opinion of anyone who thinks Citizen Kane is great for anything more than its innovative transitions and camera angles.

While said tongue-in-cheek, there is, I know, a part of him that believes this to be true.  And this is why I am angry.  I love Citizen Kane, in the same way I love Schindler’s List.  Sure it’s a little on the long side, but the story is great, the acting is believable, the direction is flawless, and the overall impact: unforgettable.

The ease with which Americans, modern people, I’m not sure who this list should (or actually does) include, forget the past when it comes to movies is disturbing.  Yes, movies are more entertaining today.  Movie from yore are a little boring.

Except that’s not true.  I defy anyone to watch The Apartment and not be complete enraptured.  Peeping Tom is one of the creepiest movies I’ve ever seen.  (If you have a Netflix account, I believe it is streaming live.   You should go watch it now.  Better than Drag Me To Hell.  Creepier.  Stranger.  More interesting.)  And you know what, It Happened One Night is the quintessential romance that cannot be improved upon in a modern way.  There are just old movies that age well, and have stayed good for a reason.  Citizen Kane is one of them.  Beyond the transitions and camera angles. (We’ve all heard the “Oh my gosh, there’s a ceiling” reaction.)  But let’s talk about the role the dining room table plays in the movie.  Did you ever think about that? Or how about the scene where Welles types out the rest of a horrible review of his wife’s disastrous operatic debut?  The acting is top notch, better than Sean Penn in Milk.

I am struck by many things.  Here’s a short list:

• People today seem so averse to watching older, or just pain old, films.
• People tend to devalue the impact of older movies because modern counterparts tends to be more engaging, which they equate with “better.”
• People tend to devalue the fact that most older movies have a deeper theme than most modern movies, even modern movies based in classic stories.

This is why the market for older movies should be booming, not dying away.  This is why people should actually sit down and become their own movie reviewer.  If you take the time to watching a movie a week, you’ll watch AFI’s Top 100 movie list in less than two year.  Probably less than a year, considering you’ve seen a lot of them.

Why is it people are so ready to agree, or disagree with the statements of critics and film historians, but are so rarely willing to make their own original statements about the movies themselves.  People, you, staring at your own screen.  Say what’s on your mind.  Be willing to say Citizen Kane sucked, but don’t you dare say it’s boring without backing it up.  I’m not about opinion’s with no evidence.

Just have an opinion, and make it your own.

A Hollywood producer, Ben (Robert De Niro), witnesses a poor test screening for his new film, Fiercely, mostly caused by the fact that its ending features its main character (played by Sean Penn, who plays himself in the film) being graphically shot dead, along with his pet dog.

Adding to Ben’s problems, he is having trouble making a clean break from Kelly, his second wife, and Bruce Willis is refusing to shave the large, thick beard that he has grown, which will result in the studio pulling the plug on their new project, and in turn put a certain end to Ben’s career. Any attempt to reason with Willis inevitably meets a violent, foul-mouthed response.
Willis does eventually shave his beard off, and the film goes ahead.

This film has an impressive cast including Robin Wright Penn as Ben’s second wife, Kelly; John Turturro as Dick, the stereotypical shifty agent; Stanley Tucci as Scott, the blocked screenplay writer; Michael Wincott as Jeremy, the temperamental director; Catherine Keener, as Lou, the hardcore studio exec; Bruce Willis as the demanding movie star; and Sean Penn as himself.

De Niro is doing a great job although this movie does not appeal to everyone. He has some wonderful moments and moments when he is just plain, but you can recognize him in every scene. And there are so many aspects of him. His gestures are simply brilliant.

“It’s not faith, it’s work.”
~~Sister Helen Prejean

Humanity exists in everyone. Men are not worse than their worst deeds. Talk about ideas that are easy to preach but hard to practice, particularly on death row. The miracle of Tim Robbins’ immensely powerful ”Dead Man Walking” is that every character struggles with these concepts, and many do not swallow them as gospel truths. Here is one of the few — and possibly the most poignant and intelligent — examinations of the death penalty that leaves no scar left unseen, no voice left unheard.

The first voice belongs to that of Sister Helen Prejean (a wonderfully understated Susan Sarandon), who receives a letter from New Orleans death row inmate Matthew Poncelot (Sean Penn) and decides to visit him. There are no thoughts of shining up his dirty soul – she goes, she tells the priest, because “he wrote to me.” She enters the prison unprepared by what she finds: an oily, conceited racist whose manicured goatee give him an undeniable air of evil. But Poncelot gets a surprise of his own: Sister Helen is no Bible-thumper interested in adding another saved soul to her belt. Her motives are genuine; she asks questions and listens to his answers. She treats Poncelot, accused of murdering a teen couple and raping the girl, with respect because he is a person. For her, that’s reason enough, and so it becomes reason enough for us to care.

Soon, more voices chime in. Sister Helen’s tentative friendship with Poncelot opens a floodgate of complications. Poncelot draws her into his case, urging her to help him turn his death sentence into life in prison, and she agrees partly because she’s in too deep to pull back. (Credit Robbins with writing Helen this way and Sarandon with making her confusion palpable; rarely do we see religious figures this openly conflicted.) Poncelot, however, doesn’t make things easy — he tells Sister Helen what she wants to hear, then lapses into crazed, bigoted rants and aligns himself with neo-Nazis on TV. But there is real pain and fear beneath all that bravado*. She must face the wrath of the murdered girl’s parents (R. Lee Ermey, Celia Weston) and the quiet disappointment of the dead boy’s father (a subtle, devastating Raymond J. Barry). Angry, too, are the nuns in her order, who berate her for helping a lost cause like Poncelot instead of working with the disadvantaged children who need her more.

The volume of issues Robbins tackles in his adaptation of the real Sister Helen’s memoir is staggering. Robbins examines everything: faith, fear, revenge, pain, absolution, guilt, redemption. He does so with remarkable patience; he refuses to muscle his characters into acting as puppets meant to advance the plot. Not once does he attempt to force-feed us empty cliches and platitudes about the death penalty. Robbins is too subtle; rather, he elects to let this story develop naturally, allowing the unpredictability of human nature to dictate outcomes.  Consider, for example, Sister Helen’s meeting with the murdered girl’s parents, who believe she’s come to side with them. Their anger is blistering, and it pushes Sister Helen to question her own judgments about what Poncelot has done.

Robbins’ beautifully balanced script is elevated immensely by his actors. Talent doesn’t get much deeper or richer than Sarandon and Penn, two actors who tend to inhabit their characters completely. Saddled with the unenviable task of portraying a nun, Sarandon subverts our expectations; her Sister Helen is not a saint but a flawed woman who know she’s in over her head but won’t give up. She tells Poncelot he’s “a son of God” and honestly believes this to be true. Her directness is unexpectedly moving. Penn offers a fine counterpoint, for Poncelot covers the reality about his involvement with the murders with swagger, foul language and lines he’s pulled from Nazi propaganda pamphlets. But watch Penn’s eyes — they dam up rivers of emotions that threaten to overflow any second. When he finally tells Sister Helen “thank you for loving me,” it’s a moment of honesty so hard-won it feels wholly real. And in the end, that’s exactly where “Dead Man Walking” succeeds: It shows not one side but all of them. Every face we see haunts us immeasurably.

*Nowhere is this more evident than in Bruce Springsteen’s “Dead Man Walkin’,” a haunting song he penned specifically for the film’s soundtrack.

Recently I defended Michael Bay (while simultaneously expressing how odious his movies can be), and now I rush to the defense of another man used as a lazy punchline to a billion deeply unfunny jokes about bad cinema: the acting colossus called Nicolas Cage. As with Bay, Cage is treated like a cautionary tale about how that vile, Chthonic monolith called Hollywood can drive people insane with greed, how talented individuals can lose their way and begin a descent from making art to making dross. He is accused of sleepwalking through films, cashing checks, appearing in unworthy crowd-pleasing dreck, and working with anti-cinematic infidels. His personal life is raked over (he keeps impulsively marrying women! He calls his kid a silly name! He buys too much crap!), his eccentricities treated as signs of mental illness, and his success used as example number two in the case against modern culture (example one being the success of Bay). Only Ben Affleck is treated with less respect, a fact that I intend to address in a future post where I defend him too. (I’m serious about that. Affleck is awesome.)

There are millions who seem to love to take a short-cut in thinking and just refer to Cage as a has-been with no understanding of what a joke he has become, though Cage’s most famous critic has been Sean Penn, the former friend who once told the New York Times, “Nic Cage is no longer an actor. He could be again, but now he’s more like a…performer”. This was said around the time that Cage appeared in two Bruckheimer productions — The Rock and Con Air — which seems to be the one thing an artist can do that will sink his credibility. Why did Penn single out Cage for that and not Cage’s co-stars Ed Harris, or Sean Connery, or John Cusack, or John Malkovich? They’re respected actors who have won awards and are considered to be fine actors, but Cage falls into the line of fire for moving from carefully considered character pieces like Leaving Las Vegas to action movies, three of which he did in a row (the third being the classic John Woo SF actioner Face/Off). His wildly broad performances in those movies were almost certainly a factor, but then he has always given broad performances, within which lie subtle moments (see also Wild At Heart, Birdy, Peggy Sue Got Married, etc.). They’re entertaining displays of eye-rolling crowd-pleasing acting pyrotechnics, but there’s a soul there too. This is what I think of as getting The Full-On Cage Experience, with madness and soulfulness tied together. Penn could never pull off anything like that. When he mugs, he ends up wrecking the movie.

By all that’s holy and unholy, how much better was Penn in Milk, or Dead Man Walking (incidentally, that’s one of my favourite screen performances of all time)? It’s not even a fair competition. Besides, this accusation, insinuating that Cage is no longer an actor, is rich coming from someone who appeared in I Am Sam. I’ll take an entertaining and unpretentious actor having fun playing a demonic avenger with a flaming skull than some humourless chide wasting his talent on Oscar-baiting bullshit like that any day of the week. Sadly, Penn’s not the only one who thinks Cage has pissed his talent away. In this little essay, Entertainment Weekly’s Owen Gleiberman compares Cage to Dr. Wesley T. Snipes, which is prescient considering Cage’s current tax woes, but while Snipes has descended into Direct-To-DVD hell, Cage is still working on big-budget movies and smaller curios, still attracting the viewing public, and still cranking out performances that are — at best — thrilling, and — at worst — merely entertaining.

The one argument that genuinely annoys me is the one where Cage is cranking out piss-poor, lazy performances since his last truly astonishing performance in Jonze and Kaufman’s Adaptation. I’ve often said that I think his work in that (along with his work in Leaving Las Vegas and Raising Arizona) deserves a coveted Shades of Caruso Free Pass…

…but of all the movies he has made since, only three performances really disappointed me: his work as Benjamin Gates in the first National Treasure movie, where he seemed awfully tired; his creepy performance in Next, the empty action thriller adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s clever short story; and his catatonic turn as a greasy-haired loser assassin in the disastrous remake of Bangkok Dangerous, which I suspect he took so he could get a holiday in Thailand. That last one really did give me cause for concern, but Gleiberman likes to make out that Cage is regularly signing on for “grade-Z genre schlockers”, which apparently include Ghost Rider and The Wicker Man. Neither of them are good movies, but they were not developed as low-budget cash-ins. Ghost Rider was obviously meant to be a big comic book adaptation, with a pretty good cast and a $110m budget, and even if it was absolutely dire, it was made with love by fans of the character, of which Cage is one.

The Wicker Man is a dumb-ass movie by any standards, but it’s made by Neil LaBute, who was once a promising director. He could have turned in a thoughtless remake of the excellent original (which would fit under Gleiberman’s umbrella of “genre schlocker”) but instead made something personal, for better or worse. For all it’s faults it’s obviously of a part with his other movies, dealing with his favourite themes of misanthropy, deceit, misogyny, fear of opening up to others, and gynophobia. I’ve occasionally argued that The Wicker Man is a satire on male fear of impotence and castration, a paranoid comical fantasy about a scheming cabal of exaggerated feminist ballbreakers who are out to destroy the penis, turning all men into drones and semen-donors whose sexuality is merely a sacrifice of power to the almighty womb in order to replenish the earth with children.

Sadly, even if this was LaBute’s intention — and even if Cage was in on this project for that reason alone — it’s still ridiculous and poorly made and filled with wonderfully camp moments. Cage maintains that the comedic aspects of the movie were not lost on him. In an interview with Spike Jonze, Drew McWeeny discusses meeting Cage, and Jonze is full of praise:

Jonze: I love [Cage]. We had the best time working together. He really works and focuses.
McWeeny: His publicist was a little wary of me being there, I guess, because he doesn’t do a lot of press and he doesn’t allow press around a lot, but he really was very accessible once I’d been there for a few days, and he kind of warmed up to me. And he was really just fascinating. I loved chatting with him about stuff.
Jonze: Totally chill.
McWeeny: Yeah. And I think far more self-aware than most people think. Like I think some people think Nic is in this vacuum and doesn’t realize how crazy some of his performances are. I got the feeling he was totally aware of how people perceive things. We were talking about THE WICKER MAN, and he was like, “How do people call that an unintentional comedy? I’m in a bear suit kicking Lelee Sobieski in the throat. I know it’s funny.”
Jonze: He just takes it so seriously that nobody knows how to take him. Like PEGGY SUE GOT MARRIED, I was like, “What is that?” Like I was 15 so I didn’t really know.
McWeeny: I just love how you can always count on him to push things further, like VAMPIRE’S KISS. He ate a roach, man.
Jonze: And also just the insanity of that performance, just the balls-out fearlessness.

Is it enough that Cage is aware of the ridiculousness of the movies he is appearing in? For me it is. I strongly suspect Cage is the most easily bored person in the world, and unfortunately that is paired with the ability to get work in movies that pay millions of dollars for him to spend on cars and comics and castles. Some of the films he has been in lately are truly awful, and I would never argue that they weren’t. Neverthless, I watch them for those flashes of manic commitment from Cage — The Partial Cage Experience — that delight me so. Are they valid acting choices, or is he merely trying to entertain himself while he trudges through formulaic populist bilge? As far as I’m concerned, even if he’s merely trying to entertain himself, he succeeding in entertaining me, and surely that’s what counts.

The only other popular actors that delight me as much are Clooney (who can do pathos and comedy equally well), Streep (who is always the best thing about everything she has ever been in), and maybe Jeff Bridges. Even those fine actors have not given me as much pleasure as Cage does, even when you forget about his early, golden years and concentrate on this bizarre stretch of poor movies. Since Adaptation we’ve had the insanity of Not The Bees…

…a literally hysterical fiery transformation…

…a Shout-Off with Rose Byrne (who is utterly overmatched, despite her invention of the word “chuldren”)…

…a run in with an obnoxious know-it-all child (the best part of which is how he treats the kid like an adult for most of the scene)…

…and a frustrating teaser of what could be his finest hour, if ever Rob Zombie got the money to make it…

His willingness to make fun of himself is the thing that keeps his crazy public and professional persona viable, and though many of his actions seem completely deranged, I honestly believe he’s playing a trick on us. Can someone who makes a series of adverts like these really be unintentionally weird?

(N.B. Anyone who has a sense of humour about themselves gets a break from me. Even the reportedly tyrannical and insensitive director Michael Bay gets points for playing up to his image with this commercial for Verizon:)

I’m a fully paid up Cage fan. For entertainment value, he can’t be beat. To see a person with such intelligence, quirkiness, restlessness, fearlessness, and energy do his thing in such big-screen movies is a rare thrill. If I squint I can see why Cage is now considered a hack by critics and film-watchers, because it’s easy to confuse being in a terrible movie and actually being terrible, but I worry that maybe people are also turned off by his intensity and his allegiance to the weird. The odd soporific performance aside, perhaps what baffles people the most is seeing him devote so much energy to projects that they feel don’t deserve it. Personally, I think that’s admirable. He’s getting paid enough, after all. Dance, you fucking monkey! Dance for your millions!

And yet even though I revel in his passionate and unpredictable work in crud, I’ve become concerned that we would never get another performance out of Cage that is as electrifying as his best work (disclaimer: I’ve not seen Lord of War or The Weather Man, and some have said he gives solid, rounded performances in both). Once upon a time he would work with Lynch and Scorsese, and the performances he gave were over-the-top yet grounded in some kind of emotional profundity, but lately those performances — while entertaining, memorable, and stronger than popular wisdom would have you believe — are lacking that extra fire. Well, I’m happy to report the return of The Full-On Cage Experience, as he takes on the task of being the 21st Century Klaus Kinski. More on that tomorrow, when I review Werner Herzog’s excellent Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans.

Watching movies is one of my favorite activities. Today I had the rare pleasure of getting to watch two (usually that only happens when I’m dog-sick and stuck in bed). They provided a bizarre counterpoint for each other.

The first was the upcoming adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road. Now, the last one out of the gates on this was No Country for Old Men, what I consider to be an almost pitch-perfect movie. Add to that Viggo Mortensen and Robert Duvall, two of my favorite actors, and I was pumped. The kicker: free passes for pastors, followed by a theological discussion of the movie led by a “noted theologian.” Sold!

The movie was bleak – I expected that. And that was hard to watch. But it just wasn’t that good. The Coen Brothers nailed No Country’s pacing with the painfully drawn-out vista shots and the almost wordless dialogue. Here, there was some good cinematography, but it felt like they were trying to get through it too fast. I know it’s unfair to compare relatively new-comer directors to the Coen Brothers, but this really didn’t live up to the challenge at all. For a free movie, though, intriguing.

The noted theologian was Reg Grant, a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. It was not that long ago that places like Dallas would have urged faithful Christians to run the other direction from such movies, so I am encouraged to see the evangelical mainstream willing to engage secular culture, not deny it out of hand. But what followed in discussion was frustrating. The film was full of Biblical and philosophical allusions, much like No Country. However, the discussion seemed to be hell-bent (pardon the expression) on shoe-horning the film into a Christian allegory. The relationship of the Father and the Son, the pronouncement that the Son is “the one,” the only man in the film named is “Eli,” sparse conversations about God and angels, all of that adds up to a lot of fodder for conversation. But to somehow assume that McCarthy’s nihilistic worldview could be bent into a crypto-Catholic “hope in Christ” morality tale? Not quite…

I was reminded of the Ralph Wood article comparing the theologies of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, entitled Lewis & Tolkien in Tension. In it, Wood describes how Lewis’ literature has no purpose if the allegorical interpretation is not there. In other words, if you don’t get that Aslan is Jesus, then The Chronicles of Narnia aren’t going to be of much use. Tolkien, on the other hand, seemed to prefer the uniqueness of Christ and therefore refused to have any Christ-figure in his masterworks. The themes of Scripture, however, are there: betrayal, trust, faith, transcendence, temptation, humility, etc. Allegorical, no. Rich, yes.

It was reading Wood’s article that helped me understand the deep flaw I’ve never been able to articulate with dispensational readings of Revelation. A vision of the future? Yes. One in which the Whore of Babylon/seven seals/four horses means a specific person/entity/nation/enemy? Probably not.

And yet, that’s exactly what this audience was trying to do with The Road, find the Christ-figure and how to use this as a preaching tool. One audience member went so far as to say that the end offers the possibility of hope in Christ and the “new heaven and new earth.” First of all, there’s a big difference between hope and optimism; hope is a lot more than “glass half full.” You can have a bleak future and still have eschatological and soteriological hope. And second, folks, if the future looks anything like McCarthy’s vision, then there is no cause for hopetimism.

Enough about the film I didn’t enjoy. The second film was with guys who went on our OPC Men’s Retreat in October. We watched Into the Wild, the story of Chris McCandless, the Emory student whose misanthropy causes him to abandon all for the solitude of an Alaskan winter only to discover the truth that “Happiness is real only when shared.”

Sean Penn’s directorial eye was exactly what The Road needed. The drawn out shots of mountains, whether bleak or beautiful, were well-executed. And there was enough fodder for theological/philosophical discussion, albeit in non-allegorical terms: loneliness, woundedness, community, limitation, success, dependence, independence, forgiveness, enlightenment, you name it. And if that weren’t enough, there’s far more religious conversation that actually occurs within the movie. From vague discussions about God to prominent quotes from Tolstoy (himself an intriguing Christian writer), McCandless’ own search seems to have these eternal questions in mind. And the way Penn shapes the narrative only highlights these ideas.

And so for now, the balcony is closed. We’ll see you next week at the movies.

(having watched the preview again, did we get a truncated version today? ‘cuz half of the scenes in the preview were not in what we saw)

So, I did watch Hannibal tonight. I am very fond of the film, but it certainly isn’t as well made as Silence of the Lambs. The story is subtler, slower, more classy and while the acting and set design, etc. are all fantastic, the problem was that they included all of these flashy filmic techniques: badly done, unnecessary slow mo, etc. The film doesn’t need it, you don’t need to keep us interested with these little tricks; the acting, story and script are all enough to keep us thoroughly enthralled. Less is more in this case. Not always, but for this movie it certainly is, there is so much quiet menace that Silence of the Lambs tapped into. This one still had that, but it shouldn’t have nearly as much action style filming.

Still, amazing film in most ways. Tomorrow night is apparently going to be a movie night with friends, so unless I watch Red Dragon then, it will actually have to wait until almost sunday since I have, shock horror, a social life for the rest of the week. As for the movie night, I hope we actually watch something good; we quite often choose something entertaining over something good, which is fair enough, I suppose. We’ll see.

So, on to the quote of the day: “The man who has no imagination has no wings.”

Now, on the subject of quotes, should I start saying who said each of them? I’ve been tending to leave them without context as I believe the best quotes don’t need context. Some great quotes do, but anyway. So, again I’m speaking as if people read this, but give me some feedback on this and reasons why, etc. Part of me wants to respect the person who said the words, part of me wants people to look at the words, not the mouth.

On the subject of imagination, vaguely, I had a brief discussion with a friend of mine, whose blog can be found here: http://cerasi.wordpress.com/

We were talking about war. She stated in her blog that we should celebrate the soldiers, not the war, which I mostly agree with, but I replied, “depends on the soldier, depends on the war” then she asked for an example of a war to celebrate, which isn’t something that I could do, either because of my weak knowledge of history or because it is impossible. Regardless, it moved me onto the idea of fiction vs reality, something I’m quite fond of as an escapist, a faker and a hider. I maintain that war is a beautiful thing when viewing it as a story, as art. All the brutality and horror in the world can be beautiful in this context. If it makes me weep, shake and retch then it is valuable to me. To feel is the best thing I can do.

I am a strong believer in catharsis through art, through the viewing of some kind of trauma, though not necessarily at all. Example: a film you might know about, Irreversible. Now, I don’t suggest you watch this film, unless you 1) know that you can handle some fairly strong stuff, 2) can appreciate what a film is trying to do when it makes you hurt and 3) are willing to submit yourself to something horrible and really wallow in the emotion, you should be prepared to feel horrible for the rest of the day, to just sit and think that you can never feel good again. A lot of people won’t like that, for obvious reasons, but I really appreciate it, possibly because I’m emotionally masochistic and enjoy being unhappy, but mostly because if someone can choose an emotion, try to get the audience to feel it and succeed, then that is amazing. Making an audience happy is easy, making an audience amused is easy. Making an audience upset is harder, but still not the hardest thing in the world. Making an audience frightened, fairly easy. Making an audience angry is hard, and there’s only one movie I can think of that isn’t a documentary that has done it: The Assassination of Richard Nixon. Very good movie, I recommend it. Anyway…

What Irreversible does is it aims to make the audience physically uncomfortable, the film is designed perfectly to induce nausea, to upset, to frighten, to anger, to disturb. Now, it doesn’t do these things cheaply, it doesn’t just throw in a surprise horror scene to frighten, the panic and distress builds up over time, from the very first scene.

I’m rambling and probably ruining the movie, so I’ll stop, but the point that I’m trying to make is that it is important to know that you can feel, it is important to put yourself out there, to be vulnerable for a film or any kind of art. If something distresses you, then go with it, let the emotion grow and billow because that is what is supposed to happen, you are supposed to react, to feel. So, war as fiction can be celebrated; it may be horrible, it may be wrong, but I am drawn to it, the possibilities darkness and violence open up to me. War as reality, I don’t think can be celebrated. I’ll have to think more on the idea.

Anyway, moving on from all that serious stuff.

I approve of seeing photos of my friends as kids. 21st invitations are amusing, I highly recommend putting pictures of yourself as a kid on yours when you have one, if you haven’t already.

I had something to say but now I’ve forgotten. Maybe a good sign to say goodnight to the blog.

Goodnight,

Your winged cannibal,

TDE

I watched Milk last night with Sean Penn and I was thinking about my life and what is it I shall accomplish that is meaningful, not for personal gain but at the expense of. Will I die and people remember me or will I be one of those millions noone ever heard off. It be nice to accomplish something meaningful. Maybe life will put something in my path. Something cool

Today’s “Oscar Moment” is brought to you by the movie “A Single Man,” adapted from a decades-old novel by Christopher Isherwood (if that sounds like the closing of “Sesame Street,” excuse my tardiness of honoring the show’s 40th anniversary).  The movie could follow a similar awards season road to “Slumdog Millionaire.”  Both were discovered at film festivals, got a distributor, and began attracting much Oscar talk.  ”A Single Man” burst onto the scene at the Venice Film Festival, where Colin Firth took home the prize for Best Actor.  He has since become a frontrunner in the Best Actor race at the Oscars.  But Firth is not the only part of the movie getting attention.  Julianne Moore has gained some traction in a tight Best Supporting Actress race, and Tom Ford, former fashion designer (something I know only from a quick Google search), has won raves for his first film.

From watching the trailer, after the shock of watching a montage filled with Ford’s distinct, visually arresting style, you probably are asking, “This looks good, but what is this movie about?”  The movie centers around middle-aged homosexual British professor George Falconer (Firth) and him reeling from the death of his partner, Jim (Matthew Goode, “Watchmen”).  It follows him over the course of a day, consoled by close friend Charley (Moore), as he tries to discover if life is worth living without Jim.

It is a tight Best Actor field this year, with heavyweights such as Morgan Freeman, Daniel Day-Lewis, and Jeff Bridges in contention.  Yet most people seem to think that Firth is safe for at least a nomination.  He is a likable actor, never demanding much attention, and making missteps in only the quietest of fashions.  Although many people seem to have postulated that the Academy is very homophobic from its snub of “Brokeback Mountain,” the Best Actor prize went to Sean Penn for playing homosexual San Francisco mayor Harvey Milk last year.

Moore perhaps faces even stiffer competition in Best Supporting Actress.  Mo’Nique is a lock (which I can now testify to from seeing the movie).  Barring a complete flop of “Nine,” at least one actress will get in, if not two.  ”Up in the Air” has two strong candidates in the category, Anna Kendrick and Vera Farmiga.  ”The Lovely Bones” could also has two potential nominees with past winners Rachel Weisz and Susan Sarandon.  I don’t think Moore is a certainty by any means, but I must keep in mind that I have not seen her performance in the movie.  But she is a four-time nominee, and maybe it is her time.  We all know how desperate the Academy was to award Kate Winslet last year after five times coming up empty on Oscar night, even willing to commit category fraud to give it to her.

As for the Best Picture/Director duo, it seems to be less likely than the two actors.  The film’s subject matter could likely hurt it – I say this not because of my own personal beliefs but because there exists a large faction of old white men in the Academy opposed to homosexuality.  I think the triumph of “Milk” last year shows significant progress, but nonetheless, this homophobia still exists, even if in vestiges.  Without the expansion of the field of Best Picture nominees, I don’t think this would have a chance.  But I think “A Single Man” lurks at the bottom of the ten or just outside of it.  If one of the heavyweights like “Invictus” or “The Lovely Bones” underwhelms, I think “A Single Man” could sneak in and steal a spot.  As for director Tom Ford, I am quite skeptical about his chances.  While the trailer shows an appealing stylistic approach, this cannot cover the fact that this is Ford’s first film.  It is fairly rare for a director to earn a nomination for their first project, and in such a strong year for directors, I think Ford will get lost in a crowd of big names like Clint Eastwood, Peter Jackson, and James Cameron.

I feel like I close every “Oscar Moment” on the same note: “I don’t care if it gets nominated, this looks good enough to get me to a theater!”  The same goes for “A Single Man,” which opens in limited release on December 11 and will gradually expand across the country as awards season progresses.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Actor (Colin Firth), Best Supporting Actress (Moore), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction

OTHER POTENTIAL NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director (Tom Ford)

Estrela precoce, Dakota Fanning tenta manter os pés no chão em Hollywood

Atriz de 15 anos protagoniza o drama ‘A vida secreta das abelhas’.

Em entrevista ao G1, loirinha fala sobre fama e bastidores de filmagens.

07/08/09 – 12h00 – Atualizado em 07/08/09 – 12h05

Ela cresceu nas telas do cinema. Com apenas seis anos, Dakota Fanning provou ser uma atriz de talento nato logo na estreia, ao interpretar a filha de um deficiente mental vivido por Sean Penn no drama “Uma lição de amor”. Agora, com 15 e currículo de veterana – são mais de 20 longas – a loirinha protagoniza “A vida secreta das abelhas”, adaptação do best seller homônimo da autora Sue Monk Kidd.

Na produção dirigida por Gina Prince-Bythewood, Dakota dá vida à personagem Lily Owens, uma jovem que acidentalmente mata a mãe na infância, vive atormentada pela culpa e ainda sofre maus tratos de um pai rancoroso, interpretado por Paul Bettany. Um dia resolve fugir de casa e encontra o afeto que nunca teve ao ser acolhida por uma família negra.

Passada nos anos 60, em uma cidade da Carolina do Sul, o filme mostra o preconceito que uma garota branca sofre por se relacionar com negros. Em especial com o personagem Zack (Tristan Wilds), por quem se apaixona.

Não foi a primeira vez que Dakota, que acaba de entrar na adolescência, beija em um filme. Mas a cena de amor de “A vida secreta das abelhas” teve um sabor especial. “Com certeza foi o beijo mais íntimo e romântico que dei no cinema, em função do relacionamento entre os personagens”, analisa.

Diferente das estrelas precoces, que acabam virando alvo de paparazzi por causa de arroubos juvenis, Dakota diz ter “os pés no chão.” “Acho que tem muito a ver com a maneira pela qual meus pais me educaram, de ser verdadeira comigo mesma e nunca mudar quem sou”, diz, com ar comportado.

Em conversa com o G1, em Los Angeles, a loirinha fala sobre carreira, fama e os bastidores das filmagens de “A vida secreta das abelhas”, que entra em cartaz nesta sexta-feira (7), nos cinemas brasileiros.

G1– Atores que ganharam fama cedo como você, vez ou outra se metem em confusão e viram alvo de paparazzi. O que você faz para não cair nas armadilhas de Hollywood?
Dakota Fanning – Estou consciente do que acontece com alguns atores da minha idade, mas não acho que cairia nestas mesmas armadilhas. Tenho uma família e amigos fantásticos, um ótimo agente e realmente o que mais amo é atuar. Procuro manter um equilíbrio. Acho que tem muito a ver com a maneira pela qual meus pais me educaram, de ser verdadeira comigo mesma e nunca mudar quem sou, manter sempre os pés no chão. Tento não me preocupar muito com a fama e não sonhar muito com o futuro. Eu vivo no presente.

G1- Como foi filmar a cena do beijo com Tristan Wilds?
Dakota – Não foi tão estranho assim, pois fizemos esta cena mais no final das filmagens e até lá Tristan e eu já nos conhecíamos bem. Ele é um doce de pessoa. Além do que, esse não foi meu primeiro beijo em filme [risos]. Mas com certeza foi o beijo mais íntimo e romântico que dei no cinema, em função do relacionamento entre os personagens.

G1- Qual seu critério ao escolher um papel?
Dakota – Tenho que me sentir atraída pela personagem e, de preferência, que seja algo diferente dos meus papéis anteriores. Li o livro “A vida secreta das abelhas” há cinco anos, quando fui contratada para fazer o filme. Mas produção ainda não estava pronta para seguir adiante. Foi ótimo, porque assim deu tempo de eu crescer mais um pouquinho [risos]. Fiquei muito atraída pelo fato de ser uma historia que se passa no sul dos Estados Unidos, onde nasci. Consigo me identificar com vários aspectos do livro e do roteiro.  

G1- Antes de começar as filmagens a diretora armou uma situação em que os atores te tratariam bem e nem tanto a Jennifer Hudson, para vocês sentirem na pele a discriminação racial que existia nos anos 60. Como foi essa experiência?
Dakota – Antes de começarem as filmagens, Gina queria criar a situação de discriminação racial quando entrássemos juntas em uma farmácia para colocar a gente no clima. Disse que seria feito de uma maneira respeitosa, mas mesmo assim deu para perceber como nossas vidas teriam sido diferentes se vivêssemos na Carolina do Sul, em 1964. Acho que foi uma excelente ideia, nos ajudou muito.

G1- Durante sua preparação para o papel, você chegou a entrevistar ou conhecer crianças vítimas de abuso?
Dakota – Conheci crianças que sofreram abuso no passado, antes de me preparar para o papel. Durante minhas cenas com Paul Bettany, achei que era especialmente importante para o meu personagem mostrar que ela não se sentia amada pelo pai. Foi um desafio filmar algumas dessas cenas. O Paul era assustador no papel, mas na vida real ele é um doce de pessoa.

G1- Como foi a experiência de lidar com milhares de abelhas em cena? Você foi picada durante as filmagens?
Dakota – Nenhuma vez. Dei sorte, pois Lily era aprendiz de apicultora, portanto ela sempre estava totalmente protegida com o macacão, as luvas e a tela protetora na cabeça. Mas aprendi bastante sobre elas. É impressionante quando você tira a tampa da colméia e encontra 600, 800 mil abelhas… É divertido tentar encontrar a rainha. Eu não tinha a menor ideia e imagino que a maioria das pessoas também não, de como as abelhas trabalham duro, em conjunto com uma finalidade em comum. Acho um excelente paralelo com o filme, onde as pessoas estão divididas em diferentes raças e na colméia, as abelhas trabalham unidas por uma mesma causa.

G1- A vida de Lily tem várias reviravoltas. Você consegue ver algum paralelo em relação a sua própria vida?
Dakota - Acho que a minha passou por grandes mudanças quando comecei a atuar. Tive uma grande oportunidade com apenas 6 anos, quando fiz “Uma lição de amor”. Minha vida seria bem diferente se não tivesse feito esse filme. Sinto-me abençoada pelas oportunidades que tive na infância, que me deram a chance de ingressar em uma vida tão diferente e desde cedo saber o que queria.

http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Cinema/0,,MUL1257866-7086,00-ESTRELA+PRECOCE+DAKOTA+FANNING+TENTA+MANTER+OS+PES+NO+CHAO+EM+HOLLYWOOD.html

Nu ai ce face vineri seara? Ai ce face vineri seara, dar nu ai bani? Ai chef sa vezi filme? [Sau pur si simplu, you need a place to crash!] Vino in noaptea de vineri spre sambata, 13/14 noiembrie la maratonul cinematografic Road Movie. Editia a doua. Proiectia are loc la Casa de Cultura Mihail Ursachi Iasi, incepand cu ora 21.30 si terminand cu ora 6. Intrarea este evident libera!

Ce filme poti vedea:

De la ora 21.30: In to the wild (Sean Penn, 2007, SUA; color, 148 min.)

De la ora 00.20: Los amantes del Circulo Polar (Julio Medem, 1998, Spania/Franta; color, 112 min.)

De la ora 02.30: Duel (Steven Spielberg, 1971, SUA; color, 90 min.)

De la ora 04.10: Leningrad Cowboys go America (Aki Kaurismäki, 1989, Finlanda/Suedia; color, 78 min.)

Imi aduc aminte ca la editia precedenta s-a servit cafea si mancare. Inca un motiv in plus pentru a te duce! Daca ajungi pe acolo iti urez vizionare placuta!

P.S. Din meniu: Cafea, alune, covrigei si (posibil) hamburgeri.

Un film del 2010, regia di Paolo Sorrentino, con Sean Penn. Prodotto da ()

Drammatico

Un divo del rock di mezza età decide di cercare l’uomo che ordinò l’esecuzione di suo padre in un campo di concentramento durante la seconda guerra mondiale. Il criminale nazista è ora un rifugiato e si nasconde negli Stati Uniti.

Un film del 2010, regia di Bobby Farrelly, con Jim Carrey / Sean Penn / Benicio Del Toro. Prodotto da ()

Commedia

Biopic dedicato al tripo comico degli anni ‘30 noto come I tre marmittoni, composto da Moe Howard, suo fratello Curly e Larry Fine.

Um time de atores invejável, um diretor meticuloso e um roteiro baseado em uma história real fazem de “Milk” um dos grandes filmes da história do cinema norte-americano. E, segundo a lista do The Times, um dos grandes filmes da década.

Harvey Milk foi o primeiro gay assumido a ocupar um cargo político nos Estados Unidos, em 1977. Ao lutar pelos direitos civis dos homossexuais foi alvo da intolerância da ala conservadora wasp norte-americana e acabou assassinado quase um ano depois de sua eleição.

Sem dúvida, a grande estrela do filme é Sean Penn. O ator há muito deixou de se caracterizar para fazer um papel. Ao invés disso, ele incorpora as personagens e quase sempre nos premia com atuações intuitivas, impecáveis e emocionantes. Outras interpretações de destaque são dos companheiros de Milk interpretados por James Franco e Diego Luna.

A direção de Gus Van Sant é primorosa na reconstituição de época e na condução do roteiro. Por se tratar de uma história verídica, o trabalho tem uma dificuldade adicional: como o desfecho já é conhecido pelo público, cabe ao diretor envolver os espectadores com outros elementos cênicos que compensem essa informação. E, com muita maestria e um roteiro muito bem encaixado, sua narrativa flui sem dificuldades.

O que fica implícito na obra, pela sua excelente repercussão entre crítica e público, é o início da aceitação da temática homossexual em Hollywood. A primeira conquista foi no ano de 2005, com o premiado O Segredo de Brokeback Mountain. Mas, ainda naquele período, o trabalho de Ang Lee sofreu com a resistência de parte dos espectadores ao romance entre cowboys Ennys e Jack.

O sucesso de Milk denota que a história das personagens em si, ficcionais ou reais, está se tornando mais importante do que sua cor de pele, credo ou opção sexual. Essa é a grande vitória do filme: conseguir espaço nos ambientes mais inóspitos usando a arte como veículo para diluir preconceitos e transformar a realidade.

Filme: Milk – A Voz da Igualdade (Milk)
Diretor: Gus Van Sant
Elenco: Sean Penn, Emile Hirsch, Josh Brolin, Diego Luna, Alison Phil
Duração: 128 minutos

Oscar de Melhor Ator (2008)

Oscar de Melhor Roteiro (2008)

Outros prêmios

Não pisque: Quando Harvey Milk conquista o cargo político desejado.

Veja também:

Os Últimos Passos de Um Homem (1995)

Entre Meninos e Lobos (2003)

Na Natureza Selvagem (2007)

Un film del 2010, regia di Paolo Sorrentino, con Sean Penn. Prodotto da ()

Drammatico

Un divo del rock di mezza età decide di cercare l’uomo che ordinò l’esecuzione di suo padre in un campo di concentramento durante la seconda guerra mondiale. Il criminale nazista è ora un rifugiato e si nasconde negli Stati Uniti.

Un film del 2010, regia di Bobby Farrelly, con Jim Carrey / Sean Penn / Benicio Del Toro. Prodotto da ()

Commedia

Biopic dedicato al tripo comico degli anni ‘30 noto come I tre marmittoni, composto da Moe Howard, suo fratello Curly e Larry Fine.