A young woman in San Francisco prepares to change her identity and disappear. Through flashbacks and narrated pseudo-science we learn that, as a young mother and widow, she suffered an automobile accident that removed from her DNA the ability to age. She has remained physically 29 years old from 1937 to the present day. This has not been a blessing to her, as she cannot risk any lasting relationships, and must change her identity regularly. Only her daughter, now old enough to pose as her grandmother, knows her secret.
This is a beautiful movie that proceeds at a leisurely pace while the camera makes love to the best city in the world. I have some complaints about the two male characters’ behavior, but they are completely realistic. There is some fine material for the history buffs, and when the film enters matters of the heart, it is believable and affecting. As an incurable romantic, I highly recommend this movie.
Understandably rendered an old fool
Age of Adaline, 2015; Blake Lively, Michiel Huisman, Harrison Ford, Ellen Burstyn
I had only seen Keira Knightley in Pirates of the Caribbean and therefore did not know she could act. Turns out, in this title rôle, she pretty much could, as she led the classic tale everyone knows except yours truly, who had a relatively experimental education in 1970s Berkeley, CA, and never had to read any classics. I had no idea therefore that Alexei Karenin was a cold and emotionless creature. I only knew he never smiled, and was shockingly permissive for a man (much less an important Russian man) of the 1870s. I was particularly interested when he forgave Vronsky for his affair with his wife while they both wept over her ailing body. It was the same moment experienced by modern husbands when their intention towards polyamory is suddenly thrust out of book theory and into practice. The recurring theme of marital love encompassing and forgiving extra-marital love is a very modern theme, and ties the timeless Christian intention of unconditional love to its modern counterpart in blended and extended families. Of course, Karenin was no modern, and when the price of their sin caught up with them, he returned to an unforgiving propriety, and neither Anna nor her dashing lover reaped more than ashes.
The truest star in this film was in the setting. The entire film took place in a sort of extended stage set, as though performed in a great theater that for all its grandeur could not contain it. Scenes were shifted as actors moved, stage lights flared, and action moved into the shops and flyspaces. It was truly a delight to watch.
Keira Knightley acts as though glancing prettily over her shoulder
Anna Karenina, 2012; Keira Knightley, Jude Law, Aaron Taylor-Johnson
A Little Chaos (2014; Kate Winslet, Matthias Schoenaerts, Alan Rickman) was an absolutely fabulous movie to watch even on a little laptop next to my own lovely provider of same; perhaps even more so. The title comes from Sabine de Barra's relatively unconventional approach to landscape architecture, which is an issue initially when she is contracted to design a portion of the garden at Versaille. Winslet plays a beautiful, tortured, strong, and talented woman of the seventeenth century, and Rickman plays Louis XIV with an understated world-weary cynicism as only Rickman can. The court that follows the king is gorgeously passive-aggressive, and the master architect that Winslet falls for is gratifyingly likable. I enjoyed this one a lot. (I'm a sucker for period dramas, granted.)
Erased (2012; Aaron Eckhardt, Liana Liberato) was just starting when I came downstairs. The women had ordered it and settled in for a relaxing couple hours of couch tuberosity so I took my place just after "something bad" had happened. Ben Logan (Eckhardt) was an expat getting to know his teenaged daughter while being the main engineering expert at a high-tech security firm in Brussels. There were some nice lab shots and tense undercurrents and after almost killing his child by feeding her peanuts (not much of a dad) and spending the night with her in the hospital, he went back to work to find the place completely emptied out and all his coworkers missing. Pretty soon he's dragging his daughter around the low countries, trying to solve the mystery while dodging assassins and the police, all the while establishing healthy father-daughter bonds by patching bullet wounds, killing people with his bare hands, etc.
The plot was a remix of whatever they stole the Bourne movies from, the attempts at snappy dialog were kyped from whoever filled the pulp pages when Mickey Spillane was on vacation, and the emotional moments between parent and child mainly consisted either of her being mad at him for not telling her he knew how to kill people, or the two of them running into each other's arms yet again after being separated by the action. The main villain was a super-rich industrialist with bad old-person skin (this is how you knew he was evil), and the supporting characters mostly either "good" CIA (have a conscience) or "bad" CIA (do not -- and I might have good and bad mixed up).
Don't worry, everyone's fine
Side note: There's a moment five or ten minutes in that takes place in Antwerp and I swear it looks like Alan Hope walking by.
I'm posting some short entries from the journal I keep for a class called Wild Wild West. It's a film analysis class that centers around westerns, natch. Despite that, I think there are topics raised that can be of interest to anyone who likes to delve into film, regardless of their feelings about westerns in particular. I'm mainly doing this in the hopes that the ensuing discussions will help me generate a topic for the long paper due at the course's end. Please share your thoughts!
Naturally, as I write these for the class I write them with the knowledge that the professor has SEEN the films. That shouldn't always matter, however, to the ideas I bring up. You know me - always looking for the abstract angle.
I’ve often said that people who hate westerns don’t really understand what westerns are about (especially those who hate westerns but love Star Wars, a western in sci-fi clothing). Rather than just rustic, violent stories about men who work with steers, I see a reflection of most Americans' most flattering and untrue images of themselves.
In most westerns, you can find a variation on one basic theme. People are struggling for their lives, their rights, or both. They have to deal with their problems themselves; either there is no authority to go to, authority is beyond reach, or the protagonists are the authorities and thus are responsible for the situation themselves. In the western, the hero stands on his own two feet and makes no apologies for doing what needs to be done.
Americans are raised with that attitude to some degree. The little kid that runs to his mommy or the teacher every time there is a conflict is not respected by his peers. We all reach a point when help is denied in an effort to teach us self-reliance. Afterward, we pride ourselves on our ability to do things for ourselves, to take the bull by the horns. The frontier itself stands for such do-it-yourselfness. Anything a man had on the frontier, he had because he got it for himself.
On the other hand, that same self-reliant toddler likes to know that mommy is available when things exceed his ability to cope. Societies like that as well; few of us feel confident to deal with fires, floods, or armed maniacs without trained and equipped authorities to help. Religion by its very nature requires submission to a greater authority, even while simultaneously telling us that God helps those who help themselves.
Given that, it’s easy to see the appeal of The Magnificent Seven. As members of a developed society with 911 at our disposal, we can relate to the villagers, even if we don’t really want to. They need help with something that is beyond their means, and seek men who know how to deal with it. Sometimes, as we do ourselves, they distrust the same authorities they call upon. We can also, however, imagine ourselves in the gunfighter’s shoes where we would like to be – cool, in control, and capable. The one that people come to for help- the professional. The Magnificent Seven gives us both our reality and our fantasy in one neat package. In the end, however, it assures us that it is the villagers – the people who we relate to in reality, like it or not – who are the only ones to win.
I was satisfied with the explanation of changes to the back story. The canonical history is no longer canon and that's okay.
But is no one else bothered by the idea of a fresh Academy grad captaining a starship? Sure, he has talent and instincts. But without years as a junior officer making his way through the ranks, serving as mate here, captaining a smaller ship there, he is surely set up for career failure. Same for the others. That they all take their familiar roles bang out of school is a serious distraction from an otherwise quality reinterpretation of one of our current world's most enduring myths.
My favorite class this semester has been Technical Intro to Video Production, which is just what it sounds like - basic film making. I've really enjoyed the creative outlet this class has provided as well as the hands-on approach. I'm sorry that this is the only such class available to film minors, because I'd really like to expand on what I've learned.
Our first few weeks were spent learning the basics and getting into groups. No one in our group was experienced in this at all, so we had to figure out how to use the cameras (with no manuals) and so on and so forth from scratch.
We began to do one project a week. The first was simple Edison/Lumiere type stuff to show that we could actually point a camera at something and let light into it. The next few weeks were spent with exercises in different types of shots, different camera angles/movements, and various vectors. Most of them did not have storylines and the one that did isn't worth reviewing. In fact, I don't have copies of those early projects.
This film is the first one where nothing in particular was requested, but we had to show several things that we'd learned by then. We had one week to do it, and of course we all had other classes and lives, so the whole thing,throughout the week, was cobbled together over six or seven hours total. We did all the shooting in one afternoon, with few second takes. This is the second project where we had to edit, and the first where we put a lot of work into it. We not only edited the scenes together, but we also replaced all the sound with music and "special effects." We still were kind of groping in the dark, though, as will be obvious to you when you see the title!!!!! You see, while editing is essential to success in this class,it isn't actually part of the curriculum, so we had to figure it out with minimal instruction. Whee! It was fun and the professor was impressed with the progress we'd made since the lame early projects from just a few weeks before when we were still figuring the camera out.
The next project will be done in a couple weeks and has been in progress for over a month. It has a lot more time and effort going into it, but I'll talk about that when I have it finished and can post it.
In the meantime, here is my directorial debut, No Smoking.
Here it is, folks: Your top actor and actress, who will compete against each other for the March Movie Madness 2009 Crown.
In the first game we had the original Method Man, whose deliveries of "Hey, Stella!" and "I shoulda been a contenduh" have become two of the most imitated lines in film history, Marlon Brando, vs. the man who drinks your milkshake, asks you to stay alive no matter what occurs, taps his glass eye with the point of a knife, does amazing things with his left foot and does everything in the name of the father, Daniel Day-Lewis. And the winner is...
Marlon Brando 3 Daniel Day-Lewis 7
The second game pitted Joanna Kramer/Sophie Zawistowski/Karen Silkwood/Karen Blixen/Francesca Johnson/Susan Orlean/Clarissa Vaughan/Miranda Priestly/Donna Sheridan/Sister Aloysius Beauvier against Alice Adams/Susan Vance/Tracy Lord/Tess Harding/Amanda Bonner/Rose Sayer/Christina Drayton/Eleanor of Aquitaine/Ethel Thayer on Spencer Tracy's 109th birthday. And the winner is...
Meryl Streep 15 Katharine Hepburn 4
STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 5 (first number is round 1 score, on to round 5 score, then total so far -- bolded names are those who correctly picked both the final actor and actress) Steph 25 20 20 18 16 99 Paula O. 26 26 20 12 8 92 Kirk 26 18 20 12 16 92 Brad 27 26 20 18 0 91 Dave S. 26 18 12 18 16 90 Nat 21 24 20 12 8 85 Keith 26 22 16 12 8 84 Robin 25 18 20 12 8 83 Paticus 23 18 20 18 0 79 Ross 23 16 12 12 16 79 O'Tim 24 22 20 12 0 78 John 25 20 16 6 8 75 James 22 10 12 12 16 72 Alan 24 14 12 12 8 70 Julie 22 18 16 6 8 70 Jim M. 24 14 16 6 8 68 Cody 21 12 20 12 0 65 Dave B. 21 16 16 12 0 65 Emma S. 21 16 16 12 0 65 Jorge 25 18 8 6 8 65 Tanya 26 20 12 6 0 64 Paula L 27 18 12 6 0 64 Harris 24 14 12 6 8 64 Jim R. 22 18 12 6 0 58 Nancy 20 16 8 6 8 58 Michelle 18 10 8 6 8 50 Bahar 22 12 8 6 0 48 PJ 21 14 12 0 0 47 Delmer 20 12 12 0 0 44 Sheri 20 10 8 0 0 38
And Stephanie makes a huge push, picking both final actors correctly for the maximum 16 points in that round, while the Brad train, having enjoyed the lead spot throughout the entire tournament, comes to a screeching halt because his final picks were Marlon Brando vs. Cate Blanchett. That said, Stephanie hasn't been crowned yet -- this tournament will come down to the final shot!
On a side note, I did want to take this opportunity to point out that THE MICHIGAN STATE SPARTANS ARE PLAYING FOR THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP TOMORROW NIGHT! Unless you have some twisted allegiance to the University of North Carolina, ROOT FOR MSU!
I now return you to your regularly scheduled Movie Madness. The final results will be posted tomorrow.
Okay, after getting incredibly complicated in deciding to change up how I determine winners for the Final Four, I since decided to keep things the way I'd originally intended and just count the votes that were still alive. I apologize for the rigamarole; after thinking more about it, I decided that changing thing mid-tournament wouldn't exactly be fair. So thanks to those of you who responded to my emails, but in the end I didn't even tally them.
So... your Final Four.
REEVES REGION Marlon Brando 8 Dustin Hoffman 6
KUCHER REGION Paul Newman 5 Daniel Day-Lewis 8
LOHAN REGION Meryl Streep 20 Jodie Foster 2
ANDERSON REGION Katharine Hepburn 9 Audrey Hepburn 2
STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 4 (first number is round 1 score, then round 2 score, then round 3 score, the round 4 score, then total so far) Brad 27 26 20 18 91 Paula O. 26 26 20 12 84 Steph 25 20 20 18 83 Paticus 23 18 20 18 79 O'Tim 24 22 20 12 78 Nat 21 24 20 12 77 Keith 26 22 16 12 76 Kirk 26 18 20 12 76 Robin 25 18 20 12 75 Dave S. 26 18 12 18 74 John 25 20 16 6 67 Cody 21 12 20 12 65 Dave B. 21 16 16 12 65 Emma S. 21 16 16 12 65 Tanya 26 20 12 6 64 Paula L 27 18 12 6 64 Ross 23 16 12 12 63 Alan 24 14 12 12 62 Julie 22 18 16 6 62 Jim M. 24 14 16 6 60 Jim R. 22 18 12 6 58 Jorge 25 18 8 6 57 Harris 24 14 12 6 56 James 22 10 12 12 56 Nancy 20 16 8 6 50 Bahar 22 12 8 6 48 PJ 21 14 12 0 47 Delmer 20 12 12 0 44 Michelle 18 10 8 6 42 Sheri 20 10 8 0 38
Brad extended his lead to 7 this round, but he's by no means run away with a victory. As a matter of fact, 5-6 people still have a chance of winning it all. So make sure you let Brad know he better be looking over his shoulder. Also of note is that Nancy has once again moved ahead of PJ...
Once again, the majority of the matches weren't really close, though there were three that came down to the wire: Newman vs. DeNiro, Day-Lewis vs. Nicholson and Bergman vs. Audrey Hepburn. Here are the results:
REEVES REGION Brando 12 O'Toole 2
Penn 5 Hoffman 14
LOHAN REGION Streep 25 Davis 1
Foster 16 Taylor 3
KUCHER REGION Newman 10 DeNiro 7
Day-Lewis 12 Nicholson 9
ANDERSON REGION K. Hepburn 13 Blanchett 7
Bergman 6 A. Hepburn 7
STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 3 (first number is round 1 score, then round 2 score, then round 3 score, then total so far) Brad 27 26 20 73 Paula O. 26 26 20 72 O'Tim 24 22 20 66 Nat 21 24 20 65 Steph 25 20 20 65 Keith 26 22 16 64 Kirk 26 18 20 64 Robin 25 18 20 63 John 25 20 16 61 Paticus 23 18 20 61 Tanya 26 20 12 58 Paula L 27 18 12 57 Dave S. 26 18 12 56 Julie 22 18 16 56 Jim M. 24 14 16 54 Cody 21 12 20 53 Dave B. 21 16 16 53 Emma S. 21 16 16 53 Jim R. 22 18 12 52 Jorge 25 18 8 51 Ross 23 16 12 51 Alan 24 14 12 50 Harris 24 14 12 50 PJ 21 14 12 47 Nancy 20 16 8 44 Delmer 20 12 12 44 James 22 10 12 44 Bahar 22 12 8 42 Sheri 20 10 8 38 Michelle 18 10 8 36
Now for the big news: I'm altering how I determine the winning actor/actress from here on out. At least, I'm modifying it. This is because as the tournament winds down, fewer and fewer votes determine a winner. So look for an email from me to you and only you. In it I will ask you to choose the best actor/actress from the remaining pairings. That way more people will determine which actor/actress moves on. Caveat: You won't be asked about a match-up if you currently have a chance to win that match-up, i.e., if you correctly picked Brando and Hoffman last round, and have chosen Brando to move on, you've already cast your vote. Even if you picked Brando vs. Penn and picked Brando to win, you've already cast your vote. If, however, you've picked Penn to win that match-up (something that cannot happen), I'll ask you to pick between Brando and Hoffman.
Yes, that all sounded much more confusing than it really is. Just answer the email I send you and trust me.
Brad is still holding onto his lead, but barely as Paula O matches his blistering 26-point second round score to remain within a mere point of him. Then there's Keith alone at 48, and a cluster of folks at 45 and 46. It's still anybody's game!
POINTS AFTER ROUND 2 (first number is round 1 score, then round 2 score, then total so far) Brad 27 26 53 Paula O 26 26 52 Keith 26 22 48 Tanya 26 20 46 O'Tim 24 22 46 John 25 20 45 Steph 25 20 45 Paula L 27 18 45 Nat 21 24 45 Dave S 26 18 44 Kirk 26 18 44 Jorge 25 18 43 Robin 25 18 43 Paticus 23 18 41 Jim R 22 18 40 Julie 22 18 40 Ross 23 16 39 Alan 24 14 38 Harris 24 14 38 Jim M 24 14 38 Dave B 21 16 37 Emma S 21 16 37 Nancy 20 16 36 PJ 21 14 35 Bahar 22 12 34 Cody 21 12 33 James 22 10 32 Delmer 20 12 32 Sheri 20 10 30 Michelle 18 10 28
Now it's really starting to get interesting. Loved the conversation in the last post. Wonder what this will bring?
Once again the actor who got the most votes wins the match. In the event of a tie, the higher seed moves on. The inconsistency in total votes now is because if you voted for an actor who was knocked out in the first round (say, Clint Eastwood) your vote won't count.
KEANU REEVES REGION
Marlon Brando 16 Cary Grant 3
Robert Downey Jr. 7 Peter O'Toole 7 (tie goes to O'Toole!)
POINTS AFTER ROUND 1 27 Brad 27 Paula L. 26 Dave S. 26 Keith 26 Kirk 26 Paula O. 26 Tanya 25 John 25 Jorge 25 Robin 25 Stephanie 24 Alan 24 Harris 24 Jim M. 24 O'Tim 23 Paticus 23 Ross 22 Bahar 22 James 22 Jim R. 22 Julie 21 Cody Bones 21 Dave B. 21 Emma S. 21 Nat 21 PJ 20 Delmer 20 Nancy 20 Sheri 18 Michelle
Comments have been sparse, to say the least. 30 people in this thing and Teacake, who isn't even participating this year, has commented more than 20 of them. Come on, people!
For Round 2, each correct pick will get you two points. Round 2 results will be up Friday!
