I admit, while I did actually manage to suffer through The Hobbit sometime around my middle school years, it never stuck with me. Tolkien's writing was more tedious (he needed to learn how to leave a few things to the imagination) than I could have conceived, so I never pressed on to the rest of the LOTR series. I planned on reading them some day, just not then. And not now. But, when my dad insisted that we see the Fellowship of the Ring when it came out in theaters in 2001, I didn't resist. I'm glad. The Lord of the Rings series has become one of my favorite. . . to watch. It is literally the only major series I watched before considering reading. I loved them because they made sense, even though my dad and now, my husband, assures me: Peter Jackson left out A LOT. So, despite how slightly boring the commercials looked, I was excited to watch The Hobbit.
I'll say this--I've never been more shocked.
The acting was great: Sir Ian McKellen (Gandalf) and Martin Freeman (Young Bilbo) have never let me down yet. And Richard Armitage was amazing as Thorin. These are all spectacular actors. The CG (aside from the Orks and Wargs) and special effects are awe inspiring. Looking over the dwarven kingdom in the beginning was jaw dropping--our ability to depict endless dwarven crafting into the mountain really does shock me sometimes. The costuming doesn't look cheesy at all, and the editing was fairly flawless. But. . . there was a problem. The writing. If it hadn't been for the fact that this was a Jackson film about a Tolkien book, I would have walked out. The writing was so contrived that even Gandalf managed to look a fool in the beginning. If Sir Ian McKellen is looking like an idiot, it is through no fault of his own (he managed to make Magneto look impressive and almost scary for God's sake). Whoever wrote the script for The Hobbit should be ashamed. Having never read the LOTR series itself, I still managed to know what end was up by the time credits rolled. Ten minutes into The Hobbit, I was staring at my husband thinking, "Um. . .what?" It was an hour into the movie before we settled back and enjoyed. You know what made it suddenly great?
They stopped talking.
The fight scenes were detailed, the mountain giants made me giggle with glee, and the riddles between Golum and Bilbo were well played--Golum's split personality stood out well (I especially liked the song he sang as he killed the. . . Ork, I think. A nice play on the fish he smashes in The Two Towers). The music was beautiful and powerful, like usual. Whoever scores for these movies is a master (Howard Shore, I believe). I'm still humming the song the dwarves sung in Bilbo's home (not the dishes one, but the one as they sit by the fire. I think it's about the Misty Mountain). And who doesn't recognize the main theme song-- The Fellowship?
Overall. . . I'd have to say: go see the movie in a theater if nothing else because of the sweeping shots of New Zealand, the scenes with the dwarven kingdom. . . and every fight scene within. Suffer through the first hour, and the rest is gold. You will see a connection between The Hobbit and the other LOTR movies in many scenes--like Golum's song, the paths the dwarves and Bilbo take on their quest, and parallel conversations between Bilbo and Gandalf that are similar to ones Frodo and Gandalf have. I did leave the theater with more questions (luckily my hubby was able to fill me in on the LOTR elements and references at least) than answers. I hope the next two movies go a little better. And that they've found some new script writers.
Edit note: I should add that after a conversation with someone who has read The Hobbit who assured me the scriptwriters kept to the book, I need to say this: sometimes, what looks great on paper doesn't translate well to the movie screen. Look at Shawshank Redemption. The movie managed to be way better than the book. If they had kept the script writing word for word, it definitely would have fallen short. Any script writer (or novelist who options their books) will tell you: script writing is very formulaic. It's a totally different form of writing. I'm not saying plots need to change. That's not it at all. I loved the plot of this movie. But the script needed to morph into something that looked better on screen.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Self Reflection Week 2
This week I focused on writing out an interview for those I hope to write about for my documentary piece, as well as finishing my movie review for the week. I'm also in the midst of working on my Time of Day project, as well as looking ahead to finishing my media survey in the next few days. While I do have questions on the Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down assignment, I'll be emailing my professor soon to look for some answers. I'm finding it more difficult than I would have imagined, maintaining a weekly blog post, not to mention keeping up with the reading for this class as well as the several other assignments tasked us (on top of the other classes I have homework for). Perhaps I'm allowing my lazy side to emerge too often these days.
As far as difficulties...not only is it hard for me to keep up with the weekly blog (tsk tsk lazy me), but I am finding it hard to keep my writing to a minimum in the reviews. I literally could write pages about this last one--the Tudors. There is so much I left out, I feel like I haven't properly reviewed it at all. But the longer the blog post became, I started to wonder: how do movie reviewers do it? How do they keep the word count down and yet maintain a feeling of completion? That will be something I definitely need to work on in the future...as well as being able to keep to a deadline!
I still worry and hope for the collaborative projects coming up. All in all, it has been an interesting week. Can't wait for class on Friday.
As far as difficulties...not only is it hard for me to keep up with the weekly blog (tsk tsk lazy me), but I am finding it hard to keep my writing to a minimum in the reviews. I literally could write pages about this last one--the Tudors. There is so much I left out, I feel like I haven't properly reviewed it at all. But the longer the blog post became, I started to wonder: how do movie reviewers do it? How do they keep the word count down and yet maintain a feeling of completion? That will be something I definitely need to work on in the future...as well as being able to keep to a deadline!
I still worry and hope for the collaborative projects coming up. All in all, it has been an interesting week. Can't wait for class on Friday.
The Tudors
It's difficult to believe "Hollywood" hasn't tried this before. I
can see it now--the directors, producers, writers at Showtime sitting around a
table thinking...hmmm...what hasn't been done before? Alien robots, tween
vampires, zombie invasions...
"Wait," says the unassuming assistant in the background, hand wavering in the air. "There was this neat period of time I learned about in history class...there's this guy, um...Henry the Eighth, or something?" He would press on, despite the incredulous looks shot his way. What's this, someone wanting to film something based on history? "He uh...he had a lot of affairs. And cut off a lot of people's heads. And um, some history and stuff happened on the way? So, like, we've already got the romantic part figured out. I'm sure that France had something to do with it. And Henry was like, this King so...maybe there is something to it?"
Okay, okay, I have no idea how Showtime came up with the idea for The Tudors. From the creator Michael Hurst, The Tudors stars Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Henry Cavill and Anthony Brophy. The guest list for this four season affair are too numerous to list, but I must mention one to make a later point--Sam Neill stars as Cardinal Wolsey. Having heard nothing but good (from my husband included, who has watched all 38 episodes) about the show, I decided to use the first episode as a review for this week's blog post. I was impressed. The writing was witty, the camera direction could have been considered the comic relief, and the acting was beyond commendable, down to the last squire. What is so fascinating to me about this show is how historically accurate it is. Showtime didn't need to 'Hollywood' it up because for once... English history was so interesting, some people don't believe it's true. Romantic affairs, beheadings, murderous plots, treachery, betrayal, insanity, more beheadings... what more can a TV show ask for? Apparently, a lot. After only four seasons, which was just long enough to (according to my husband) go through the fates of his wives, recognize the toddler Elizabeth the First, and and show Henry's slow decent into madness. Regardless of the reason, this show has me captivated. I might actually learn something...that sticks with me!
This first episode opens with the French murdering Henry's uncle, an ambassador in France. Thus begins the plot line of Henry's debate: war or peace with France? Other plot lines, like the Duke of Buckingham's future attempt on Henry’s life and the first appearance of Anne Bolin begin as well. The main focus, though, is Henry’s relations with France. After hearing on the death of his uncle, Henry calls for war. Flashes of the King’s affairs give the viewer just enough to understand—this king is a player. Not only does he manage to bed both of his Queen’s chambermaids, but we discover that one of them is pregnant. He does not visit his wife’s bedchamber. The Queen, while having dinner with her husband, urges him to write back to the King of Spain—her nephew—who wishes to align with Henry against France. She begs him not to give ear to Cardinal Wolsey who appears to favor a French alliance. Henry makes it clear that he is not interested in a wife with an opinion and rebuffs her plea to attend her room like he once used to. Cardinal Wolsey appears on the scene with an idea for Henry; do not go to war, instead, make peace. Playing on Henry’s need for power and immortality, he tells his King that this treaty with France would be one of universal peace as well as the beginning of pan-European institutions. He would be the architect of the new and modern world. Henry agrees eagerly, happy to save his kingdom money and the sorrow of war. Toward the end of the episode, the viewer is introduced to an interesting character… to those who know the names of Henry’s wives. Thomas Bolin enters as England’s new ambassador to France. He gives Henry information on the French King over dinner, as well as the hint at the goodness and virtue of his daughters.
The actors in this episode were flawless, as I said, down to the last squire. The only man I had trouble accepting was Cardinal Wolsey (Sam Neill). He will forever be Dr. Alan Grant from the Jurassic Park movies. He is the only one who has trouble meshing time periods—all the others I easily believe to be sixteenth century characters… but from Wolsey, I feel the modern day man emerge. Call me crazy, but I just feel like Dr. Grant is suddenly wearing some very long robes and has acquired a nasty temper.
That being said, I have to comment on the camera work and editing. With a quick eye, the viewer is able to see The Tudors through a third-person omniscient perspective. Cut scenes during dinner between Catharine and Henry show the jealously on Lady Blunt’s (one of the King’s lovers) face. The look of loathing on Buckingham’s face while Henry walks away. The fresh whip marks on Sir Thomas More’s back. The sly smiles from Charles Brandon and Buckingham’s daughter when caught having sex. The small pieces shown by the camera do more than just let us know what people are thinking without having to hear them say it…it allows the viewer to become more intimate and familiar with the characters. In one episode, I feel heartbroken for Queen Catharine, I despise Lady Blunt, and I am not impressed with the young Henry the Eighth. He seems more like a man-whore who is only interested in his own honor than invested in the good of his kingdom. One episode made me want many more—and that is the point. Even the music is mostly period; trumpets, snare drum… and very, very dramatic. I love the theme song. It makes you just know you are watching a show about Kings.
I recommend The Tudors to anyone reading this. . . even to those who aren’t reading this. Watching the Tudors is the most fun I’ve had being educated on history.
"Wait," says the unassuming assistant in the background, hand wavering in the air. "There was this neat period of time I learned about in history class...there's this guy, um...Henry the Eighth, or something?" He would press on, despite the incredulous looks shot his way. What's this, someone wanting to film something based on history? "He uh...he had a lot of affairs. And cut off a lot of people's heads. And um, some history and stuff happened on the way? So, like, we've already got the romantic part figured out. I'm sure that France had something to do with it. And Henry was like, this King so...maybe there is something to it?"
Okay, okay, I have no idea how Showtime came up with the idea for The Tudors. From the creator Michael Hurst, The Tudors stars Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Henry Cavill and Anthony Brophy. The guest list for this four season affair are too numerous to list, but I must mention one to make a later point--Sam Neill stars as Cardinal Wolsey. Having heard nothing but good (from my husband included, who has watched all 38 episodes) about the show, I decided to use the first episode as a review for this week's blog post. I was impressed. The writing was witty, the camera direction could have been considered the comic relief, and the acting was beyond commendable, down to the last squire. What is so fascinating to me about this show is how historically accurate it is. Showtime didn't need to 'Hollywood' it up because for once... English history was so interesting, some people don't believe it's true. Romantic affairs, beheadings, murderous plots, treachery, betrayal, insanity, more beheadings... what more can a TV show ask for? Apparently, a lot. After only four seasons, which was just long enough to (according to my husband) go through the fates of his wives, recognize the toddler Elizabeth the First, and and show Henry's slow decent into madness. Regardless of the reason, this show has me captivated. I might actually learn something...that sticks with me!
This first episode opens with the French murdering Henry's uncle, an ambassador in France. Thus begins the plot line of Henry's debate: war or peace with France? Other plot lines, like the Duke of Buckingham's future attempt on Henry’s life and the first appearance of Anne Bolin begin as well. The main focus, though, is Henry’s relations with France. After hearing on the death of his uncle, Henry calls for war. Flashes of the King’s affairs give the viewer just enough to understand—this king is a player. Not only does he manage to bed both of his Queen’s chambermaids, but we discover that one of them is pregnant. He does not visit his wife’s bedchamber. The Queen, while having dinner with her husband, urges him to write back to the King of Spain—her nephew—who wishes to align with Henry against France. She begs him not to give ear to Cardinal Wolsey who appears to favor a French alliance. Henry makes it clear that he is not interested in a wife with an opinion and rebuffs her plea to attend her room like he once used to. Cardinal Wolsey appears on the scene with an idea for Henry; do not go to war, instead, make peace. Playing on Henry’s need for power and immortality, he tells his King that this treaty with France would be one of universal peace as well as the beginning of pan-European institutions. He would be the architect of the new and modern world. Henry agrees eagerly, happy to save his kingdom money and the sorrow of war. Toward the end of the episode, the viewer is introduced to an interesting character… to those who know the names of Henry’s wives. Thomas Bolin enters as England’s new ambassador to France. He gives Henry information on the French King over dinner, as well as the hint at the goodness and virtue of his daughters.
The actors in this episode were flawless, as I said, down to the last squire. The only man I had trouble accepting was Cardinal Wolsey (Sam Neill). He will forever be Dr. Alan Grant from the Jurassic Park movies. He is the only one who has trouble meshing time periods—all the others I easily believe to be sixteenth century characters… but from Wolsey, I feel the modern day man emerge. Call me crazy, but I just feel like Dr. Grant is suddenly wearing some very long robes and has acquired a nasty temper.
That being said, I have to comment on the camera work and editing. With a quick eye, the viewer is able to see The Tudors through a third-person omniscient perspective. Cut scenes during dinner between Catharine and Henry show the jealously on Lady Blunt’s (one of the King’s lovers) face. The look of loathing on Buckingham’s face while Henry walks away. The fresh whip marks on Sir Thomas More’s back. The sly smiles from Charles Brandon and Buckingham’s daughter when caught having sex. The small pieces shown by the camera do more than just let us know what people are thinking without having to hear them say it…it allows the viewer to become more intimate and familiar with the characters. In one episode, I feel heartbroken for Queen Catharine, I despise Lady Blunt, and I am not impressed with the young Henry the Eighth. He seems more like a man-whore who is only interested in his own honor than invested in the good of his kingdom. One episode made me want many more—and that is the point. Even the music is mostly period; trumpets, snare drum… and very, very dramatic. I love the theme song. It makes you just know you are watching a show about Kings.
I recommend The Tudors to anyone reading this. . . even to those who aren’t reading this. Watching the Tudors is the most fun I’ve had being educated on history.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
American Psycho
I sit in bed and stare at my laptop screen, a pencil in my hand and a blanket up to my chin. Drops of blood plink down as credits flash by, accentuated by an orchestral strum. American Psycho, released in 2000, was directed by Mary Harron. Christian Bale, Reese Witherspoon, and Willam Defoe star in this (what I now realize) statement on American consumerism. As I watch the drops of blood turn into paint, the credits flash by. I realize that this is one of the few movies I've ever gone into knowing absolutely nothing about the plot. All I have to go on is the image of the DVD cover--an angry Christian Bale face next to a knife which reflects a rather slutty looking woman. What I did not expect was the horror I would feel simply by listening to Bale's voice, the shock that held my pencil unmoving for the entirety of the movie. Nor did I expect the confusion that tilted my head the last five minutes of the film. What began as a tedious narrative from Patrick Bateman (Bale) quickly turned into a nightmare of realization--this wasn't a normal man who went crazy. This was a man who understood his blood lust, his lack of human emotion and was able to control the release of his desires. It was the attempt at being "normal" that drove him into the arms of random killing.
American Psycho is narrated by Patrick Bateman, a yuppie in the middle of New York who relishes the 1980's culture that surrounds him. When the film begins, Batemen is seen in the shower as he depicts his morning exfoliating routine. The nice image of Bale's naked bum is ruined by the cocky, monotonous drone of the narrative--just a few sentences into the scene and I have this man pegged as a rich jackass. It isn't until he proclaims, "I am simply not there," that I become intrigued. I try to keep this statement in the back of my mind through the first 20 minutes of the film as I struggle to suppress the feeling of disappointment. . . until I realize Bale isn't actually doing a bad job of acting--he's doing a very good job of acting like a man who feels no emotion but is attempting to appear normal. Bateman goes through life as though playing a video game: to succeed at being normal, to succeed at life, he obsesses over the smallest details. He becomes enraged over having a business card that is just 'okay.' Having an apartment that is not as nice as the one belonging to his next victim causes him extreme stress. As he tells his 'supposed' fiance (Witherspoon), "I just want to fit in." To be, or have, less than the best means that he has lost. In order to continue with his extra curricular activities (you know, killing people), he must win at convincing people of his normality. After murdering a coworker and having violent sex with two prostitutes, Bateman appears to spiral into a violent depression. An investigator, Donald Kimbull (Dafoe) pokes around Bateman, investigating the death of the coworker--his appearance alone seems to begin to unhinge the killer. He loses control of his violent impulses, and after breaking up with his fiance, beings shooting people on the street. After blowing up a couple cop cars, he calls his lawyer and confesses; "I've killed 20, no, maybe 40 people. . . I've lost count!" Despite this confession made in hysterics, Bateman runs into his lawyer the next day who appears to believe it all some kind of a joke. I'll leave the ending as a bit of a surprise. . . because I'm not entirely sure what happens. What does seem to happen is this: Bateman confesses not only to the lawyer, but to others throughout the film of his violent intentions...but no one believes him. If that's not a comment on the self centered society of America, I don't know what is. Bateman ends the movie stating that none of it meant...anything.
And there in lies the big plot hole. I didn't discuss Dafoe's character much, but the fact is this: if Bateman had really wanted to be caught, telling the private detective would have been the way to go. His confession sure would have meant something at that point.
This movie far exceeded my expectations (mostly because I didn't really have any to begin with). Bale, who from the Batman movies has convinced me that he does have some talent, blew me away. Of course, it was all a matter of prospective. It took me understanding the character he was conveying--one without a handle on actual human emotion--to get that he wasn't sounding like a man who didn't know his way around a movie script. He was trying to sound exactly that. Witherspoon's roll paled in comparison as she rarely exceeds the bounds of her acting skill: the typical blonde, egocentric woman about to succeed...at getting married. Dafoe is always a delight, though it did strike me that he has played the roll of detective quite a lot in his acting career.
As for the other aspects of the film, music in particular, I barely noticed. The acting and the plot held me in such raptures that it was difficult to focus on the 80's music Bateman loved to review or the orchestral intervals. I think that the music did what it was supposed to do: stay out of the way. I didn't catch any editing or filming techniques that could have captured a scene in any particular way, those aspects were unremarkable. Again, the plot is what kept me riveted. It did not need the help of inventive camera angles.
In conclusion...this is a brilliant movie, and I definitely recommend it, though I may never watch it again. The uncomfortable feeling that gripped me throughout the film is not something I want to experience anytime soon, but in this case, that is a good thing. The movie conveyed Bateman's lack of feeling, his fascination with killing so well, that I have no desire to subject myself to that experience again. Being in the mind of a serial killer is like sitting through a documentary on concentration camps. You know it happened, you are sympathetic, but you don't want to feel like you are standing in line for your turn on the train.
Self Reflection Week 1
Considering the fact that I will be posting this self-reflection article before my movie review of American Psycho says a lot about this last weekend. Writing online is harder for me than writing on paper--I guess I'm a little old fashioned. I have my own blog, one I've used for two years now. But I usually use it to discuss my progress in writing, or to showcase writing I have done. I also have never been assigned to write for a blog on a schedule, so this is a new experience. I've been working on my movie review, which is half done and will be finished tonight. I'm looking forward to reading the reviews others in the class have done and what movies they have chosen. A part of me feels like I should try and write out my submission before typing it on Blogger...but I'm attempting to get used to the feel of typing out thoughts as they come, instead of using the time manual writing allows me to formulate my statements. It is a difficult process. Considering that this is the first post, I don't have a lot more to report on. I'm looking forward to interviewing my person for the documentary I'd like to pitch, as well as to my classmates' ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)