Sabbatical

Be back perhaps in November...

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Based on the short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald

Writer(s): Eric Roth, Robin Swicord
Director: David Fincher
Director of Photography: Claudio Miranda
Editor(s): Kirk Baxter, Angus Wall
Composer: Alexandre Desplat
Lead Actor: Brad Pitt
Year: 2008

How do I tackle, in a review, a film as epic as this? By epic, the meaning is not large in terms of sets, crowds, action, but in terms of commenting on the grand scheme of life. The charming way in which the film portrays the forward motion of life, whether it goes in reverse or not.

Benjamin Button was born old and grew younger as his days progressed. He was played nearly the whole way through by Brad Pitt, who, in my opinion, was well cast. The melancholy voice he developed, the far away look, and the glint in his eyes suited him well for the part. Even through the makeup and the CGI, facial expressions and diminutive performances were able to come through in the most powerfully subtle ways. Although many times, performance was intentionally just one or two degrees over the top.

Cate Blanchett plays Daisy, the girl who captures Benjamin’s heart from first meeting. Daisy is intrigued by Benjamin but soon finds herself caught up in the hustle and bustle and cares of life. Through growing up in an old peoples home, Benjamin watched as one by one, people died off. He began to realize how nothing lasts. And once more, he finds this with his relationship with Daisy. And then his mother. And then his daughter.

It was a bad choice to give the young daisy Cate Blanchett’s voice. It did not work. The distraction it evoked far outweighed the novelty of it. They were likely way to close to that particular aspect that they let technology’s pros and cons get in the way of what works and makes sense in the broad scheme. In my opinion they should have gone with the young actress’ voice. And besides, voices change so much over time, it would have been completely believable and natural. It at least would be more natural than trying to force Blanchett’s voice on her.

Aside from that, technology was used to the film’s advantage. In fact, in a lot of ways, it was technology, and only technology, that made this film possible. One doesn’t have to be distracted by odd and unnatural things, allowing them to better follow the story. Achieving this continuity and ‘look’ was not easy and the filmmakers went to great lengths to combine all the elements to make one seamless piece, while still preserving the heart of it.

One of my favorite things about this movie, perhaps not surprisingly, is the musical score. What I think is Desplat’s best score to date, ebbs and flows with an elegance and simplicity that suits the picture well, but also can stand solidly by itself. The structure and instrumentation used is testament to the brilliance of the composer. It is simple. Nothing overpowers, and no timbre gets lost. Everything is there for a reason, at the precise time it should be. I have the Criterion Collection DVD which has a great segment on the music. Made me appreciate it all the more, even though I had over 320 plays on the soundtrack prior to watching the movie.

The settings were another thing I loved about the film. The whole idea of revolving around New Orleans was unique and special, from the house, to the blacks, to the jazz. It was one of those elements that make a movie memorable and give it character.

Personally, I think the story would have been fine without the adolescent Benjamin. Toddler and baby, that’s fine. But I think the 5-8 minutes on the 6-12 year old Benjamins could have been better spent on something else.

I think this film had near perfect pacing. Perhaps that can be a tribute to life. How there is a reason for what happens and when it happens, which The Curious Case of Benjamin Button so eloquently and imaginatively tells, showing us that life can only be understood backward, but it must be lived forwards. It doesn’t shove its message down your throat, but gives you time to observe it for yourself.

The Thin Red Line

Writer: Terrence Malick
Director: Terrence Malick
Director of Photography: John Toll
Editor: Billy Weber, Leslie Jones
Composer: Hans Zimmer
Lead Actors: Jim Caviezel, Sean Penn, Elias Koteas
Year: 1998

Set in the Pacific during World War II, The Thin Red Line doesn’t as much deal with the tough issues of war, as it addresses them. Actually, it asks more questions than anything. It focuses primarily on the human struggle within himself on the meaning of conflict. There is a good deal of screen-time devoted to soldier’s reaction and expressions.

There’s also a lot of character narration. The narrations consisted of the soldiers views on the situation they were in. Some were bitter, some were reminiscing, but all knew something just wasn’t right; whether that was the warfare or whether it was the world. What is addressed in the dialog and narration is supported by the images.

When it says it’s R for “realistic war violence”, it means it. They’re not talking about explosions and splattering blood. It’s the dread and the low state of the human emotion in that situation. Some people are cold to it, and some still have a heart.

At first viewing, I thought there were sort of a lot of characters to keep track of. And as if that weren't enough, some of them look similar (to me). Of course Adrian Brody you can spot a mile away, so he wasn’t an issue. The performances were good; particularly Nick Nolte and Sean Penn.

There were a lot of steady cam shots as the soldiers journeyed and approached “the line”. The cameras would move through the tall grass or forest as if it were a soldier. These positions certainly gave a sense of sneaking around. The edit gave many of the clips plenty of elbow room.

I had listened to Hans Zimmer’s score before watching the film. So I was listening to somewhat familiar music in its context. The music is appropriate and well suited to the film. It’s certainly not combat music like you hear in some of Zimmer’s other work. It’s slow, brooding, and rarely epic. There’s a tribal chant that is sung by the Malaysians in the film. I think the islanders are somewhat a symbol of humanity as it should be. And the recognizable tune of the chant is used throughout the film in fitting places. The Malaysians were a people who were not affiliated with the war and yet their world got blown to pieces by it.

The Thin Red Line is quite a memorable work and has come to be my favorite war film. It is very character driven, which makes sense for a film about life and death and meaning.

V for Vendetta

Based on the graphic novel by David Lloyd

Writor: The Wachowski Brothers
Director: James McTeigue
Director of Photography: Adrian Biddle
Editor: Martin Walsh
Composer: Dario Marianelli
Lead Actor/Actress: Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman
Year: 2005

Being the week of the 4th, here's a film about freedom. It is set in a future England, the totalitarian government of which is corrupt. Like any fascist regime, its power hungry leaders deceive their people into believing the control and bias governing is for their own good.

The film is anti-God and seems to be anti-Christian. Or maybe its anti-God specifically in relation to government. This stems out of observing how those in power often justify their actions in the name of God.

A man, with nothing more for a name than “V”, has been abused by this corrupt system. He has made it his mission to exact revenge and bring the government down with its ideas. He wears a Guy Fawkes mask. According to the movie, Guy Fawkes was a guy who attempted treason in 1605 by blowing up parliament, which failed. Yet is “idea” lives on, and every 5th of November, it is celebrated, Fawkes being the face of the idea.

V is carrying his touch, and his mask. He is scheming to blow up parliament and bring government back down to where it should be.

The message of the film (at least one) is “unity through strength.” The people are encouraged to rally together and stop accepting injustices. They are like caged birds that don’t know the outside air.

At the start, V is the only one taking action. One might ask, “if freedom is so desirable, why don’t more people get on board with changing the course of power?” Indeed, weak people are very easy people to bring under control. In V for Vendetta, the so called ‘seconds’ of society were tragically taken advantage of and abused (perhaps not unlike the Jews). For some reason or another, perhaps for fear, the people did not make a fuss. Thus, the powers that be got away with it.

When people go against the “law”, unjust though it may be, they are often punished for it. What if people value their life more than their rights? A valid point, though maybe a narrow perspective when considering future generations, especially when viewed through our, dare I say, indoctrinated patriotic mindsets. We are benefiting now from the soldiers who fought WW2, though casualties abounded on both sides. Yet here we are, celebrating our freedom, our comfort. We probably wouldn’t be where we are today, if our freedom wasn’t fought for. Revolution often doesn’t come without a cost.

In V for Vendetta, V prevails. But it’s a movie. What happened in real life? The plan was discovered and Guy Fawkes’ was hanged. 15 known attempts were made to assassinate Hitler. We all know that none of them succeeded. I recently saw last year’s film “Valkyrie”. Gen. Stauffenberg had a plan. He had good motives. He was so close to his goal. His action instead had a greater and opposite reaction. Hitler viewed his escape from harm as a blessing from God on his work.

Maybe God is in control of who rules. Maybe God hoped/hopes that His people would not look to the government as their source of security. Maybe God hoped/hopes His people would reach out with a hand of love and mercy to bless the peoples of the world in a way that would set the kingdom of God apart from the kingdom of the world.

What is human and earthly? “Government controls the world so reform government!” What might be the kingdom of God view? In real history, England was on the brink of revolution, but a few rose up, including the Wesleys, not to try and fix a corrupt worldly government, but pour themselves out for the hurting, to get dirty themselves. Perhaps political revolution was no longer needed. Maybe if the whole church did that, the world would be a better place than the government could ever make it!

As far as the production goes, it’s not entirely easy watching. It is sinister. There are very few good guys. And those who are, you wonder if they really are. Things were often filmed in a rather disturbing way.

And then there's the Wachowski's writing, which is always dialog heavy. It often goes below the surface, and perhaps a bit deep for me at times.

Right off, I thought the mask with a guy talking behind it was intriguing. The smiling face is an amusing juxtaposition. It masks a man full of resentment and an identity lost. His purpose is singular and his expression is singular.

Natalie Portman is not very attractive with no hair.

V’s knife fight at the end was impressive. Really like the stylized way the blades left streaks in the air. Ultimately, aside from the message and the character of V, I’m not sure this film will be entirely memorable.

The Last Samurai

Writer: John Logan, Edward Zwick, Marshall Herskovitz
Director: Edward Zwick
Composer: Hans Zimmer
Editor: Steven Rosenblum
Director of Photography: John Toll
Lead Actor: Tom Cruise

The Last Samurai has made it to my top 5. What a great story and a near perfect movie. It sort of shows the death of the Japanese culture, which could represent any pure way of life that is drowning. It seems like Japan is westernizing, not modernizing. The story is told in such a way that you sympathize with the Samurai, who, in the movie, are the symbol of the traditional ways. There is something sad about losing a tradition that has existed for 1000 years. So you sympathize with the samurai because they are the only ones still standing up for Japan’s unique culture. Such a small force they were. And so delicate up against the modern machines of war they were fighting against.

The samurai were really a very bloody people. I’m not sure I would have been routing for them in real life. The story may not be accurate in all its portrayals. It may be more Hollywood than history, but a lot of this can be looked at metaphorically.

John Toll’s photography is well done. The sets were beautiful. I especially like the snow scene with Katsumoto and Nathan in the temple’s courtyard. In a snow scene soon after that one, I found a little glitch that I may be able to call my own. As Nathan is carrying wood in his arm, one of the pieces begins to fall just as the scene cuts.

Before watching this film, I was slightly turned-off to find Tom Cruise in the main role. But have to say, it turned out ok. Not sure why I was turned off as I’ve never watched a movie with him. I think just because his appearance and seemingly boring face. The performances were all good. Especially Ken Watanabe playing Kastumoto, the samurai ‘rebel’ leader. He had an authoritative presence and his actions were quick and purposeful. I found out that this was his first film in English. For that, he did exceptionally well. Another performance of note is that of Sosuke Ikematsu playing Higen, the little boy. Good expressions and posture. He also had an emotional scene that he nailed.


Hans Zimmer composed very fitting and effective music for his 100th score. I listened to the score for several months before watching the movie. It definitely stands by itself. It is a rare case when you come to appreciate a piece ‘out of context’, and then wind up appreciating it more when you see it with the picture. That may sound odd but this is the reason for it. Music sometimes can create a mental image or emotion that pictures can’t really do justice too. Or, the image a piece creates may be broader than the musical application in the specific scene in a film.

The end of the battle scene at the end is amazing. It says more than just guns killing people. There’s an end of an era wrapped up in it all. Here are the samurai charging with nothing but blades against these deadly, rapid firing beasts. They did their job. They killed the last samurai. Zimmer’s score here does its part to fill the sequence with meaning. The music with the rapid firing of the guns is a tragic combination. One of the most powerful cinematic moments I’ve seen.

It comes to an end. Katsumoto dies. The enemy bows. Yes, the enemy bows. Perhaps the movie should have ended there. That way our ‘hero’ could have died or stayed alive, depending on what the viewer prefers.

This film is quite bloody when the weapons come out. The filmmakers could have very easily inserted a love scene (for the sake of having one), but they made conscious decision not to. That was a very good decision and one I applaud. Not having it did more to establish the cultural tradition that the whole film is about. It is obvious that Nathan and Taka had a love for each other, and yet there is a reserved distance that Taka maintains and Nathan respects.

The Runner from Ravenshead

Writer: Joel and Lisa Steege
Director: Joel Steege
Composer: Dane Walker
Year: 2010

The Runner from Ravenshead is an adventurous family produced film about how giving it to Him is better than giving up. It is an allegorical story in which kids represent grown-ups (in some cases) and in which a prison represents the bondages we find ourselves in when we don’t cast them on the Savior. Wardens steadily and relentlessly pursue the fleeing victims, who only wear out and wind up back in prison. We follow the progress of a girl named Sam as she tries to make her escape. The subject matter of this film is one I can’t say I’ve seen dealt with much, let alone in a film.

This is much more than you’d expect from someone’s first independent Christian film! Particularly when the cast is completely children! The Steeges really outdid themselves on this project. There was a lot of thought put into the various aspects…more than we can see on the surface, that’s for sure. Good continuity, great cinematography and and editing. Things were, for the most part, surprisingly well lit. Which is especially not easy in a shadowy forest.

The cast was apparently no more than 5 children, although there are more characters. Don’t expect the same actor/actress to be the same character. Sometimes there are even more than 5 people in the frame, so I’m thinking there must have been a good deal of green screen and frame blending going on.

I’m a believer that kids can be the best talent, if directed well. Something about the imaginations they have. I think they are able to become the character easier. By the fact that these children (and any children) lack the experience and training of an adult professional, means they need to get the inspiration for the role from something else.

There are numerous humorous (like my rhyme?) moments in the film. Funny stunts, comic expressions, and children's antics; it will at the very least get an occasional chuckle out of you. Or if you're like my sister, you'll laugh the whole thing through!

The score hardly gives one a moment’s reprieve. It’s says action, suspense, and grandeur in the first five minutes and doesn’t let off. The music was recorded live with an orchestra, which is not easy to do on a tight budget, believe me. There must have been some committed and talented folks behind that one.

I liked the costumes! I thought they were fun and thoughtfully put together! Kind of like the days of dress-up we did as kids. But they were still natural (cept maybe the facial hair O.o).

Well done Steege family!

(I could critique various things in this film, but anyone can do that).

Signs

Writer: M. Night Shyamalan
Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Director of Photography: Tak Fujimoto
Composer: James Newton Howard
Editor: Barbara Tulliver
Lead Actor: Mel Gibson
Year: 2002

“Signs” perhaps best showcases writer/director M. Night Shyamalan’s unique blend of sci-fi and real life. While there might be aliens or monsters, they are put in a very tangible setting. While the film might be marketed as a “thriller”, it has a deep level of heart. Night asks the question, “If something like this were to happen, how would people react?”

The film may start off a little slow, with guys running around corn fields and what not, but give it a chance. A crop circle shows up in the Hess family’s corn field in Philadelphia. This is strange enough, until people are finding these strange “signs” all around the world. Theories arise as to what the cause is. The adults are not so foolish as to believe extra-terrestrials are in fact the ones responsible, but the children fearfully entertain the possibility.

Surprisingly Christian themes arise in the midst of this disturbing tale. We learn that Graham Hess (Gibson’s character), has recently lost his wife in a tragic accident. This has caused the once devout “Father Graham” to loose his faith. He has decided that no one is watching out for them and that everything that happens in life is only coincidence. During this trying experience with an eminent attack from aliens, he hits rock bottom (quite literally). But there in his basement, he ultimately succumbs to the inevitable fact that there is a God.

Through the events following, things happen that cannot be merely coincidence. The only explanation is that someone is watching out for them. We watch as Graham Hess regains his faith through a simple and artistically executed sequence at the end of the movie.

Let’s just say Mel Gibson is a master. His rustic side gives his scenes a real punch. His face is able to contort into any emotion imaginable. A very unique scene with the family around the dinner table is a good example of the kinds of emotions fighting to be realized. In some ways, that scene is a climax; a clash of stress, bitterness, love, and…food. The timing is great, as are the expressions and dialog.

Joaquin Phoenix, who plays Mel’s younger brother, once again acts with a transparent quality, making his character both vulnerable and real. I thought the little boy was too scripted and Rory didn’t really know how to deal with it. Rory did do especially well with his emotional scenes and his asthma attack. Abigail Breslin is pretty cute.

There is a very special thing that James Newton Howard does with the score in Signs. Much of the music is built around a repeating three notes. This little motif has many moods. It is played during the scariest moments and then adapted for the moments of great relief. This musical touch, I thought worked quite well. Although I am aware that if I get the soundtrack, I won’t get much more than those three notes. Which seem rather to have been played by the scenes, than to be played for them. Played by the dark and by the light; whichever is dominating at the moment.

Night doesn’t like to use CGI, which I think adds to the sense of reality in his films. At times things may seem low budget in their simplicity. Then there are other things that Night doesn’t like to do. Yes, like any controlling perfectionist, he has a little ego. For instance, he thinks cuts are often used by filmmakers to cover things up, so he uses them as little as possible. I’m not sure if the practice always aids his work, although it does force him and his actors to be precise with the takes, the care of which I think show in his work. It's growing on me.