Movie of the Week – JFK

This week’s movie: JFK (1991).

After the John F. Kennedy assassination, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison discovers that there may be more to it than the official story of a lone gunman. Garrison believes that there were multiple shooters and the assassination plot may have been hatched and formulated in his own city.

Oliver Stone was one of the most prolific filmmakers in Hollywood during the 1980s and 1990s with films such as Platoon, Wall Street, Born on the Fourth of July, and Natural Born Killers. However, JFK is his masterpiece. Using a mixture of documentary, found, faux-documentary recreations, and new footage, Stone creates an utterly compelling case for a conspiracy. John Williams’s iconic score, Robert Richardson’s cinematography (winning an Oscar), and Victor Kempster’s production design are all top notch as well.

JFK features an ensemble of fantastic performances starting with Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison. The supporting cast is wonderful and packed with great actors, including: Jay O. Sanders, Edward Asner, Jack Lemmon, Vincent D’Onofrio, Gary Oldman, Sissy Spacek, Brian Doyle-Murray,  Michael Rooker, Laurie Metcalf, Joe Pesci, Wayne Knight, Walter Matthau, Tommy Lee Jones, John Candy, Kevin Bacon, Donald Sutherland, John Larroquette, Ron Rifkin, and Frank Whaley.

Whether or not the whole JFK conspiracy theory holds any water or not is irrelevant to the brilliance of this film, both from an aesthetics and narrative standpoint. Aesthetically, this is a masterwork – and gravely underrated. Narratively, Stone all but convinces the viewer that the JFK assassination was indeed a conspiracy due to Stone’s powerful, moving, and compelling directing/editing choices. It is one of the 1990’s best films (and among my personal favorites).

Trailer: Here

Available on: Blu-ray and Streaming

Movie of the Week – Inglourious Basterds

This week’s movie: Inglourious Basterds (2009).

What if the Allies had killed Hitler and ended WWII early? Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds plays a bit like a revenge fantasy. It is split into five vignettes taking place in Nazi Occupied France that all tie together by the end.

Tarantino is one of independent film’s most celebrated directors. His films are mostly considered classics. With Inglourious Basterds, however, he made his most expensive (costing around seventy million) and subsequently most successful film to date (in terms of gross box office). He has said that it is the first part of a new trilogy, with Django Unchained being the second in the series.

Cinematographer Robert Richardson and production designer David Wasco produce brilliant work on the film, which overall is aesthetically fantastic (and maybe Tarantino’s best in that regard). The visuals (and especially the score, taken from classic westerns, war films and David Bowie) reference genre films that Tarantino grew up with.

As good as Tarantino’s writing is (and it is very good), the performances are maybe even better. The cast is universally wonderful, making stars out of a few European actors who before did not have that much exposure in the states. The ensemble includes: Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent, Christoph Waltz (who won an Oscar for his work), Eli Roth, Michael Fassbender, Diane Kruger, Daniel Bruhl, Til Schweiger, Jacky Ido, B.J. Novak, Gedeon Burkhard, Omar Doom, August Diehl, Denis Menochet, and Mike Myers, with voice work from Samuel L. Jackson and Harvey Keitel.

Inglourious Basterds was nominated for eight Oscars, including Best Picture, but only won one. It is my favorite of Tarantino’s films (and among my 25 favorite films from the last decade), and a must-see for fans of Tarantino’s work and war films. It is brilliant.

Trailer: Here

Available on: Blu-ray, DVD and Streaming

Django Unchained (2012) – Review

Review: Django Unchained is a highly entertaining action drama with some western aspects, full of references and throwbacks. The film is about a slave Django who is freed by a bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz who needs his help identifying a bounty he is looking for. Django and Schultz become friends and partners. Schultz decides to help Django rescue his wife from a Mississippi plantation Candyland, whose owner Calvin Candie is notoriously wicked – a dangerous mission to say the least going into the belly of the beast.

Django Unchained is the second in writer-director’s Quentin Tarantino revenge fantasy trilogy, following Inglourious Basterds. And like Inglourious Basterds (as well as most of his films), it is packed with references to many of Tarantino’s favorite films in the genre. Homage is most prevalently paid to the films of the spaghetti western director Sergio Corbucci (who directed Django), a filmmaker in the genre that Tarantino loves (even more than Segio Leone who gets most of the praise in today’s cinema criticism). Corbucci’s films often tackle harder issues like racism, slavery, and class warfare (which are themes that Tarantino also addresses with Django Unchained).

Tarantino also seems interested in addressing the grandeur of the southern plantation – tearing it down as a myth and exposing the sheer inhumane cruelty and abuse slaves endured on these plantations (even with simple things like remarking that none of the whites have ever seen a black man riding a horse). This is not necessarily new ground, as media has focused on this topic many times (as historical revisionism aimed at exposing many of the horror before shaded over in history has been a popular academic pursuit since the late twentieth century), but maybe with not so much style and panache as Tarantino who does not pull his targeted punches.  One these such punches seems to be directly aimed at Gone with the Wind (when Django and Schultz travel to Mississippi they are met with a title in big bold letters tracking across the screen from right to left that is very reminiscent to Gone with the Wind’s opening title), a film that very much propagates the South and its way of life (forwarding the myth of the grandeur and elegance of the southern plantations for worldwide audiences, skipping over the brutality suffered by the slaves).

The violence in the film, for which there is a lot, is purposely overdone and almost cartoony. This was maybe done as an attempt by Tarantino to keep the film from being NC-17 or to keep the film fun, as the tone is mostly light. However, the violence suffered by the slaves in the film feels different. While the gunfights in which Django blows away whites are exaggerated, scenes in which violence is done to black characters are presented in a much more realistic and even horrific manner. This is a clear choice by Tarantino to create a deeper feeling of sympathy for the black characters by making their pain real, while white characters being blown up, shot and otherwise massacred is all in good fun.

This choice also firmly puts the audience behind Django, as they actively care about him and want to see him rescue his wife, and more so reap vengeance upon those that deserve it. The film also profoundly creates a sense of revelation in the audience at the true stakes for Django’s mission. While lots of films have created an emotion and revelation in their audience regarding the true plight of the slaves, Django Unchained does it while still playing as a mostly light action western. Thus, the revelation in the audience might be more profound, as they were not expecting to feel something about the film and the characters. However, the light nature of the film might also allow the audience to excuse the deeper emotional impact and forget it as the credits roll focusing on the comedy and exciting action.

Tarantino brings his style of brash dialog to the film as well. However, here with this topic, the juxtaposition of the way characters talk also plays into the emotional feeling the audience experiences. The physical violence in the film is extreme, but the verbal violence the slaves are subjected to is maybe even more damaging, as it is a coat of insults that just seems to lay upon them wearing them down and dehumanize them. The language of the characters is striking as it really exposes the clear disregard, even above hate, that many of the white characters have for the black characters. They are nothing to them, at least nothing human.

Overall, Tarantino gets across his message of exposing what slavery really was – not so much in the hardships suffered by slaves, as that is only briefly addressed, but in the relationship between blacks and whites in the South.

Narratively, Django Unchained is much more a straightforward story than Tarantino usually employs in his films with a clear three-act structure. Though, it still has sort of an episodic feel differentiating between Django and Schultz’s work in Texas and Tennessee as opposed to their venture into Mississippi to rescue Django’s wife. The film can almost be viewed has having two parts – the prologue in which Django and Schultz become friends and partners pre-Mississippi (act one) and the main narrative in which they go to Mississippi (acts two and three). However, the prologue is really more as a lot of character work is done in that section, which later allows Tarantino to focus on other narrative areas (like creating a fantastic villain with Calvin Candie); and it also allows Django to play a different character in disguise for a large portion of the Mississippi episode because he is already established with the audience. Even though the three-act structure is apparent, pre-Mississippi and Mississippi do have a different feel, which Tarantino clearly intended. Pre-Mississippi feels like a western, while Mississippi is much more an action drama with the hero deep in enemy territory. Django cannot merely ride off and hide if he gets in trouble, like characters often do in westerns; he is either going to rescue his wife or die; he is completely committed, which is what makes the drama so compelling.

Tarantino also does a masterful job with the tone. This is a very fun and entertaining film, even given the intense nature of its subject material. It is often very funny, as well. Tarantino is able to get across the drama and have the audience experience something real, but leaves them feeling light, as they have chiefly been entertained. He does this by having most of the violence play bigger (like a cartoon) and having the film packed with intended comedy (which all works).

For the most part the film is free from major issues, but the narrative does not quite have the dramatic impact it could. This is the choice Tarantino made. The film could not be both light and fun while still also fully engaging the audience dramatically, because this would have left the tone and ultimately the film feeling very disjoined and nothing would have worked quite as well as it does. Tarantino chose to primarily entertain. Though, even with the film’s fun tone, with multiple viewings the intended impact resonating from the narrative choices (such as the juxtaposition between the violence on whiter characters versus black or the way these characters speak) will ingrain itself in the viewer, thus having the same lasting impact that a strong dramatic take on the material.

The narrative is also a little loose in the first act (and maybe overly long). It does not really get going until Django and Schultz get to Mississippi and the stakes are raised, which is again why the film feels episodic.

Another possible issue is that the graphic nature of the violence and langue will not appeal to all viewers, as in both cases it is extreme (but also in both cases completely serves the narrative).

Django Unchained is not a great western in the classic sense of the genre, as it is not really a western for most of the film. However, it is a great action drama with the purpose of again exposing the villainy of slavery and the people that subjugated others to be their slaves.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Auteur Quentin Tarantino started off making great crime dramas and is now making great genre films. While he brings a great nostalgic style to his films (as a massive cinephile – especially for ‘B’ films), his own ability as a filmmaker has matured. His writing is brilliant, but with Inglourious Basterds (my favorite of his films) and now Django Unchained he directing seems equal to his words. The level of performances he is garnering is phenomenal as well. I cannot wait to see the final piece of his revenge trilogy.

Robert Richardson’s cinematography accomplishes the look and feel of a western while also complimenting the style of Tarantino’s direction (as this is there fourth collaboration). J. Michael Riva’s production design is great as well, as it both fits the tone of the genre and has fun with it (especially the Cleopatra Club set).

Django Unchained is visually impressive and has a fantastic directorial flair, but the strongest aspect is its impressive performances. Kerry Washington and Walton Goggins are good in small supporting roles. Samuel L. Jackson is hilarious, biting, and dramatically interesting (a compelling combination) as Stephen. It is his best role and performance from him in a long time. Leonardo DiCaprio is an absolute riot. He is wildly insane and having a blast as Calvin Candie. Looking at him, the viewer really gets the sense that they are starring at the devil. Villains often get to be played big and they often are the juiciest character roles – this is a great one and DiCaprio takes full advantage commanding every scene he is in. Christoph Waltz is great as Dr. King Schultz, a bounty hunter with a moral conscience and abhorrence towards slavery. Waltz plays Schultz to be quite playful with his words and delivery, often bringing the most effective comedy to the film. Jamie Foxx is very good as Django. He brings a quiet strength and willful disobedience to the role, while still giving off a clear soulful humanity (which allows the audience to fully connect with his character). The performance is among his best work.

Summary & score: Django Unchained unapologetically and boldly attacks the malice and repugnance of the people that propagated slavery by owning slaves raining vengeance with merciless graphic violence and complete distain. And as a revenge fantasy should be, it is very satisfying and enjoyable. 8/10

Hugo (2011) – Review

Review: Hugo is beautifully made from an aesthetics point of view, rich with passion (especially for cinema’s silent film era) but ultimately disappointing due to its slow pacing and meandering first act. The film is about Hugo, an orphaned boy who lives in a train station in Paris (it sort of looks like Gare de Lyon) fixing and maintaining the clocks, while trying to fix an automaton his father rescued from a museum shortly before his death. Hugo engages in an adventure to solve the mystery of the automaton as he believes there is a message from his father. At first, I wondered why director Martin Scorsese would make a family film in 3D (though, I saw it in 2D) – and then I saw it. The characters and story almost take a back seat to Scorsese’s passion for old movies (and really these sequences detailing the highlights of the silent film era are the best part of Hugo). I loved the references to Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, The Lumiere Brothers’ Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat, and George Melies’s A Trip to the Moon (who is also a character in the film), as well as many others. These sequences detailing the great films, filmmakers and stars of the era rejuvenated me as a cinema fan (and almost made me forget that the film did not work all that well up until that scene). Scorsese obviously loves that era (and he is known for his work to preserve old films) and it comes through in this film (and I think is probably the reason he made it). Back to the film itself – Scorsese opens it with a prologue that negatively impacts much of the rest of the film. He goes through the station and introduces the main players, and does so with many of the themes from the score. The issue is however that this scene is overly long, not very interesting and the score is so overblown that it, in a sense, ruins it for the rest of the film. From there, Scorsese ever so slowly develops the story and character of Hugo – when the mystery surrounding the automaton is much more interesting and needed to be addressed far quicker (at just over two hours, the film could have lost probably thirty minutes and played a lot tighter without losing any essential character development). Many of the ancillary characters, while important in the book, are essentially meaningless to the film’s narrative and yet time is still used to vaguely address them, again dragging things along. What works the best is Hugo’s friendship with Isabelle, and the mystery surrounding the automaton – everything else just bogs the film down. The first act is almost terrible, and it never really recovers even with a good third act – as the audience has already lost their connection to the characters. At best, Hugo is a beautiful tribute to silent film; at worst, a disappointing effort from a great director.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Martin Scorsese’s venture into kids’ movies is not totally fruitless, as there are many things to like, but it develops way too slowly to work. I do not expect to see another film like Hugo from Scorsese anytime soon (it felt like one of Robert Zemeckis’s recent Christmas films, but better and a lot more aesthetically interesting – but tonally similar). Howard Shore’s score is fitting to the material and tone of the film and yet for me its use in the prologue ruined it. The best moments musically come during the silent film expose with the use of Camille Saint-Saens’s Danse Macabre and Erik Satrie’s Gnossienne No. 1. Robert Richardson’s cinematography is very good. I particularly liked how he shot the exteriors in snowy Paris. Dante Ferretti’s sets are good as well. My favorites are his book store set and the graveyard. The cast is good, but many are just sort of there to take up space. Christopher Lee and Helen McCrory do the best work among the smaller supporting roles, while Sacha Baron Cohen plays his Station Inspector very oddly. He is so awkward and strange in his manner that the viewer is not sure whether to laugh or feel uncomfortable (it is actually kind of brilliant in its own way). Ben Kingsley is very good playing Melies with such intensity and sadness, but also with a hidden joy. Chloe Grace Moretz brings so much needed life to the film, that it really does not start to work until she shows up and starts interacting with Hugo. She just has so much positive energy and charisma. Asa Butterfield is sort of an enigma. While he is good in the film, he does not carry it very well, needing Moretz to balance out the cloud of depression that follows him around, and his performance is not helped by the slow pacing in the beginning.

Summary & score: While Hugo is Scorsese’s love letter to cinema and its fans (particularly those with knowledge of the silent film era), it does not live up to the films it is paying tribute. 6/10

Shutter Island (2010) – Review

Shutter Island is creepy, well made and interesting – a film that interacts with its audience, building not only tension but also engaging the viewer to participate in the detective aspect of the film. The main theme of the film is redemption set against the early Cold War paranoia. Leonardo DiCaprio’s character Teddy Daniels above all else seeks atonement for the tragedies of his past, which all come crashing to a head as he investigates the disappearance of a patient on Shutter Island’s facility for the criminally insane. As the Teddy and the viewer decipher clues, listen to the interviews and get wrapped up in the case, director Martin Scorsese forces in flashback and haunting imagery to signal that all is not what it seems, with the character, the case and the film. The avid viewer will enjoy participating in unraveling the case, clue by clue, as the payoff is evident amongst the facts before it is revealed. The thematic elements of the main character trying to find redemption and attempting to fit into society, in whatever form that exists around him, are common in Scorsese’s work and it is interesting to see the different ways that he comes at them. Here, Scorsese seems to be most interested in how tragedy affects people, the different ways that they cope. Do they retreat or push forward? Teddy digs deeper into his work, and so the film works best as an interactive detective narrative with these thematic elements influencing the character and his perspective. Another interesting aspect to the film is that only Teddy Daniels seems to be a fully fleshed out character – in other words, Teddy seems real, while everyone else is a caricature playing a role (minus one other character), which normally would seem like a negative, but here it works quite well in the narrative that Scorsese has laid out. The imagery that Scorsese uses is impactful and meaningful, both emotionally and in terms of solving the case. A number of the scenes visually were masterfully impressive, poetic and with wonderful composition (my favorite is the flashback scene in which DiCaprio is staring down at the German officer bleeding to death while paper floats in the air behind and around him, sort of beautiful and intensely sad). Scorsese’s visualization of Teddy’s nightmares is astonishing, visually stunning yet emotionally tragic. The music used in the film at first seemed to be strangely over the top and forced given the genre, but as the film plays out, this makes sense and like many other aspects works well in the structure. The music does add to the tension that the film builds throughout in addition to the story elements and situations that have implicit anxiety attached (some in the theatre could not handle it screaming out at parts). The film is very well acted by DiCaprio and there is strong supporting work by Michelle Williams. Ben Kingsley gives a slightly offbeat performance which seems very odd at times, yet like everything else, works here. Emily Mortimer is also good and really creepy. The shooting style of Robert Richardson mixed with the editing of Thelma Schoonmaker along with Scorsese’s input created an interesting visual style to the film. At times, the camera would pan, yet it looked like a projector moving to the next slide, as if the divulgence of visual information was rehearsed to be presented. Also, there are shots of perspective that seem off when the location is visited again. Things seem off throughout, but again it works. All in all, the film is a very good detective film with psychologically-thriller elements built in to the narrative structure with fantastic imagery creating an interestingly made film – another fine one from Scorsese. 8/10