Literary Pursuits

One of the great things about being a naturally voracious reader is that when I have to do reading for University I’m usually way ahead of the game. Case in point, the book we’re currently studying is Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler. It’s one of the six plays we’re doing this semester (the others: Oedipus Rex, Othello, Death of a Salesman, Ti-Jean & His Brothers, Moon On a Rainbow Shawl). And like so many books, I read it way before I could even grasp the actual themes. Nevertheless, even though I know it’s wrong, I still find Hedda to be hilarious (inadvertently, of course). Next to Shakespeare’s shrewish Katherina and Tennessee’s Blanche Dubois few female roles thrill me as much as Ms. Gabler. I’m trying to get my hands on the Glenda Jackson film version. I still consider it the best in her career of illustrious performances. Shouldn’t she have won the Oscar that year? I wonder if it’s too soon for a remake…. Cate Blanchett seems like an obvious choice, but I suppose she’d be too old…what do you think?

Have you been doing any significant reading recently (academic or secular)? Have you read Hedda? Who’d you cast in a remake? Sound off below.

How To Train Your Dragon: Review

Hey guys! So I've been away for quite awhile but I'm back now bitches!! And in time to, the summer movies are about to start. So let's get to it with How To Train Your Dragon.

Finally after that flop of a movie called Monsters vs. Aliens, Dreamworks has finally returned to making animated movies that could give Pixar a challenge at the Oscars again. I absolutely adored this movie, given that it did have some flaws and is miles below the awesome-nest of Kung Fu Panda, Dragon is quite alright.

The movie is about this viking village that has dragons as pests. It's kind of like an everyday occurrence for them to be attacked by these hoards of dragons and it's become some sort of a sport for them. But with every animated film, we get the outcast of the group and that's Hiccup, voiced by Jay Baruchel who's like this really scrawny kid. But by accident, he manages to capture the dragon that's hardest to kill and through the movie, they form this Witwicky-Bulmblebee bond and Hiccup realizes that there are more to dragons than just killing them.

Okay I gotta admit. I'm not impressed with the storyline. Why? Cause it's the same storyline as any animated film we see. Character is outcast of society. Character stumbles upon rare opportunity. 30 minutes of funny scenes. Conflict towards character occurs. Character steps up and saves the day. Happy ending yay! We've all seen this done a hundred times but what makes Dragon better than the rest was the way they went about telling it.

And by that I meant the 3-muthafuckin-D! Remember how cool the flight scene in Avatar was? Well How To Train Your Dragon is just like that... only it's for 1 hour 30 minutes. The flying sequences in this movie is amazing, especially in 3-D. I haven't had that feeling of flying and falling for a long time, it may scare some of the younger kids but I don't give a damn!

But the star of the film has got to be Toothless, the main dragon in this movie. The film incorporates all the fantastic styles of animation Disney had in WALL-E and put it into Toothless. We never hear this character speak at all but we know everything we need to know about him just from his eyes and his expressions. And for some really weird reason, I kept thinking of Stitch from Lilo & Stich when I'm watching Toothless. They kinda look similar, no?

One thing I gotta respect about the filmmakers is that they didn't try to bring in comedians to give funny voices to the dragons. Thank God they didn't have like, an Eddie Murphy dragon or a Chris Rock dragon, that would have made this movie go from totally enjoyable to complete shit fest for me.

Jay Baruchel is great as the voice of Hiccup. But I think if he really spoke like that in real life, I would slap him because his voice is so nerdy, and I mean like the annoying kind of nerdy. The only reason why I liked him in this movie is because he suited Hiccup so so well, so great casting on his part. Gerard Butler is really good in this. But my favorite of all was Craig Ferguson as Gobber, some sort of a wise cracking, drunken version of Kung Fu Panda's Shifu.

The only thing I wished they would have done in the movie was give more character development to the side characters. In the movie, we have these bunch of characters whom Hiccup goes through dragon training with and they are funny as hell. But nothing much is really done with them, which makes it weird since they served a big role in the climax of the film. These characters kind of reminded me of the Furious Five from Kung Fu Panda only that we got a full side story with the Furious Five but in Dragon, we get the usual Judd Apatow jokes.

But that is just a minor complaint, it may have taken the focus off the story for awhile but that's what I would have done. And I gotta praise this movie for one little twist they add to Hiccup's character towards the end of the movie which is really bold for an children animated film to do, because let's be honest.. these kinds of movies never do.

Dreamworks has released better movies than this, familiar unoriginal storyline, but it's what they do with it that makes this so enjoyable. If you're going to watch this, watch it in 3-D. It's absolutely stunning on the big screen, charming and witty story between Hiccup and Toothless and that big ass dragon at the end made it worth the RM18 I payed.

RATING: 8/10

Coming Back to the Real World

I don’t why, but I’ve really been evading recent cinema. We’re already in April and I’ve only seen just a few flicks from 2010. I was supposed to see Green Zone and Alice in Wonderland last week, but for some reason I passed. I should probably rectify that sometime this week, but I feel a bit swamped. Notice how I’ve been doing more retrospectives and less current work? Still, 2010 seems to be off to a good start. Shutter Island was imperfect, but still moderately satisfying, The Greatest was stodgy but suggested good things for Carey and Agora was just excellent. Sure I’ve got more than eight months to go and most likely none of these will be remembered at the end of the year, but who knows? I’m still to see limited stuff like The Runaways, Fish Tank or Repo Men. 

Has any 2010 release really impressed you thus far? Which 2010 release should I drop everything to see?

It’s A Wonderful Life...So I Don’t Need to Say Much

Other than being a prerequisite of Christmas It’s A Wonderful Life exists (superficially, at least) as in indicator of changing opinions on films. I suppose Citizen Kane already has that laurel (but I prefer How Green Was My Valley); but on the other hand this Stewart piece is such an obvious victor among its nominees even if eventual winner The Best Years of Our Lives is not undeserving of the title – best. The thing is, as I simultaneously bemoan the loss of the film it’s not difficult to see why it didn’t win. It’s A Wonderful Life exists as a film so comfortable in its sentimentally (but never wallowing). Its affirmation of family values is sweet but never maudlin. I’m well aware that the AMPAS is a group of persons and not a single (ominous) entity, but I often wonder if they are fine with being overly mawkish but don’t give their laurels to those that tread the middle ground. It’s not that It’s A Wonderful Life is not brave enough, it’s just wise enough to realise that being overemotional would only undermine the potency of Jimmy’s story.

Capra could not have found someone more epitomic of the everyman than Jimmy Stewart. Stewart has always been able to deliver a cadence that makes him simultaneously admirable and relatable and he brings it to full use in It’s A Wonderful Life – most likely his most iconic role. Yet, the conceit of the common man undergoing an epiphany after a bout with a celestial being is not exactly new; although it was relatively original for the time. Unlike its contemporaries (Heaven Can Wait, or its original Here Comes Mr. Jordan) the usually suave angel is replaced with an intermediate and somewhat bumbling buffoon – Clarence. Like in the characters in the film, though, Clarence is a representation of a specific type explicated by the actors playing them. For example: the aforementioned everyman in Stewart, the assertive but still meek (paradoxical, of course) wife in Reed and the greedy villain (usually, a representation of old values). The thing is, the strength of It’s A Wonderful Life isn’t lost by the ostensible glossing of characters. It’s part of its charm.

    

It’s A Wonderful Life is an ensemble cast form all superficial representations, but for me the success of this film depends completely on Jimmy Stewart. The man is such a brilliant actor, and exudes such a goofy charm that you can’t help but root for him whatever he’s going through. When it all comes down to it, it’s Jimmy that makes It’s A Wonderful Life for me (although Donna's prettiness, doesn't hurt), and as that final scene ends and we see his upward wink at Clarence I can’t help but feel a sense of happiness. It’s not Jimmy I’m watching anymore, but George. It’s # 39 on my list of favourites.

(Thoughts I Had While) Seeing Reds

Do people ever remember that Warren Beatty is a good actor? I know it sounds like a silly question, and given. The man has done excellent work in Splendor in the Grass, Bonnie & Clyde, Shampoo, Heaven Can Wait and on and on. But I often wonder if we really remember that he’s that talented. Sometimes I wonder if he remembers. He’s now become an icon, and he doesn’t do much work. Sure, his directorial talents are impressive, but I always remember Warren as an actor before I think of him as anything else. Like so many of the good actors of his time, Beatty was excellent at playing a particular type, and in many ways this type was not too far from himself – the brash (young) man who eventually underwent an epiphany of sorts. I always accredit Reds with my favourite Beatty performance. It is a credit to Beatty (and the rest of the cast) that with all going on in Reds (fictional and authentic) that they never get lost beneath the mire of information. In some ways I’d call this my favourite Keaton performance too, even if I do prefer her generally as a comedienne. And has Jack ever been so good without being Jack? It’s a good question. The sole Oscar win (acting) for Reds was in Maureen Stapleton. In some ways the role was almost a cameo. It’s not the best performance in the film, but I never can dislike the win. Always a talented performer, Maureen shows up and does what she needs to do – and does it excellently.

I often wonder what drew Beatty to tackling a project like Reds. The film functions as a history lesson as much as entertainment, but unlike so many films with the same intent it never does it tediously. It’s difficult to put it in a box, and I often wonder if that’s the reason it’s become so forgotten. How many persons remember Reds today? Along with I think it represents the best of films from 1981 – I never was fond of eventual Best Picture winner Chariots of Fire. Reds did go on to win a director statue for Beatty (his only competitive Oscar win) – so it’s not like it was completely hated. Still, I always feel that something of this scope deserves more. Hopefully placing it at #36 on my list of favourites I’m doing my bit to level the playing field.

Judgment at Nuremberg

Wilder and Lemmon had their thing, Kazan had Brando, Cukor had Kate, Scorsese had DeNiro and then DiCaprio and Stanley Kramer had Spencer Tracy. Being the benevolent man I’ve heard, Spencer Tracy probably thanked heavens for Stanley Kramer. An excellent actor when given the chance, no other director has consistently pulled greatness out of Spencer. From Guess Who’s Coming Dinner, to Inherit the Wind and this magnum opus Judgment At Nuremberg. Although Inherit the Wind is my favourite stand alone Tracy performance, I always return to Judgment at Nuremberg when I think of the good work the two have done together. Sure it got steamrolled by West Side Story, and all (undeservedly in a few categories) but I still remember Judgment at Nuremberg, fondly (well as fond as you can think of a film so harrowing). It should be ranked atop the list of great films with all those other classics of the era.

                   

The thing is though, I can wax on for pages about Spencer’s excellence – I’m an ardent admirer; but as brilliant as he is here it’s Maximilian Schell that deserves effusive praise. This would probably rank high on a list of Oscar shockers. I’m not sure who was the buzzed winner, but Max’s win (his nomination even) is not indicative of what we usually associate with the Oscars. In fact, the same year the Supporting Actor performance went to the George Chakiris’s obnoxiously loud Bernardo (a variation of Shakespeare’s Tybalt). I don’t think subtlety really begins to describe Max here. Yet, it’s not an understated performance in any way. In fact, it’s probably more strong supporting than actually leading – but that’s just opinion. Max’s performance ranks as one of my favourite decisions from Oscar and he and Tracy are both memorable here.

            

I wouldn’t say I’m smitten with Judy Garland – the actress, but few of her performances touch me as much as her turn here. It’s not wholly loved, but I don’t care. It’s a bizarre performance from her, when we think of the screen characters we associate her with. Irene Hoffman is a woman who has gone through a number of trials, in a way it’s a perfect fit for Judy who was at her lowest (it was only a few years before her suicide). She was never the greatest technical actress, but what she was able to do was connect with the sensitivity in her character. She does this here, excellently. Montgomery Clift, with just a few minutes of screen time gives another great performance and Marlene Dietrich is brilliant, as always.

Judgment at Nuremberg is a brilliant piece of cinema. It’s based on true events, and unlike so many stories of the war it deals with the aftermath – something we rarely see. The entire film permeates with a tension that’s almost overwhelming and the black and white only adds to the apprehension. Kramer did his best work here, and even though he’s rarely remembered today when we think of the greats – his brilliance is assured. Judgment at Nuremberg probably isn’t that cheerful, but it’s still an excellent piece worthy of your time. It’s #46 on my list of favourites.

Spencer and Kate and George

Kate and Spence; sure I’m as biased as they come – but is there any screen couple more iconic. I suppose Richard and Liz would give them a run for their money but Kate and Spence trump them in age, celebrity, and longevity and aren’t we all suckers for happy endings? I’ll be honest, my interest in Spencer was only incidental since he seemed to be a single entity with Kate, who was my first love. The couple made a host of films together – some good, some fair, and some excellent. This probably falls into the last category. I always wonder why the film wasn’t more successful and why it isn’t more celebrated today. Unless I’m mistaken, no other Kate/Spencer films captures the brilliance of lovers on screen more than this self aware comedy Adam’s Rib.

Speaking of people I’m fond of, George Cukor probably ranks up there with the greats when it comes to directors I admire. The man has a talent for brilliance, regardless of genre, though he’s most remembered for his comedies. I always credit George for two of Kate’s other excellent pieces (Little Women, and The Philadelphia Story) and with Adam’s Rib he repeated the excellence of these two pieces, which altogether probably represent stages of the woman. Kate’s Jo March was the now developing girl, her Tracy Lords was the woman caught on a precipice and in Adam’s Rib her Amanda Bonner. We can’t really ignore the subtle gender politics of the film (remember the middle section of The Philadelphia Story) but it’s not exactly a crutch for the film. And who cannot forget Judy Holliday (Oscar winner to be) in her first screen appearance. It’s now legend that Kate and company lobbied for Judy to star in Adam’s Rib to convince producers that she could hold her own (as in Born Yesterday). It’s a gamble on a newcomer that works, because even if Judy is not the greatest actress she’s completely aware of the scope (and limits) of her talent. She turns her significant defendant into a wonder.

           

Why is it that I come back to Adam’s Rib so often? It’s not as ridiculously funny as Desk Set, or as light on its feet as Pat & Mike, it doesn’t get be teary eyed like Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner but it’s just an all-round delight. It’s not just two lovers acting as lovers on screen. It’s as if with Adam’s Rib we get a rare (and almost voyeuristic) look in on the private life of that revered couple, and it does it while all the while being an excellent film. It’s #40 on my list of favourites.