An Aside

Please indulge me for a moment for a quick story about my son. It has nothing to do with movies, and I promise that this blog will not turn into one of those "Let me tell you how cute my kids are!" things. I don't ask you for much.

My oldest son (almost 3) is a big Bob Dylan fan. I know, cool, huh? His favorite song is Tangled Up in Blue. In the interest of expanding his horizons (and to keep from having to hear TUIB three times on the way to the grocery store), I made a CD with some other Dylan tunes. One of them is the classic, The Times, They Are A-Changin', which happened to come up on the way home from church yesterday. Oldest son listened intently for a few moments then asked, "Daddy, what are they changing into?"

Profound, right? Any assistance in answering this one would be greatly appreciated.

For Michele - A "No Country" Review

My friend Michele recently asked for my recommendation on whether she and her husband should watch No Country for Old Men, specifically wondering, "does the overall greatness of the movie supersede the violence and disturbing concerns?"

What a question. A tough one to answer, and a compelling lens through which to view most modern American cinema. As I blogged about a while back, it seems to me that American filmmakers have adopted strikingly bleak worldviews, a trait that appears in their films as increased violence (often of the senseless variety) and general despondency. At the same time, I found No County for Old Men and There Will Be Blood, two of this year's prime examples of "film bleak," to be incredibly good films, full of interesting visuals, compelling characters, and thought-provoking themes. But, back to Michele's question: Are the good things about No County enough to outweigh the bad ones? My answer: it depends.

I saw No Country in Little Rock with my dad and brother at one of those cool indie theaters that serves real beer* and shows obscure movies. (Are these places still called "arthouses"?) We talked about it all the way home, with my brother and I trying to convince my dad it wasn't as violent and depressing as he thought it was. I don't think we succeeded much, but I certainly got a sense of how jaded I have become to cinematic violence. I didn't find the movie very violent, for the most part. There weren't many graphic scenes, and most of the violence was more emotionally arresting than visually. Don't get me wrong. There's a lot of killing, and some blood, and a general theme of random and senseless death. But it didn't feel that violent. I tried to explain to Dad that the violence made sense thematically, but he didn't seem to care. Bottom line: this is not a slasher pic or an action-packed orgasm of explosions and gunshots. It's a serious film that deals with death and violence in a (somewhat) subtle and emotionally complex way.

And in any event, the violence is not even close the most disturbing aspect of No Country. For me, the movie's concentration on the random senselessness of life left a far bigger impression. I don't generally need to be reminded of the lack of control I have over my life, or that true evil exists in this world and can affect me at any time. ** Even so, the film is highly effective in driving this point home. [--Mild spoiler alert--] The ending scene is especially haunting, not only in its content (the sheriff's monologue), but also in its abruptness and refusal to provide resolution.

Overall, I found No Country to be somewhat more "entertaining" than There Will Be Blood, owing to the dark comedy of those irrepressible Cohen boys and some excellent dialogue and acting. It's not a feel good sort of film and it left me with more questions than answers. In other words, it's the thematic opposite of The Shawshank Redemption. As for recommending it to Michele (and others with similar concerns), I would with the caveat that you go into it with the right expectations. You won't necessarily laugh much. You won't feel uplifted or inspired. You won't feel compelled to watch it again the next night. But it is a very well-made movie and certainly deserved the awards and accolades it's won. Sound like something you might be interested in?

_____________________
* "And I don't mean in just no paper cup, I'm talking about a glass of beer." I cannot adequately express how much I enjoy a cold glass of Fat Tire or Newcastle at the movies, partly because it always leads to me replaying the opening scene of Pulp Fiction in my head.

** Trust me on this one. I really don't need a refresher on this lesson.

EDIT: I am ashamed to admit that this post originally included the unconscionable mistake of using "it's" where "its" was called for. Deeply ashamed.

I Haven't Watched a Movie in Weeks!

Factors contributing to this drought:

1. We sold our nice flat screen HDTV, and are currently borrowing a late 80s model 27 inch Sylvania. (Please don't ask why, but rest assured it will be replaced.)

2. Our DVD player is refusing to work.

3. Our VCR (yes, I still own more VHS tapes than DVDs) is also refusing to work.

4. We are house hunting, which occupies most spare minutes.

5. I (unlike the DVD and VCR) work all day.

6. I have a son who refuses to allow the TV to be tuned to anything other than PBS Kids whenever he's downstairs.

7. I'm trying to read more. I'm in the middle of no less than 4 books right now, with Jim Webb's Born Fighting currently at the top of the stack. Great book. I'll finish Freakonomics, Blue Like Jazz, and God's Politics at some point.

8. There's nothing good out right now.

Best Animated Feature Film of the Year

I have seen both Ratatouille* and Persepolis, two of the three films nominated for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. (I did not see the third nominee, Happy Feet, nor do I plan to.) I cannot fathom how Academy members would go about deciding which was the "better" film. What are the criteria that distinguish a good animated film from a live action flick in the first place? It seems to me that this is a somewhat antiquated distinction, dating back to a time when animation was reserved for kids' movies and Tom and Jerry cartoons.** Now, Ratatouille probably qualifies as a "kids' movie," but Persepolis certainly does not. Even Ratatouille seems more mature than the classic Disney fare.

My point, I suppose, is that I think both films should compete on par with No Country for Old Men. They're both great movies, and I don't see what difference animation makes for the audience. I can see an argument for an award based on technical merit for the drawings, or even for voice-over talent, but those would be akin to the awards for makeup*** or art direction.

In any event, putting Ratatouille and Persepolis in a separate category and asking voters to pick which one is the better animated film is like asking someone to decide whether Frampton Comes Alive or The Boston Pops' Nutcracker and Swan Lake Suites is a better live album. They're not really the same genre, you know?

______________________________
*Ratatouille was my oldest son's first theater experience. He did surprisingly well, although he seemed more interested in the popcorn than the movie.

** My aforementioned eldest has a DVD of classic Tom and Jerry cartoons, many of which are designated as Oscar-winners.

***Best line of the Oscar telecast? Jon Stewart's comment that even Norbit was nominated (makeup), which is great because the Academy usually ignores movies that aren't good.

P.S. As you can see, I learned how to put links in my posts. Get ready for some serious fun now!

Films I Intentionally Missed Last Year

A few of popular/critically acclaimed movies of 2007 that I have no desire to see:

Atonement (I'm just really tired of films set in jolly olde England.)
The Kite Runner (ditto jolly olde Afghanistan)
Rendition/In the Valley of Elah/Lions for Lambs/A Mightly Heart (I HATE current events movies. Time lends perspective, people.)
Beowulf (I don't think I have to explain.)
Sicko (Don't even get me started on pseudo-documentary op-ed propoganda.)
Hairspray (John Travolta in drag. No thanks.)
Bee Movie (I'm afraid it will ruin Seinfeld reruns for me.)
Away From Her (The Notebook was my last Alzheimer’s movie for a while.)

Films I Missed Last Year

The list of movies I wanted to see in theaters last year but never got around to is as long as a night with teething six-month old with an ear infection (trust me on the anology).

Anyone have thoughts on which of these should be at the top of the queue?

I'm Not There (the Dylan flick)
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (the French one about the guy who blinks a book) (Phenomenal. Will get its own post sometime.)
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (Casey Affleck's Oscar turn)
Eastern Promises (Russian Mob)
4 Months, 3 Weeks & Two Days (abortion in Cold War Romania - I think it's a comedy)
For Your Consideration (Chris Guest's new one) (Good, not great.)
Into the Wild (something about a guy in Alakska, right?) (I liked this one. Might wright a post on it.)
The Savages (P.S. Hoffman's 15th film of the year)
Lars and the Real Girl (the charming sex doll movie) (Superb. This one definitely deserves its own post.)
Persepolis (an Iranian cartoon - the graphic novel is superb) (Saw it.)
Talk To Me (Don Cheadle as a DJ) (Not bad. Nothing special, though.)

Any thing else I missed?

NPR Movies Podcast/Sundance

I'm hooked on the NPR "Movies" podcast. They put together a weekly compilation of all the movie related content from All Things Considered, Fresh Air, etc., and you can get it for free on iTunes. Each week there may be a couple of reviews from Bob Mundello or Ken Turan, an interview with an actor or director and a feature story or two about the film industry or the making of a new film. It's all good stuff, and you never have to listen to Diane Rehm.

This last week there were some great stories on the Sundance Film Festival, specifically on the bidding wars between distribution companies for the rights to the popular independent films. I've added Sundance to my list of things to do before I die, right between the Barrett-Jackson Auto Auction, and an English Premier League match.