Me . And Blood

Me update: I return to school in 9 days. That is one crazy thought. But I'm ready and excited for the upcoming year. Adding up PA duties, IFC, and 17 credits should result in a fairly hectic fall schedule but for as much as I complain and "hate" being busy, it's so great being at school. I'm going to have to do some major adjusting for post college life.


As I've repeatedly mentioned before, this summer has been filled with an overabundance of movie watching. Last night I re-watched There Will Be Blood with the Hallings and my little brother and I was reminded of why movies are made. This little P.T. Anderson gem showcases Daniel Day Lewis doing what he does best but you already know who's in it. What I concretely realized while watching it last night was that this particular film was structured very much like a novel. Now that's a quasi-stupid statement considering it is indeed based off of Upton Sinclair's novel, Oil! but what I mean by that statement is that while watching the movie, the pacing and unfolding of the plot is novel-esque.

Something movies do is speed up the pacing in order to sell tickets. Which is understandable. As I mentioned in my last blog, no one wants to watch a movie that's longer than it should be. But I felt that in There Will Be Blood, much more attention is given to the few events that happen and the viewer is allowed to chew on the themes of the movie while actually watching the movie - like a novel. Watching Daniel Plainview become consumed with greed, comparing Daniel with Eli the preacher, or anticipating H.W.'s response to all that he is put through are all themes easily identified if it were a book. Believe me, I'm a Literature Minor (that was a joke). I thought P.T. gave us a movie with a different pace which has allowed for me to give it much more thought than most the movies I've seen. Kudos.

(Oh, I haven't read the book, Oil!, so I'm making no comment there.)

It's [been] too long

I started the summer off with grandiose plans of writing piles and piles of fantastic movie/book reviews or thoughts that stemmed from them. The common human function of failure is beautifully displayed here. So I will ashamedly try and get back into things by transcribing a rant describing a pet peeve of mine being tested this weekend.


I love [good] movies. If there is thought put into a film and it shows on screen, that's beautiful. It speaks to humanity in ways other art mediums cannot. I even love a good summer blockbuster if it's done well (e.g. Dark Knight) although most of the time they're just put out there for the money (e.g. Hancock). One of my top frustrations I have with summer blockbusters, and really all films, is when they run too long. Here are my expectations with a few examples (and I feel they are at least moderately reasonable):

• Cartoon/CGI Film: 80minutes-110minutes.
• (WALL.E, 98minutes), (Kung Fu Panda, 92 minutes), (Aladdin, 90minutes)
• Comic Book or Summer Blockbuster: 90minutes-140minutes.
• (Spiderman, 121minutes), (X-men, 104minutes), (The Bourne Ultimatum, 115minutes)
• I gave leniency here - case in point: The Dark Knight filled its 152 minutes very well.
• Epic or Heavy Drama: 100minutes-180minutes.
• (LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring, 178minutes), (Saving Private Ryan, 170minutes), (No Country for Old Men, 122minutes)

OK, I may have gone into a little too much detail there but that's how I do. All that to say, when a movie largely steps outside of these time limits they better have good reason. I, in no way, want to stifle a director's artistic vision of making a film how they see fit but there's also an audience that has to watch. There's a happy medium that must be treaded upon by directors (and editors) in this time length arena (as well as a number of other aspects of film making).

Moving to this weekend: I am a sad and lonely person. Last night (Friday) I watched Schindler's List and tonight (Saturday) I watched Dances with Wolves. (I have the goal of watching all the movies nominated for Best Picture from 1990 to the present.) Now Schindler is 195minutes and Wolves is 224minutes. As I mentioned before, if you're going to stray so far outside your genres' typical time length, it better be for good reason. In my humble opinion, both films probably could have been shortened a bit although Schindler held my attention the entire time. The beautifully shot film kept me engaged the whole 3+ hours even when there wasn't a ton of dialogue. Wolves on the other hand, (granted I watched the director's cut on accident (although to my credit, the box didn't really make it clear that it was a longer cut)) could have used some definite reductions. Buffalo and Costner can only fill so much time.

It almost seems that if you made a movie over three hours long in the early 90's, your chances of nabbing a Best Pic award quadrupled. Maybe it was a different time or something (all 15 years ago...). You know how in the 60's and 70's, band's singles were often around 2 1/2 minutes (look at the Beatles' 1 album), where as now, you can get a 5+ minute song on the air? Anyways, it seems like a long time to be sitting in a movie theatre. Why, film editors/makers, can't you make a film that doesn't overtake an entire evening? I'm not just saying this for my own gratification. I really think that the correct time length (both long or short) is key in keeping the audience engaged and really, at making a good film. I'm glad films have shortened slightly.

That is my rant.

Donald

Don Miller (along with others) is riding his bike across the US. He's doing it to help raise awareness for Jars of Clay's project, Blood:Water. You can donate here if you'd like.

Here's a vid:

Shakespeare in Love

OK, this blog is only a rant.

How the heck did Shakespeare in Love win best picture? It was a slightly above average chick flick with a lot of good actors who, I thought, were acting in a sub-par movie? So I liked the cast... except for the character who played William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes). If you're not familiar with him (and why would you be unless you've seen this movie?), here's his mug:


He's your stereotypical late-90's movie star. Like Freddie Prinze Jr.:


I understand that it knowingly muddied up historical facts and in turn, tried to create a romantic movie that "has heart" or something. But it really just came off as a slightly better made yet unfunny A Knight's Tale. How the academy chose this movie over Life is Beautiful or Saving Private Ryan (which I didn't even like nearly as much as everyone else seems to) stumps me.

Oh, Judi Dench is over rated.
And Ben Affleck is in it.

Back in Action: Inside Out

I told myself that this summer I would watch a bunch of movies and read a ton of books and then write reviews or quasi-essays on favorites because that's something I like to do and it felt more constructive than simply selling hot dogs. It's safe to say I've watched a lot of movies (16) and read a lot of books (4) so far in the summer but I've done a poor job of really projecting my thoughts concerning them. I've journaled a lot but my journal is often incomplete thoughts where as a blog forces me to at least make sense out of a sentence. That's where I am currently.Movie: Adaptation

As of right now, I believe this to be my favorite movie of the summer. Why? Mainly due to it's fantastic twisted plot line. And I don't use the term "twisted" in a demented, serial killer way. More like a "this story is so crazy and the writer created so many levels of reality that I don't know what to do with myself" type of way. Charlie (and his fictitious brother, Donald) Kaufman wrote this movie. (Charlie also wrote Being John Malkovich and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, if that gives you an idea of the style.)

In a nutshell, the movie is about Charlie Kaufman (played by Nicholas Cage) and his twin brother Donald (also Nicholas Cage) and Charlie has to write a script based off a book called The Orchid Thief (who's author is played by Meryl Streep). The book, The Orchid Thief, is about a man in Florida who hunts down endangered flowers and steals them (this character played by Chris Cooper).

Now the script is based off of real events in Charlie's life (with some events exaggerated) but what I love about the movie is Charlie's conflict on how to write this script. And how it actually reflects the real Charlie Kaufman's conflict of how to write this script. I know, confusing ... but that's kind of what I enjoyed about the movie.

Part of the conflict Charlie goes through is the use of cliched material versus the striving after truly original ideas. Example: Charlie has a twin in the movie, Donald. This Donald (who, in real life, isn't real but is credited to co-writing the actual script ... and got an Oscar nom) wants to get into the screen writing business and tries to write a script but uses tired out ideas which the character, Charlie, tears to pieces. One of the ideas Donald has is of a serial killer who has a multiple personality disorder and in the end, the audience realizes he is the serial killer, the cop, and the victim. Cliche and over the top, no doubt. Watching Adaptation, you're suppose to look down on this overused trick with a superior air.

But, the real Charlie does this with himself by adding a character twin in the movie that has all of these old ideas that make money but the character Charlie wants to maintain artistic integrity. Thus, real Charlie displays his conflict over trying to write a screenplay that maintains artistic originality while connecting to the audience at the same time - and gets there by using an overused method. But he's self-referential about it. He mocks the device and yet uses it in his movie. Which in the end, makes me love how he used the overused device (really, he made it original ... sort of) and love Charlie Kaufman.

That's all I'm going to write. Nicholas Cage gave a surprisingly good performance. Chris Cooper won an Oscar for his role. And Meryl Streep is her usual self (I'm annoyed by her despite her great acting).

I just wanted to write out a little bit on this movie. And I did that. I feel satisfied. Watch the movie if you're bored or like creative scripts.

consumption I possible digestion

january-[mid]may, 2008
favorites* italicized
*favorites = objective meets subjective


books
the cost of discipleship .. dietrich bonhoeffer
don quijote .. miguel de cervantes
is the new testament reliable .. paul barnett
joseph andrews .. henry fielding
but don't all religions lead to God? .. michael green
northanger abbey .. jane austen
madame bovary .. gustave flaubert
making sense out of suffering .. peter kreeft
crime and punishment .. fyodor dostoevsky
a meaningful world .. benjamin wiker & jonathan witt
life together .. dietrich bonhoeffer
to the lighthouse .. virginia woolf
god's grace and the homosexual next door .. alan chambers
the crying of lot 49 .. thomas pynchon
white noise .. don delillo
real sex .. lauren winner


movies
eastern promises
atonement
green street hooligans
the diving bell and the butterfly
the big lebowski
the godfather
i'm not there
the scanner darkly
no country for old men
paris, je t'aime
there will be blood
michael clayton
barcelona
edward scissorhands
rescue dawn
dr. strangelove
gone baby gone
the squid and the whale
sunshine
last days
the darjeeling limited
into the wild
l.a. confidential
enchanted
bee movie
night at the museum
the assasination of jesse james by the cowardly robert ford
the talented mr. ripley
300
rocket science
the savages
expelled
dan in real life
lars and the real girl
shaun of the dead
iron man
the kite runner
charlie wilson's war

From Low to High (With a Dramatic OC Sing-a-long Ending)

I'm home and sitting in my bed.

I left Taylor around 7:15pm earlier today (Friday, May 16th). I had just eaten dinner with a few friends and hugged goodbye. Driving away, I was hit with the change that college brings. Many of my close friends are graduating. DC dinners and sleepy chapels will be replaced with weddings and once-a-year reunions. I look forward to my last action-packed year but the end is clearly in sight and I wonder why I have to leave. If it was natural, I would stay in college for many years more.

I fill my driving time with NPR's This American Life podcast. Ira Glass is the host of this weekly radio show in which they elegantly tell stories (of normal American people). The show gets pegged as uppity, hipster fodder at times (probably for good reason) but I love it. It fills my "more refined" media intake slot perfectly. As I was taking the Brighton exit on my little trip home, Ira Glass told a story of how he loves to watch The OC with his wife and every time they watch it, they sing along to the California intro song. Coincidentally, this episode was a taping of a live show in which they featured the band, Mates of State. Mates of State (who just so happens to have a cover of the song on one of the later OC soundtracks) started playing the song and the whole audience sang along to California. In this beautiful mixture of high and low art (or however you want to label those), I was first reminded of one of the major reasons I love summer, media. I love reading books. I love journaling. I love watching television series and movies. I love writing about it. My goal is to be proactive about that whole process. The song also made me realize the summer was going to be good (how that connection came, I have no idea). That I can relax. That I can see friends here. That I can prepare for the next year. And that next year was going to be really good.

I'm happy to be where I'm at and I'm happy to rest for a little while. Here's to a good summer.

Until then,

Hello.

I am not dead. Please do not worry. School work and such has taken my time and it's been a good ride. It's all over in two weeks. Perhaps then I will begin a more thoughtful and slow paced lifestyle in which blogs are created and complete ideas are formed. Until then, I wish you an enjoyment of warmer weather. Spring has a way of making people happy.

On a side note, I would like to state that my favorite season is fall (autumn). I say this now because come late summer, everyone will think fall is their favorite season when really they are just ready for change. So I want to make an objective statement in saying that fall is great. The crisp days. Sweaters. Fall colours. New beginnings, in a sense (at least of a school year). All the above.

Break it

Break was great. California was beautiful. Always good to see the fam.

I now view break as an extended Sabbath. A relaxation. Not laziness. I support it.

Pictures

Recommendation for Laughter

Following in my current streak of lacking real material -

My newest "favorite blog" has to be:

Stuff White People Like

Let me tell you why.

I love this blog because it pretty much describes me perfectly and yet it is making fun of me. And if it isn't making fun of me, it's making fun of my roommate or the guy that lives across the hall. I'm pretty sure I've been able to relate to every blog. You should check it out.