Bark vs. Bite

I'm more inclined to think the economy is in the tanks when stuff like this doesn't happen. When it does, then, I think, "Hey, it's not so bad, movies about little talking dogs are still funny!" The world is OK. Economic foundations will crumble, people will buy that $300,000 home on $27,000 a year, the minimum payment on credit card bills will be all you ever really need to pay. Where was the government intervention on this one? Sure, bail out Wall Street in policies that effectually force socialism on us, but allow America to see this movie that has has anorexisized Benji without so much as calling in the National Guard? $29 Million? Seriously? For a movie about talking dogs? Really? This movie is to Lumiere what the Atomic Bomb was to Oppenheimer.

Hopefully you paid for the popcorn, soda and candy with your credit card.

The Problem Of The Dark Knight

Much has been said about this movie. It's darkness, it's performances, it's awesomeness. I loved the movie. Loved every second of every minute. It, at times, brought out the child in me. The fist-pumping, adrenaline-rushing, beat-the-bad-guys child in me. If you have not seen it, you should, just as an exercise in why movies can be cool.

Ledger's performance was good, perhaps even great. He did not supersede any previous interpretation of the Joker, he merely brought his own to the role. Embodied it in his own way. Whatever you read about the excellence he called upon, his Joker is worthy of the approbation. And if the Joker never appears on screen again, it may very well be because it never needs to. And while I liked Ledger, I still stand by Nicholson who was vastly different in his approach. While Ledger nailed every mannerism, every dark nuance of the character that could manifest itself physically did (especially the tongue flickering), the villain lacked swagger. Nicholson gave the Joker that villainous swagger, an arrogance, a propensity for narcissism and evil. Ledger's Joker was vastly dark but I perceived him as a lightweight. Just because he kills coldly and without pretense does not necessarily make him a worthy adversary -- though I concede he was to Batman. Ledger's Joker lacked some weight, some material, physical swagger that precedes him in the moments before he appears on screen. With Nicholson, you felt the Joker coming before he appeared. I didn't get that with Ledger. Still good though, perhaps Oscar worthy too.

If you've seen it, you've seen the darkness of the film. It's strength. It's brilliance of it's characters. It's non-plot plot. The problem of evil. It was at the forefront of the movie and it cannot be ignored. It's also at the forefront of life around us. The movie did well to incorporate the goodness of mankind, even in small amounts as a necessary adversary, as the true rival of the evil. I compare the problem of evil in this movie to the problem of good in another movie I just watched: Lars and the Real Girl. For that entire film I wanted, expected, anticipated the proclivity man has for evil to show itself. But it never did. That movie was all about the problem of good. It believed in the goodness of people in large amounts. I highly recommend Lars and the Real Girl. It is utterly moving.

Now The Dark Knight believed in it too. And perhaps, in the small amounts we saw we came away with the notion that goodness, even as small of a grain of sand, can combat and overturn and right the largest amounts of evil.

One other thing, I tire of ketch phrases. Perhaps that's the staple of comic books, but the "he's more than a hero" sounds more like a Nickelback lyric than good writing.

Actually, I Loved It

Caught a rom-com (read: romantic comedy) on TV the other night: Love Actually. Quite an impressive movie (a caveat: I would not have seen had it not been edited). All-star ensemble casts are endeavors that do not guarantee success, but this one worked. And worked well. What I was most impressed by was the adeptness with which the idea of love was handled. Love is a many splendid thing, to be sure. It wears many hats and guises. There's the classical categorization of love into 4 categories. Those were present in the movie, but so were the sub-fields. The unrequited loves. The marriage love. The romantic love that exists when the physical is stripped away and in fact, transcends that aspect of Eros (done in a very interesting and counter-intuitive way).

It was the child-like love that I most appreciated and enjoyed. The storyline ran through the movie like a spine -- suggesting the writer/directors belief that this was the love we are to show others. Born out of tragedy it presented the truest, simplest and ideal form of love. Love that has no fear, has no comprehension, has no concern for convention, no selfishness, no motives, no strings attached, no regrets. It was just love. And if it hurts in the end, so what: "Let's go get our heads kicked in by love." We saw, in that perspective, the freedom that love can give a person.

Love is a battlefield? Love lift us up where we belong? All you need is love? In the name of love? I'll be loving you forever? Love, love, love?

Yes. Actually.

Apocalypto

Finally watched the film last night, after I rented it Saturday night. Excellent film. Not nearly the graphic violence I had thought. Not like Braveheart or The Passion.

Important to understanding this film is the opening quote from Will Durant:

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within"

When I see this statement, I think of Rome. I think how much the empire had decayed before the Visigoths conquered it. Apocalypto bears much the same commentary. Say what you will about Gibson -- and there is much to be said. He knows how to develop themes and ideas in his movies.

It's difficult to rate the acting and writing because of the language and unfamiliarity I have with the subject matter. It's hard to rate the cinematography because it's what you should expect: good and not getting in the way of the movie. After all, the entire film is shot in the jungle. That leaves the directing and a director's job whose point it is to make the movie clear. And there is a clear theme, a clear direction this movie takes.

And I make no analogy when I say this movie raced through the jungle, chased by its theme, by the above quote, finally coming to the clearing. And kneeling in the sand on a foggy beach we watch the theme come sweeping in towards the shore and we are moved. It is tragic.

Excellent movie. Highly recommended.

Best Movie Of The Year. So Far...

Was one of the first to see the Simpsons Movie. It was pretty funny. Pretty hilarious. Pretty much worth the five dollars I spent on it. Actually I spent $8 on the movie because the first theater we went to, we got there late and would've missed the opening of the movie -- which you can't do -- so we had to go to another theater where we ended up waiting for 45 minutes. All that said, I spent three more dollars on pinball. I love pinball. Could play it all the time.

I also loved this movie. It dragged where everyone said it did. But was the perfect length -- unlike others I couldn't have done more. Did I mention it was hilarious? The off-beat jabs at pop-culture are my favorite. I'm not sure if I should be pleased about that. Because it just means I know enough about pop-culture to get the references and is that something that's really funny or really sad?

Also of note was the social commentary. Interesting what they chose to comment on. I could have done without it. Could have been satisfied with 87 minutes of musings on a Spider Pig. (Where does it come from? Is it really "just a pig"? What does a Spider Pig do? What comes first, the spider or the pig?) The commentary just seemed too simple for the Simpsons. Too easy an issue to target. That's not to say they didn't hit the bulls-eye, it's just to say it was a pretty large target. It's not like Matt Groening is Rick Ankiel.

I also did enjoy watching the movie with people the Simpsons generally makes fun of. The people who don't really get the jokes (noted by the lack of laughter at some of the funnier, more bitingly sarcastic moments). Who talk through the entire movie. Who provide a running commentary, like "Look at that, the bomb just exploded." Really? Must have missed that explosion myself on this 80-foot screen! Couple that irony with the overall good-natured ribald from The Simpsons Movie, and the humor during those 87-minutes was unmeasurable.

In the end, best movie of the year. So far. And stay through the credits if you choose to go.

Not Strange At All

Saw a fantastic movie last night. Best movie I've seen since I Heart Huckabees and easily entering the realm of my favorite all-time movie: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Stranger Than Fiction is in the same class of originality as those two movies. It's challenging. Not in the sense that it will change your life; rather in the sense of lottery numbers in Ohio matching the score from Saturday's game (no joke!). It's thought-provoking; it's humorous; it's a delightful movie. Much can be offered on the perspective of literature, character, philosophy and even religion in this movie - but you must see it first.

Two ideas, however, stand alone. First, the ever-present notion that life is a story. More than that, life is a narrative. You may not have a narrator that speaks with a British accent, but your life is most certainly a tale. It is being played out by characters you know and characters you do not. You have a limited narrative perspective. It's first-person perspective in the present; it's third-person perspective in hindsight (though not everyone makes the required effort to see life this way). And there is the startling idea that you are the main character in your story. Seems obvious enough, but it takes a bit of detached humor to appreciate the notion. And is your life a book you would read? Is it a masterpiece?

A final note on this notion, I have only recently come to see life as a narrative. In fact, it's a very post-modern viewpoint. It's one I haven't worked out and didn't give much credence to at first. I still can't explain it past the obvious -- but I am swimming in its sea of implication. And this movie was a refreshing dip in to what is a very new world-view.

Ebert sums it up best:
"Stranger Than Fiction" is a meditation on life, art and romance, and on the kinds of responsibility we have. Such an uncommonly intelligent film does not often get made. It could have pumped up its emotion to blockbuster level, but that would be false to the premise, which requires us to enter the lives of these specific quiet, sweet, worthy people. The ending is a compromise -- but it isn't the movie's compromise, it belongs entirely to the characters and is their decision. And that made me smile.

The second thing about the movie I liked was one of many memorable and challenging quotes: I wanted the change the world, so I decided to make cookies.

It's really that simple. It's really that child-like.