Ebertfest used to have a "free kids matinee" on Saturday mornings. Why that ended, I do not know. Maybe the scarcity of quality family films made it difficult to program. Whatever the case, it kinda returned this year with the delightful Wajdja. That might be the first time I have ever written (or said) the word "delightful," so do not take this recommendation lightly. The character Wajdja reminds me a lot of the title character in The Great Brain books, but it is unlikely that the writer/director Haifaa Al Mansour ever read those Utah-based books.
A Simple Life is one of those slice of life movies that stays with you due to the power of the story and the filmmaking. At the end I felt like I was a better person for having seen it. What more can I say?
I wish that liked Goodbye Solo more. Filmmaker Ramin Bahrani has taken the minimalist approach before with a lot of success, but this time I found myself not caring. Three months later I barely remember it.
I am afraid that if I were to revisit Oliver Stone's oeuvre that his films would not fare very well compared to my current lofty opinion of many of them. This was my first viewing of Born on the Fourth of July, and I was surprised by how Stone bombards the audience to the point of nausea. Maybe that should be expected considering his other films, but I was definitely not expecting a film that is not that far off from Natural Born Killers. TAKE IT DOWN A COUPLE OF NOTCHES, OLIVER. OR FOUR OR FIVE NOTCHES.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Ebertfest 2014, Day Three
The nice thing about writing about films months after you see them is that you now have some perspective. Some films are memorable, and some films fall into the abyss of memories. He Who Gets Slapped falls into the former category. Not just that, it is a film that I would definitely like to see again. Lon Chaney shows that he is more than just a man of a thousand faces, and the climax might be one of the greatest every filmed. That lion scene...
I wish I could be as impressed with Capote. It is a showcase for Hoffman but otherwise a rather standard film about a story that was anything but standard. I didn't remember much about it from the first time that I saw it several years ago, and that is not surprising now that I have seen it twice. Still glad that it showed at the festival due to Hoffman's death and the presence of Bennett Miller, who was a longtime friend of Hoffman.
Do the Right Thing is a much better film than I remember. I first watched it in film class twenty years ago. This is one where life experience come in handy to better appreciate what Lee is trying to say. Despite the music and styles that are right out of the 80s, Lee's film transcends those dated aspects to be a true film for the ages. By the way, word is that Lee went up to the projection booth to correct the framing. He also reportedly asked for the film to be louder. It was plenty loud where I was sitting, though in a theater as large as The Virginia there are bound to be some dead spots. Interesting that some people complained about how LOUD the sound was. Yes, it was loud, and it was also loud for Born on the Fourth of July. I was told that the movies were played at a standard theater level, and they would not raise it (for Lee) or lower it. Not enough to bother me, but I can understand how some people might be bothered by it. My advice to those people? Bring earplugs with you, just in case. By the way, Lee seemed like a nice, affable guy. The true test of that is when the dumb questions from the audience begin.
I wish I could be as impressed with Capote. It is a showcase for Hoffman but otherwise a rather standard film about a story that was anything but standard. I didn't remember much about it from the first time that I saw it several years ago, and that is not surprising now that I have seen it twice. Still glad that it showed at the festival due to Hoffman's death and the presence of Bennett Miller, who was a longtime friend of Hoffman.
Do the Right Thing is a much better film than I remember. I first watched it in film class twenty years ago. This is one where life experience come in handy to better appreciate what Lee is trying to say. Despite the music and styles that are right out of the 80s, Lee's film transcends those dated aspects to be a true film for the ages. By the way, word is that Lee went up to the projection booth to correct the framing. He also reportedly asked for the film to be louder. It was plenty loud where I was sitting, though in a theater as large as The Virginia there are bound to be some dead spots. Interesting that some people complained about how LOUD the sound was. Yes, it was loud, and it was also loud for Born on the Fourth of July. I was told that the movies were played at a standard theater level, and they would not raise it (for Lee) or lower it. Not enough to bother me, but I can understand how some people might be bothered by it. My advice to those people? Bring earplugs with you, just in case. By the way, Lee seemed like a nice, affable guy. The true test of that is when the dumb questions from the audience begin.
Friday, May 2, 2014
Ebertfest 2014, Day Two
When the festival lineup was announced, I immediately pegged it as being overloaded with heavy, dramatic films. While I could not be certain since I had only seen two of the films, a quick perusal of the summaries made up my mind. This was disappointing. One of the great things about the festival in the past was its diversity, and I am not just talking about the identity of the filmmaker. Subject matter was all over the place, as Ebert did not shy away from horror, fantasy, sci-fi, comedy, and action films in constructing the lineup. The festival used to have a Saturday matinee free to kids. For whatever the reason this came to an end several years ago, which is a shame since often these films were among the festival favorites, and they would also help to lighten the tone of the festival's darker films (one year I counted three films that included cat deaths!) The festival also used to include a 70mm film which often relied more on spectacle than talky drama, not to mention having a budget that dwarfed the typical indie film on display. Sure, the festival still has some traditions, such as the silent film accompanied by a live orchestra and a music themed film. But this year even those two films dwelt with failure and downfall. It can all be a little too much. At least no cats died.
But on to the films. I liked Museum Hours. The idea is appealing. But at 107 minutes, the film really tests the patience of the audience when there is scant plot and dialogue, not to mention being dominated by stationary photography. It could have easily been twenty minutes shorter without lessening the impact. I talked to others who volunteered that they were falling asleep during the movie, and I suspect this effect was widespread among the older Ebertfest crowd.
Short Term 12 is Brie Larson's movie. It was a big crowd pleaser, thanks in large part to the syrupy ending that managed to tie up several difficulties in such a tidy manner that made it look like it was written by a studio executive. I predict big things for Larson, who reminds me a lot of a youngish Jody Foster. Perhaps not coincidentally Larson is also dabbling in direction.
Now on to the first? film of the festival that Roger Ebert had the opportunity to see. I was with Young Adult until the ending. I am not talking about the climax at her ex's party. There is an extended denouement at the geeky Matt's place that does not ring true. It is not the resistance to change that I have a problem with, but rather that final encounter with Matt and Matt's sister's flattery. Both scenes felt forced and arbitrary. It is no surprise that some people have surmised that those last two scenes were a fiction of Mavis' "young adult" writer's mind.
Patton Oswalt continued where he left off on Day 0 with a loquacious discourse on the movie (and other things) that the moderator foolishly tried to reign in. Definitely one of my favorite festival guests in the 14 years I have been attending.
But on to the films. I liked Museum Hours. The idea is appealing. But at 107 minutes, the film really tests the patience of the audience when there is scant plot and dialogue, not to mention being dominated by stationary photography. It could have easily been twenty minutes shorter without lessening the impact. I talked to others who volunteered that they were falling asleep during the movie, and I suspect this effect was widespread among the older Ebertfest crowd.
Short Term 12 is Brie Larson's movie. It was a big crowd pleaser, thanks in large part to the syrupy ending that managed to tie up several difficulties in such a tidy manner that made it look like it was written by a studio executive. I predict big things for Larson, who reminds me a lot of a youngish Jody Foster. Perhaps not coincidentally Larson is also dabbling in direction.
Now on to the first? film of the festival that Roger Ebert had the opportunity to see. I was with Young Adult until the ending. I am not talking about the climax at her ex's party. There is an extended denouement at the geeky Matt's place that does not ring true. It is not the resistance to change that I have a problem with, but rather that final encounter with Matt and Matt's sister's flattery. Both scenes felt forced and arbitrary. It is no surprise that some people have surmised that those last two scenes were a fiction of Mavis' "young adult" writer's mind.
Patton Oswalt continued where he left off on Day 0 with a loquacious discourse on the movie (and other things) that the moderator foolishly tried to reign in. Definitely one of my favorite festival guests in the 14 years I have been attending.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Ebertfest 2014, Day One
At one point in Life Itself a point of criticism is introduced, concerning the Siskel & Ebert tv show and its effect on criticism. The main point is that the show lightly touches on each movie and movies are too complex to be graded on a mere "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" basis. Ebert defends the format of the show, though he does not deny the gist of the argument.
A similar point could be made about Life Itself. It merely touches on a few highlights and lowlights of Ebert's life without the kind of in-depth exploration that Ebert's life warranted. For example, much of Ebert's memoir is devoted to Ebert's life in Champaign and Urbana, but this part of Ebert's life is covered in just a few minutes in the documentary. This and other areas are barely referred to probably because Steve James could not find the important people from those periods of Ebert's life, as many of them had already passed on. Ebert's father, who was a great influence on his life, died just after Ebert graduated from high school. Ebert's mother later became an alcoholic (and somewhat out of control), which would seem to tie in to Ebert's later problems with the bottle. Neither of these issues was discussed in the documentary. Other areas that could have and probably should have received more coverage included Ebert's relationship with Russ Meyer, Ebert's love of film festivals and the people who attended them, Ebert's celebrity interviews, and Ebert's love of literature. Ebert is always associated with movies, but he was quoted as saying that he preferred reading to the visual arts. Interesting. But evidently not interesting enough to Steve James, who does not include this in the documentary.
James also relies too much on Ebert's inner circle. Sure, they are great, but Herzog, Scorsese, Morris, and Bahrani are a little too close to Ebert, not to mention that they do not have much to offer about Ebert's early years. The views of Corliss and Rosenbaum are offered as a counterpoint, but I wanted more. Ebert's review of Blue Velvet is briefly mentioned, but missing is a more comprehensive look at Ebert's writing. For example, concerning Blue Velvet and others, it is clear that Ebert had hangups that he could not look past. In this case it involved the poor treatment of women. Never mind that the filmmaker did not necessarily condone this behavior. Other examples of this included Ebert's reviews of Straw Dogs and A Clockwork Orange. An even more curious example is Ebert's review of Fast Times at Ridgemont High, a movie that was even directed by a woman. It is not just that Ebert did not like the movie-he was offended by it. His review is so vitriolic that one wonders if he was in a really, really bad mood when he saw the movie. Could this be the same guy who wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls?
Another issue that never comes through in the film is Ebert's views on religion. Ebert was not a religious person in the doctrinal Catholic sense, but he was certainly shaped by religion. It is another theme that is ignored.
James focused in on certain parts of Ebert's life, and the result is a quality work. Only so much can be covered in two hours, and James was limited in who he could interview because so many of Ebert's associates are no longer around. Life Itself has a lot of heart, and it is never dull. Those with only a passing familiarity with Ebert will probably find it entertaining and emotionally captivating. But Ebert lived a rich and interesting life, and I wish more of this was in the film.
A similar point could be made about Life Itself. It merely touches on a few highlights and lowlights of Ebert's life without the kind of in-depth exploration that Ebert's life warranted. For example, much of Ebert's memoir is devoted to Ebert's life in Champaign and Urbana, but this part of Ebert's life is covered in just a few minutes in the documentary. This and other areas are barely referred to probably because Steve James could not find the important people from those periods of Ebert's life, as many of them had already passed on. Ebert's father, who was a great influence on his life, died just after Ebert graduated from high school. Ebert's mother later became an alcoholic (and somewhat out of control), which would seem to tie in to Ebert's later problems with the bottle. Neither of these issues was discussed in the documentary. Other areas that could have and probably should have received more coverage included Ebert's relationship with Russ Meyer, Ebert's love of film festivals and the people who attended them, Ebert's celebrity interviews, and Ebert's love of literature. Ebert is always associated with movies, but he was quoted as saying that he preferred reading to the visual arts. Interesting. But evidently not interesting enough to Steve James, who does not include this in the documentary.
James also relies too much on Ebert's inner circle. Sure, they are great, but Herzog, Scorsese, Morris, and Bahrani are a little too close to Ebert, not to mention that they do not have much to offer about Ebert's early years. The views of Corliss and Rosenbaum are offered as a counterpoint, but I wanted more. Ebert's review of Blue Velvet is briefly mentioned, but missing is a more comprehensive look at Ebert's writing. For example, concerning Blue Velvet and others, it is clear that Ebert had hangups that he could not look past. In this case it involved the poor treatment of women. Never mind that the filmmaker did not necessarily condone this behavior. Other examples of this included Ebert's reviews of Straw Dogs and A Clockwork Orange. An even more curious example is Ebert's review of Fast Times at Ridgemont High, a movie that was even directed by a woman. It is not just that Ebert did not like the movie-he was offended by it. His review is so vitriolic that one wonders if he was in a really, really bad mood when he saw the movie. Could this be the same guy who wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls?
Another issue that never comes through in the film is Ebert's views on religion. Ebert was not a religious person in the doctrinal Catholic sense, but he was certainly shaped by religion. It is another theme that is ignored.
James focused in on certain parts of Ebert's life, and the result is a quality work. Only so much can be covered in two hours, and James was limited in who he could interview because so many of Ebert's associates are no longer around. Life Itself has a lot of heart, and it is never dull. Those with only a passing familiarity with Ebert will probably find it entertaining and emotionally captivating. But Ebert lived a rich and interesting life, and I wish more of this was in the film.
Ebertfest 2014, Day Zero
Bringing back memories of sleeping through political science and classic civ (when I bothered to attend), I returned to Foellinger Auditorium on Tuesday to attend the showing of the original version of The Taking of Pelham, One, Two, Three. Not a huge crowd, and technical aspects were lacking, but those that did attend were treated to the musings of the often hilarious Patton Oswalt, who introduced the film and took questions afterwards. I am sure that even those who were not thrilled by the movie were entertained by Oswalt's energetic and insightful banter which at times verged into standup territory. And Pelham is one of those movies worthy of such a discussion.
A few thoughts about the movie (spoilers)-
1. Why didn't the city just shut off power to the runaway train?
2. Did we really need to see Robert Shaw fry? And this really came out of nowhere-it would have been nice if the movie had explained motivations a little bit better.
3. This is a really lamebrain scheme. The police know exactly where the train stopped. Why wouldn't they station police in that area to make sure no one escaped. Even if the police believed one or more of the criminals were still on the train, that doesn't account for any criminals that might have jumped off the train and fled on foot-with the loot.
4. The score was awful, and I do not really buy the explanation that it was merely reflecting the ugliness of the city.
5. The direction was almost as bad, in terms of awkward editing, clumsy camerawork, and hammy acting from bit players. Maybe that is what separates this movie from Diehard.
A few thoughts about the movie (spoilers)-
1. Why didn't the city just shut off power to the runaway train?
2. Did we really need to see Robert Shaw fry? And this really came out of nowhere-it would have been nice if the movie had explained motivations a little bit better.
3. This is a really lamebrain scheme. The police know exactly where the train stopped. Why wouldn't they station police in that area to make sure no one escaped. Even if the police believed one or more of the criminals were still on the train, that doesn't account for any criminals that might have jumped off the train and fled on foot-with the loot.
4. The score was awful, and I do not really buy the explanation that it was merely reflecting the ugliness of the city.
5. The direction was almost as bad, in terms of awkward editing, clumsy camerawork, and hammy acting from bit players. Maybe that is what separates this movie from Diehard.
Friday, April 4, 2014
Play It Again
Today's Cubs-Phillies game featured an almost replay. Darwin Barney was hit by a pitch. The umpire ruled that it was a foul ball. Renteria discussed it with the umpires for about four minutes in old school style, but no replay was forthcoming. I do not know why the replay was not allowed. The broadcasters were equally clueless, and as far as I know no definitive explanation was ever provided.
One possible explanation is that even if it was not ruled a foul ball, the umpire would have ruled Barney swung at the pitch, thus resulting in a strike. Therefore if Renteria challenged it, the replay would have shown that the ball hit barney without striking the bat. This would have been BAD for the Cubs, because the umpire would then call it a strike instead of a foul ball, and Barney would have struck out. Taking this idea one step further, Sandberg should have challenged the call because Barney would have been called out. Instead the call stood and Barney singled on the next pitch.
One possible explanation is that even if it was not ruled a foul ball, the umpire would have ruled Barney swung at the pitch, thus resulting in a strike. Therefore if Renteria challenged it, the replay would have shown that the ball hit barney without striking the bat. This would have been BAD for the Cubs, because the umpire would then call it a strike instead of a foul ball, and Barney would have struck out. Taking this idea one step further, Sandberg should have challenged the call because Barney would have been called out. Instead the call stood and Barney singled on the next pitch.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
SCOTUS Run Amok
Is the issue really this simple? Yes, it is.
The first sentence-"In the past four years, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court has made it far easier to buy an election and far harder to vote in one."
The last sentence-" A country that expands the rights of the powerful to dominate the political process but does not protect fundament rights for all citizens doesn’t sound much like a functioning democracy to me."
Scary.
It would be scarier if not for the definite possibility that Hillary will serve eight years following Obama, thus providing an excellent opportunity to replace one or more Republican leaning justices. Scalia is 78 years old. Considering that he is not the healthiest looking 78, it is extremely unlikely he will last on the bench another ten years. Kennedy is a few months behind him. On the left side of things is Ginsburg, who at age 81 might want to consider retiring while Obama still has a chance to name a replacement, just in case Hillary does not win.
The first sentence-"In the past four years, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court has made it far easier to buy an election and far harder to vote in one."
The last sentence-" A country that expands the rights of the powerful to dominate the political process but does not protect fundament rights for all citizens doesn’t sound much like a functioning democracy to me."
Scary.
It would be scarier if not for the definite possibility that Hillary will serve eight years following Obama, thus providing an excellent opportunity to replace one or more Republican leaning justices. Scalia is 78 years old. Considering that he is not the healthiest looking 78, it is extremely unlikely he will last on the bench another ten years. Kennedy is a few months behind him. On the left side of things is Ginsburg, who at age 81 might want to consider retiring while Obama still has a chance to name a replacement, just in case Hillary does not win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)