Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts

5.05.2009

this is all an illusion



God damn. Mulholland Drive. Jesus. So good.

This was my 4th or 5th time round, and definitely the best yet.

I would be more than okay with this as the consensus Best O' Decade pick...but then again, In the Mood for Love is pretty good...plus Crouching Tiger...

Nate

5.03.2009

To die would be an awfully big adventure


I was just discussing my deep-seated love of Peter Pan with one of my roommates, and the conversation ended up centering on PJ Hogan's 2003 film adaptation, of which I am a huge fan.
To me, Hogan's film is the single most thoughtful onscreen treatment of the Peter Pan mythology; it strays from the book in a few instances, but always in service of the story's fundamental purpose. It portrays Captain Hook and Peter as equally tragic figures, whose rivalry is more metaphorical than personal; Captain Hook is the embodiment of everything Peter fears about adulthood (cynicism, pettiness, and failed dreams) while Peter is a reminder of Captain Hook's lost innocence and joy. In the film, neither one is fully capable of love, but while Peter shuns the notion of deep love, Hook secretly longs for the simple comforts of family life. The film treats the source material with respect, accentuating the bittersweet nature of Peter's eternal youth while adding a complicated and engrossing level of nuance to the character of Captain Hook.
I'm done rambling. Sorry 'bout that. Go rent the film.

Nate

6.27.2008

why hello!


Hello everybody, I'm back!

Yes, I have been on a bit of a hiatus from the pop-cult these days, but only officially. In spirit, I've been here all along.

A few things to catch up on:

-I finally got around to watching the first and second seasons of Battlestar Galactica, and all I can say is...frack ("fuck" in BSG lingo), this stuff is golden. But, you've all probably heard that before. My favorite elements of the show are kinda typical, but I can't help it. I just plain old love Mary McDonnell as President Roslyn. It's truly shameful that she hasn't gotten an Emmy nom yet. And Katee Sackhoff and Edward James Olmos are also dead-on as Starbuck and Adama, respectively. The show is smart, thrilling, and surprising. I found myself tearing-up during Season 1's "Flesh and Bone". What an unparalleled success this show has turned into. I'm in the middle of the Third Season, so don't spoil me...either of you.

- I also decided to heard over to the multiplexes to check out The Incredible Hulk, and I was not entirely impressed. To be 100% honest, I am not exactly an unbiased judge of comic book movies; I'm a huge Marvel fan. The comic book geek in me knows that TIH is a far more accurate and loyal adaptation of the comic's mythos, but I found myself longing for Ang Lee's bizarre stylings. There is evidently 70 minutes of character development strewn about the editing room floor, and I completely believe it. To tell the truth, I barely remember Edward Norton being in the film. He did what he could, but the film seemed to be bored with Bruce Banner, greatly favoring his green alter-ego. Tim Roth and Tim Blake Nelson were both fun as hell in their somewhat villainous roles, but I wish William Hurt had gone a little bit more over-the-top with Thunderbolt Ross. I know the studio wanted to erase memories of Hulk, but I really missed Sam Elliott's interpretation from that first film; he was the stand-out in that movie, and he would've really livened things up here. Overall: C+/C

- I'm going to go on record as being one of the few (sorta) proponents of The Happening. I'm not a fan of the characters, dialogue, or exposition, but the sheer cinematic bravado of the first half of the film was just breathtaking. I know that this is a very unpopular opinion, but I think critics dogpiled on the film because of Shyamalan's ego (which is very annoying, and still very present), but I think they missed the point of this project. The performances are terribly uneven, and the character development is laughable (John Leguizamo's character just plain makes no sense), but Mark Whalberg and Zooey Deschanel know when to go for laughs, and this redeems certain bizarre moments. M. Night could be one of the greats, but he needs to stop writing his own scripts. Concept work is fine, but he should definitely become more of a collaborator. Overall: B-

Nate

6.07.2008

I've read those Englsh dramas to-OO, they're Cru-OO-l


Lou Reed is a very grumpy dude when it comes to money vs. art. Understandably so.

I went and saw him on 4/20 in Northampton, and he did a GREAT job.

+++

I'm hypothetically on Spike's side in the Clint vs. Spike debate, but I'm not sure he needed to point to Clint's films to explain his own. Eastwood's films did focus on the white-only battalions, which were still segregated during WWII, but I'm not sure that the law of "presence of an absence" so much applies to Clint's film as it does to the photography of the War, which is what Clint's first of the two films (Flags of Our Fathers, that is) was inspired by.

I'm in favor of free speech and artistic dialogue, so Spike's my man. Plus, it's not like Clint has been especially gracious about other people's films.

Remember when he criticized Peter Jackson for using special effects in a FANTASY film? And when he tried to act as though Mystic River, as a star-studded melodrama, was somehow handicapped at the Oscars? PUH-LEEZ.

Just a thought.

Nate

6.06.2008

Idi Amin had a funny eye


Watching Last King of Scotland (2006), I am struck with very mixed emotions.

On the one side, I feel the the film barely skims the surface of African identity, heritage, and life.

But, I am tempted to read the film as an anti-colonial narrative, with Idi Amin turning colonial practice against the British, and therefore, setting up an anti-British allegory. But to only use the country of Uganda and Amin's regime as a storytelling tool to criticize Britain degrades the worth and importance of Uganda as a country. Plus, how many movies depict multiple interracial romantic entanglements?

(BTW, Gillian Anderson looks like Virginia Madsen when she bleaches her hair.)

But, the hero still has to rely on the British, and then himself for rescue.

Sigh.

Ah, the travails of the modern day left-wing liberal film critic.

THAT SAID, both Forest Whitaker and James McAvoy are wonderful in this. McAvoy got a BAFTA nom, but was pretty much ignored otherwise. I am here to tell you that this is some horse-shit; McAvoy may be a pretty boy, but he also happens to be a great actor.

(Ultimately, I feel that the film is flawed, and deserves a B-, with the storytelling skills getting most of the credit. I still recommend a viewing. McAvoy and Whitaker each earn an A. Whitaker is awesome - truly awesome - but McAvoy has the harder task.)

Personally, I would list Whitaker as a Supporting Actor.

+++

Uh oh! Impromptu list time!

"PRETTY BOY" ACTORS WHO NEVER GET ENOUGH CREDIT

05. Jeff Bridges
He may not be as traditionally handsome as the other men on this list, but Jeff Bridges has been making acting look easy since he was born. With the one exception of the 1970s King Kong. Hasn't won an Oscar, and has only been nommed for one. But, c'mon, I mean...he was The Dude, dude.

04. Hugh Jackman
Bro played Liza Minelli's husband AND Wolverine convincingly, and totally carried The Fountain. Not to mention besting Christian Bale in The Prestige. Oscar nomination-less, Golden Globe nomination-less. However, he has won a Tony, and has hosted it multiple times.

03. Brad Pitt
I need only point at his cameo on Jackass, plus all of his film appearances as proof.

02. James Marsden
Listen. I've never disliked him, DESPITE the fact that he was given the absolutely shit role of Cyclops in the X-Men films. But his good-sport showing in Enchanted was enough to endear him to me. His sportsmanship in Hairspray is only additional.

01. Tom Cruise
Before you jump down my throat, admit this: Tom Cruise can be extremely charismatic in the right role. Magnolia tops my list.

Nate Tyson

PS: This is pretty funny.

My favorite is "When Obama wins...people will stop making bad remixes of Billy Jean."

My hypothetical contribution...

"When Obama wins...Chuck Norris jokes will be made illegal."

5.23.2008

I'm gonna eat your fucking daughter, Ben.



So, the casting for the upcoming Wolverine film is actually rather interesting. For instance, I think Ryan Reynolds will make a fantastic Deadpool.

But, the really funny thing is that Kevin Durand (pictured) who plays Keamy on this season of LOST, will be playing...THE BLOB.

Isn't that awesome? Durand makes for fantastic evil as Keamy, so I'm looking forward to this.

Nate

PS:

Domick Monaghan, Charlie on LOST, will be playing Beak...the ugliest X-Man ever.

Evidently, the filmmakers have a boner for LOST.

5.20.2008

hi!


I'm watching Gladiator right now, and it's much, much better than I remembered. I also rewatched X-Men: The Last Stand, and my feelings are less hateful, but no less disappointed.

+++

Tonight, I watched two episodes of Two and a Half Men, and the season finale of How I Met Your Mother. I thought that Two and a Half Men was going to be quite terrible, but it was actually quite funny. Charlie Sheen, Blythe Danner, and whoever the other guy is (he played Ducky in Pretty in Pink) are all really, genuinely funny.

Plus, Jane Lynch was totally in one of the episodes. She's side-splitting as Charlie's psychiatrist. I love her so, so much. Funniest lady in Hollywood.

Nate

5.12.2008

It is YOUR Government...I suppose that is a small consolation


I watched Stephen Frears' The Queen earlier today, and I'm kicking myself for waiting so long to check it out. It is quite an interesting production, both artistically, and politically.

Obviously, Helen Mirren was fantastic, but I was equally taken with Martin Sheen's Tony Blair throughout the film. While Mirren was allowed a certain amount of artistic leeway - there are very little public preconceptions about the Queen's private demeanor compared to Blair's - Martin Sheen was given the role of a very public, over-scrutinized politician in his first week in office. Considering that the film was made and released toward the end of Tony Blair's political fall from grace - directly due to his support of Bush's War in Iraq - one can't help but see the depiction of Blair's early days as somewhat bittersweet.

In the film's last scene, Queen Elizabeth warns Blair that the British people will one day turn on him, without notice. Of course, we, as viewers, know that this has already happened. Over the course of the film, Blair is repeatedly accused of snuggling up to the establishment, despite his reputation as a reformer. This, along with that line of dialogue from Mirren's Queen Elizabeth, seem to create a second, sub-textual narrative to the film: The Tragic Fall of Tony Blair.

Looking for the script online, I discovered that the aforementioned line spoken by the Queen was NOT in the original script. Hmmm...this just leads me to believe that this sub-text was very purposefully established by Mr. Frears.

Nate

5.11.2008


The films I've watched in the past 24 hours:

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Transformers
Pulse
Fantastic Four: The Rise of the Silver Surfer


I feel my brain rotting away. However, none of them were as bad as I expected.

Nate

5.07.2008

A monthly feature? Say it ain't so: 5 Things I'm Digging This Month


5 Things I'm Digging in May of 2008

[For fan's of my early LJ work, this might remind some of the monthly "Cool List" I used to do...basically, you're on-the-nose with that one. But back then, Woody Allen, Lou Reed, and David Bowie had permanent joint-residence at the top of my lists. That is no longer true, because this list is only in reference to RECENT pop culture happenings. I'm sorry for any disappointment this may cause any old school fans of my internet ramblings {i.e. Marj}]

5. Wolf Parade - "Grey Estates"/"Kissing the Beehive"
Both of these are tracks from the upcoming Wolf Parade LP, At Mount Zoomer. Krug's stuff tends to catch me quicker than Boekner's contributions, but Boekner's "Grey Estates" was the first song to truly catch my ear on my first listen-through the whole album. Both songs are great, but the whole album strikes me as more of a grower than their debut, so we'll see what my favorites are by December/January come EOY-list-Season. "Grey Estates" is a more familiar-sounding song than "Kissing the Beehive," but both show the growth of the band's songwriters. Spencer Krug always gets the credit between the two, with Dan Boekner's songs usually sidelined. But, for me, Boekner's tendency toward urban epics [I'm thinking "Grey Estates," "This Heart's on Fire," and "Shine a Light", specifically] in conjunction with Krug's freak-pop sensibilities [I'm thinking "Fancy Claps," "I'll Believe in Anything," and his side-project Sunset Rubdown's Shut Up I am Dreaming, among other things] define Wolf Parade's sound and "feel".

4. Iron Man doing so damned well at the box office
Well, Iron Man did better this weekend than (almost certainly) anybody expected. What does this mean for me? Robert Downey Jr. is fucking back for good! Woo! No more "what if he snorts all my coke" from movie execs when his name comes up. Way to go Robby.
Ahem. And, you know...other things excite me about this too. I'm not a huge fan of the comic book, but Marvel's recent Civil War storyline has gotten me somewhat familiar with his paper and ink incarnation. The HUGE financial success of this movie just makes it more likely that The Incredible Hulk will do well, and, regardless of quality, both films' success would make large cinematice comic book cross-overs more likely. You know we've all been waiting for someone to pull this off right, and if Marvel makes the studios enough money, they'll eventually let them cross-over profitable franchises. As I understand it, there are cross-overs between Iron Man, Hulk, and the rumored/upcoming Nick Fury film; what with Tony Stark (IM's alter-ego) appearing in Hulk, Nick Fury (in the form of Samuel L. Jackson) appearing [and firmly introducing the concept of S.H.I.E.L.D. to movie-goers...finally] in Iron Man, and god-knows-what going down during the possible Nick Fury or Avengers flicks.
I think that this creation of a cohesive cinematic Marvel universe is a GREAT move, mostly because it [hopefully] will create a somewhat measurable standard of quality for Marvel's future films (good-bye throwaway shit like Daredevil and Ghost Rider?) and allow for more substantial cinematic adaptations of comic book sagas without having to tie them to specific actors or characters [especially useful in the case of contract/continuance disputes]. If Marvel can get over the hump (and Iron Man's success may indicate that it has) of having to sell specific characters in their films (i.e., running the risk of running out of recognizable/profitable faces), then they can really let the story-telling creativity flow in the future.
Imagine a world in which comic book movie franchises don't have to start with stangnant origin stories, and can instead develop characters already "created" onscreen. We've seen this done woefully with Elektra, but Daredevil isn't much to start with. Hopefully, these theoretical spin-offs would fit into larger, multi-film, intercinematic story arcs. Cross-overs that are not framed simply as X vs. Y, but have complex, involved storylines, could sustain the popularity and creative juices of comic book films as a genre well past this or the next decade.
Of course, Iron Man's success could be more of an indicator of Marvel's newly minted cinematic Brand Name. Maybe I can look forward to having the annual BIG MARVEL MOVIE(S) usher me into old age.

[PS: The only problem with all this is that X-Men: The Last Stand blew so goddamned hard it fucking hurts every-single-time-I-think-about-it...oh God, my eyes are bleeding from sheer X-Men fanboy fury. I know that Magneto and Wolverine spin-offs are lined up for 2009, but the whole franchise seems tainted. I can't trust future films within this franchise after Last Stand ignored almost every character's established traits and personality. And I'm not talking established in the comics, I mean character stuff set up within the first two films. Brett Ratner, the film's director, expects me to accept that Rogue was put through all the henious shit of the first two films only to voluntarily give up her powers cuz she doesn't want to blue ball Iceman? {no pun intended} Really? Thanks, I'm glad that was the character arc of one of comic history's greatest heroines. Don't even get me started on the unnecessary sidelining of Professor X, Magneto, Cyclops {permanently, in this case}, Jean Grey (well, sorta necessary here and in Magneto's case, kinda), and Mystique by film's end. I would have loved to see Rebbecca Romijn's Mystique lead an incarnation of the Brotherhood of Mutants in future spin-offs, or perhaps just generally achieve the same level of canonized awesomeness as her comic counterpart. Not to hate in RR's portrayal in any way; I am a big fan. {Oh, and for the haters, yes, RR was PERFORMING. People get nominated for/win Oscars for playing mutes, and they don't have to communicate through a second skin of make-up. I was more impressed with Rebecca Romijn's performances in the X-Men films and Femme Fatale than either of Charlize Theron or Halle Berry's Oscar-winning de-glams.} I'm hoping that there are more spin-offs of the X-Men franchise coming down the pipe, assuming the success of the not-yet-named Magneto project and the un-cinematically titled X-Men Origins: Wolverine. What's frustrating about those two films is that they are exploring the early years/non-X-Men time for each character, which means that the narrative of the central films will not continue until another, non-Origin spin-off. That is somewhat annoying, considering the heavy/nearly invsible teasing at the very end of Ratner's film {his occasionally successful use of tiny comic book references was his one saving grace as a director, he also, unfortunately, didn't know when to quit} that hints at Xavier surviving Jean's deadly telekinetic-exfoliation and Magneto regaining his powers {though I do wonder where Magnus got the metal chess pieces he was using in the park; I have yet to run into a set of those.})

[PPS: On the subject of Samuel L. Jackson's rumored casting as the titular character in the upcoming Nick Fury film: I am fully in favor of it. Like 100% awesome, in my book. You see, I am actually far more familiar with the "Ultimate" version of Nick Fury than I am with the traditional Fury, who is a crotchety old white man. Some fans are calling shenanigans on the casting, but I don't have any true affection for Caucasian Nick Fury, and Sam Jackson needs an action role that isn't literally written for him to flesh out. My phrasing there is a bit ironic, considering the main reason that I agree with the casting: the Ultimate Marvel version of Nick Fury is visually based on Jackson, and in an issue of The Ultimates {the "Ultimate" Avengers, basically}, Fury says he would want Jackson to play him in a film adaptation of The Ultimates' exploits. This may seem corny, but it is enough to settle the matter for me. Besides, I'm not sure we'll be seeing this Nick Fury film in its current rumored form. I think we're gonna end up with a film adaptation of either The Avengers or The Ultimates. I think Marvel may be wiser to use The Ultimates, and try to tie their new franchises close together, and to their current, fresh line of comics. This way, as Marvel's sales rise, the distinction between the original and Ultimate versions will become public common knowledge, and then the film's may be granted more experimental breathing room with characters. Besides, the cinematic Marvel universe more resembles Ultimate Marvel in its modern origins. Of course, with the retconning of Ang Lee's Hulk with Edward Norton's least-favorite-movie-to-promote-of-all-time, and the possible future retconning of the Spider-Man and X-Men films to explain the absence/change of characters/actors, the cinematic Marvel universe will have more "alternate versions" than the comic book world. Of course, that is not true. NOTHING will ever contain more alternate universes than the Marvel Comics multiverse...except, possibly, the theoretical real-life multiverse, String Theory and whatnot.]

3. Earth's The Bees Make Honey in the Lion's Skull, The Notwist's The Devil, You + Me, & El Guincho's Alegranza!; 3 great essay-writing albums.
Evidently, Earth's earlier albums were heavier and more, you know, lively. Or so says this markedly subpar review of the band's show in Chicago this past Friday. I haven't heard their back catalog (just got a couple of older albums, tho...I am muy, muy siced to listen) but I'm willing to bet that they haven't just decided to start sucking, just for the Hell of it. Either way, their 2008 release, The Bees Make Honey in the Lion's Skull has been played on my iTunes somewhere near 60 times in the past two months; so I'm a big fan of this album. It's melodic, long-winded, and really charming. Out of all the albums I play when people are studying in my room, this one has earned the most fans outside of academia. It's 7 tracks long, but every track is decently long, falling in the middle ground between 5 and 10 minutes, and every note seems to come at just the right moment. It's definitely my favorite Spacey Stoner music of the moment.
However, The Notwist and El Guincho's new albums have also wrapped themselves around my brain, especially due to their heavy rotation during the last month of school, and all the study sessions therein. The Notwist's album isn't particularly ground-breaking, and they don't really show any intentions of adapting their sound based on current fads in music. They still sound a little bit like a more optimistic, organic Radiohead [I am not implying that Radiohead is "inorganic", but their take on a similar mix of rock and electronic influences is a lot colder, less rooted in familiar territory than The Notwist's], but they have not diminished in creativity or listenablity as far as these ears can tell. This album is a lot more guitar/instrument based than Neon Golden, but it maintains the same mood as that earlier album.
El Guincho, according to AllMusic, is Pablo Díaz-Reixa, who ran away from home at age 14 to pursue a career in sports, but ended up an internet success story. Or that's how NBC4 would begin things. It seems that this kid ended up becoming a musician, and joined his cousin's band, Coconut. Díaz-Reixa was "inspired while on tour", code for "saw someone else do it first", to blend samples of psychedelic, calypso and tropilcalia from older South American records with his own percussion. This stuff is like Panda Bear's secret party time side-project, which makes sense, seeing as Person Pitch, the album this most sounds like, was made after Panda Bear moved to Portugal. Whatever cultural appropriation is going on here, it sounds fantastic.
Checking these albums out is a requirement for friends of mine from now on.

02. Studying Angels in America; or just the looming shadow of my future academic work in general
Having studied the play all-too-briefly in my US Lit Since 1960 course this semester, I was immediately taken with the academic dissection of Tony Kushner's play. I already have pages upon pages of notes on this play, and I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER take notes on anything. Long story short, I can see myself becoming a scholar of the play, or at least writing a dissertation on it for a Graduate degree. Maybe I should become a Doctor of American Theater.
Anyways, the play is just brilliant, and every glance I take at its pages just makes me want to write another thirty or forty pages about it. Unfortunately, I have never seen it performed, and have no intentions on doing so until a particular professional production tickles my fancy. Ah well. At least I have a pretty-darned-good (but juuuust shy of great) movie adaptation to fall back on. Besides, I'm not sure any interpretation of the diner scene between Belize and Louis would do justice to my love for Kushner's writing itself.
I hope that I end up writing things that people want to read. New things. New thoughts. Or at least, new angles on things. That would be nice. Kushner's got that down.

01. Academic Journal Articles, especially my access to them through the school
I'm tired, so I won't say much, but I will leave you with a few titles to ponder. Keep in mind, I used 3 out of four of these as sources on my final papers this semester:
Clover - "Her Body, Himself - Gender in the Slasher Film" - 1987
Bishop - "Raising the Dead - Unearthing the non-literary origins of zombie cinema" - 2006
Hesmondhalgh - "Post-Punk's Attempt to Democratise the Music Industry - The Success and Failure of Rough Trade" - 1997
David & Munoz - "Heads and Freaks - Patterns and Meanings of Drug Use Among Hippies" - 1968

My conclusion? I am a nerd. Thank you.

Nate

5.04.2008

oh ps


Oh, and, just so I don't forget this, here is the most comprehensive list of the most acclaimed movies of 00s I've seen yet. The IMDB can suck this list's left nut.

Nate

4.24.2008

I LINK I love you, so what am I so afraid of?


FILM

Maryann Johanson, the Flick Filosopher to you, has a disappointing review of Tina Fey's new comedy, Baby Mama. I kinda was getting nervous about this one.

And, because I'm always a sucker for a list, here's the British Time Out Film Guide's readers list and critics list of the 100 Greatest Films of All Time.

INTERNETS

The Flick Filosopher also informs us of a new Joss Whedon internet project. As if I wasn't already life-threateningly excited, here's the best part...it's a fucking musical. Starring Neil Patrick Harris and Nathan Fillion. Fuck yeah.

GENERAL

Nat Rogers celebrates "the gayest day of the year" over at The Film Experience (if you didn't know, today's the b-day of Barbra Streisand, Shirley Maclaine, and Jean Paul Gaultier).

Nate

4.20.2008

The perfect set of links...when you're stoned


Happy 420 everybody! Have fun with some links. Guaranteed funny content when high.

Movies

Some beautiful soul has adapted Juno into a much funnier screenplay, courtesy of Cracked.

Here's a (somewhat) controversial list of the ten most most dissapointing Star Wars characters.

Film of the Year, an interesting new blog discovery for me, has a great post (with an even better title) about a seminal piece of early film-making: "Workers Leaving the Lumiere Factory."

Other

Hollwood Elsewhere blowhard Jeffrey Welles has a decently interesting post on the new generation of "Millenial voters." Worth a gander just for what he cites.

What the dude up there did to Juno, this article from 23/6 News does to the Philly debate. Pretty funny.

Nate

Well, Punch-Drunk Love initially scared me too

So, the other day I stumbled upon a piece of film info that pretty much stunned me:

David Gordon Green is directing Pineapple Express.

...the fuck?

This is like Linklater doing School of Rock, except even more bizarre.

David Gordon Green is supposed to be "the Terrence Malick of our time," and he's directing a pot head action comedy written by Seth Rogan.

Is this gonna be an Inside Man/Spider-Man style meeting of auteur and pop? Or is this just David Gordon Green unable to get other work (say it ain't so), or are Green and Apatow just boys?

Take a look at a couple of examples of David Gordon Green's back catalog to understand my confusion.




The opening scene of George Washington



The trailer for All the Real Girls

Anyways, yeah, you all can figure that out on your own. Maybe he's just trying to prove that he can make money with a movie. That sometimes produces a director's best work.

Nathaniel Tyson

PS:


Pineapple Express trailer

4.18.2008

Listin the ways I looove you


A Music Thought and a List!

The two best albums I've heard in a long time: No Age's Nouns & Blank Dog's On Two Sides. Both are great, noisy, lo-fi genius. Listen to them if you can.

+++

And, because I feel like it.

The Ten Best Comedies of the 2000's (so far)

10. Mean Girls (Mark Waters, 2004)
09. The 40-Year Old Virgin (Judd Apatow, 2005)
08. Adaptation. (Spike Jonze, 2002)
07. Ghost World (Terry Zwigoff, 2001)
06. Shaun of the Dead (Edgar Wright, 2004)
05. The Man Without a Past (Aki Kourismaki, 2002)
04. About Schmidt (Alexander Payne, 2002)
03. Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle (Danny Leiner, 2004)
02. Hedwig and the Angry Inch (John Cameron Mitchell, 2001)
01. Wet Hot American Summer (David Wain, 2001)

++++

Oh, and check this place out! Whoa.

Nathaniel

4.16.2008

free shit? hell yeah


Mostly because both Matt and Marjorie have told me me how much they listen to "Hitten", I have decided to use my blog for semi-illeg@l purposes (the coded spelling throws off the feds, or so I'm told...by terrorist cells and child pornographers).

So, ladies and gentlemen (ie, Matt & Marjorie), I present Those Dancing Days' self-titled EP for the cost of pressing on that "Free" option and then following the directions afterwards. Have fun with all that!

link: hxxp://rapidshare.com/files/108108835/Those_Dancing_Days_EP.zip.html

If you are anybody who downloads this and likes it, please make sure to go to a show, or buy a shirt, or write them a nice email or something. I don't wanna rip the little guy off with this blog. I love these guys; they're cute, and they've got one maybe-masterpiece pop gem in the can, plus two of the members kinda look like my lady friend. She's Swedish too!

++++

By the way, I downloaded Hannah Takes the Stairs today, so I will now officially be able to form an opinion on all this mumblecore bullshit.

We'll see. I have my doubts. Things from New York generally suck.

Nathaniel "T-Bone" Tyson

two cool pictures from movies I'm kinda dreading


(image from here)


(image from here)

The top one is from the X-Men spin-off Wolverine:Origins, the second one is an encouring from from the Watchmen adaptation directed by Zac Snyder. Snyder's done two movies and is batting 50/50 right now; he did 300 [bad] & the Dawn of the Dead remake [good]. You should check out the link for the Watchmen picture, because there are a ton of other cool ones there.

Anyways, both will probably suck, but these photos kinda get me a little excited anyways.

Nate

omg he's back again

Well, Lars Von Trier is coming back at us with a new movie, according to sources I will refer only to as "this link."

What's it called you ask? Why, Antichrist, of course.

This sounds just too awesome. Evidently, this thing's gonna be a horror film, and Von Trier will be revealing the cast at Cannes (for a cinematic purist, he's a bit of a showman). I haven't seen his older horror work, but I imagine this will rule pretty handily.

If you haven't seen any Von Trier, start with Dogville and see if you wanna continue, and if you do, I salute you...it's hard work.

Nathaniel

4.13.2008

Parnoid Park = Really Gay


In film class the other day, my insructor Lise was discussing the emergence of psycho-analytical film readings in the 1940s and 50s. She then mentioned that two of the fastest-growing areas film-studies: Queer & Colonial. In other words, we can look back at the filmographies of the geratest directors of all time and re-read these fims from a queer angle or from an anti or pro-colonial stance.

That said, I have always been a fan of a queer reading of cinema. Afterall, Hollywood has always been a little bit more densely populated by the gays than most other fields of work. So, I watched Paranoid Park tonight, and I am really psyched both that my streak of great films remains uninterrupted, and that I have a brand-new exmple of barely-disguised queer cinema to discuss.

So, Paranoid Park tells the story of a young skater who might've sorta killed a dude. Its directed by Gus Van Sant, and is apparently his first art film sicne completing the Death Trilogy (Elephant, Gerry, and Last Days). Now, I've loved Van Sant's Elephant since the film was released, I listed it as my favorite Van Sant film. However, after watching Paranoid Park, I would have to say that my mind has almost changed. And that is saying something.

Reading over the IMDb comments for the film, I immediately encountered a comparison to Camus' The Stranger. While the commenter specified that the film resmbled the book in tone not plot, I would argue the opposite. I would say that the film tells the basic story of The Stranger, except because the central characters are fundamentally different (the protagonist of Paranoid Park is not exactly nonchalant about the whole ordeal), we see the plot cut in half.

I think that the most apt reading of the film is with a homoerotic subtext. While Van Sant's film's have always embraced handsome male characters, much of his recent work (specifically this flm and Elephant) have employed androgynous male teens as the audience's surrogate, and this film especially seems to legitamize the queer subtextual reading of Van Sant's ouvre.

Where is the homoerotic subtext in this film you ask? Geez. Where to start? Well, the film's baby-faced main character is constantly day-dreaming about slightly older boys gliding through the air in slow motion, their backsides in special focus. Many times, these skateboarding reveries (shot on grainy handheld film, in the style of actual skate videos...an aesthetic that Van Sant wisely explores throughout the film) are accompanied by narration that can easily be read as a sort of sexual awakening. The young protagonst is constantly talking about his fascination and reverence of the older skate punks at Paranoid Park, and he dumps his girlfriend after she basically pressures him into having sex for the first time with her.

One scene that highlights the homoerotic subtext of the story in particular is approached in a Rashoman-like format. The first time we see it played through, we are introduced to a group of older homeless skate punks who seem to take a liking to our anti-hero Alex. After they invite him out "for some beers," one older guy seems to eye Alex with a predatory glance, and he explains that while he was unsure of drinking, he couldn't resist "jumping boxcars" with this handsome mysterious man.

The first time we see this scene played through, we immediately cut to a shot of Alex quickly undressing himself in an empty room, taking a shower, and then finding himself too emotonally distraught to call an unnamed somebody. It seem that this scene has been set up to lead the viewer to assume that a sxual liason has occured. However, later in the film, we learn that the strange gap in time actually contains the accidental murder at the plot's center.

So, if we were to just ignore the second edition of the scene, and acknowledge that SOMETHING happened in the boxcars between Alex and the handsome older gentleman, the murder becomes completely irrelevant...and the movie still works. Alex walks around with paranoia, shame, guilt, and ultimately a small relief, this could be the result of the discovery of his homosexuality if the context was tweaked just slightly.

The entire film, Alex discusses his girlfriend with a vague sense of disgust, and expresses to the audience through narration his extreme anxieties about the possibility that she may want to have sex with him. When they finally do have sex, she asks afterward "Should we do it again, or should we wait?" Alex just lies, expressionless on the bed.

These scenes play around with gender roles and expectations far too much to be ignored in any reading of the film, let alone a queer reading.

However, I would argue that a queer reading is really the dominant reading of the film. With the staggered plot progression - broken up by the film's narrative gimmick of having Alex be writing the story down as a confession - the murder and escape or over within a half-an-hour into the film. The real meat of the film lies in Alex's face, which must take up about 88% of the film's running time. Van Sant has the camera study Alex's blank face the same way Bergman observed Ullman's in Persona.

To be clear, I am in no way implying pedastray - on the contrary, I find Van Sant's treatment of of Alex to be far from exploitative - but I would definitely argue that the film's fascination with the physical nature of skateboarding, paired with the somewhat allegorical homoerotic reading of the film, cannot be ignored when assessing its direct meanings.

In the end, Van Sant continues to be one of the most worthwhile modern directors to get invested in, rain or shine. In this case, the sun is almost brighter thn ever,

Nathaniel Tyson

4.08.2008

I have a very strange concept of fun


AFI's Best Films List 1997 Edition

01. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941)
02. Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942)
03. The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppolla, 1972)
04. Gone With the Wind (Victor Fleming, 1939)
05. Lawrence of Arabia (David Lean, 1962)
06. The Wizard of Oz (Victor Fleming, 1939)
07. The Graduate (Mike Nichols, 1967)
08. On the Waterfront (Elia Kazan, 1954)
09. Schindler's List (Steven Spielberg, 1993)
10. Singin' in the Rain (Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly, 1952)
11. It's a Wonderful Life (Frank Capra, 1946)
12. Sunset Blvd. (Billy Wilder, 1950)

AFI's Best Films List 2007 Edition

01. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941) [no change]
02. The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppolla, 1972) [up 1 slot]
03. Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942) [up 1 slot]
04. Raging Bull (Martin Scorsese, 1980) [up 20 slots]
05. Singin' in the Rain (Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly, 1952) [up 5 slots]
06. Gone With the Wind (Victor Fleming, 1939) [down 2 slots]
07. Lawrence of Arabia (David Lean, 1962) [down 2 slots]
08. Schindler's List (Steven Spielberg, 1993) [up 1 slot]
09. Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958) [up 52 slots]
10. The Wizard of Oz (Victor Fleming, 1939) [down 4 slots]
11. City Lights (Charlie Chaplin, 1931) [up 65 slots]
12. The Searchers (John Ford, 1956) [up 84 slots]

+++

Sight and Sound Critics Poll, 1952 Edition

01. Bicycle Thieves (Vittorio De Sica, 1948)
02. City Lights (Charlie Chaplin, 1931)
02. The Gold Rush (Charlie Chaplin, 1925)
04. Battleship Potemkin (Sergei Eisenstein, 1925)
05. Intolerance (D.W. Griffith, 1916)
05. Louisiana Story (Robert J. Flaherty, 1948)
07. Greed (Erich von Stroheim, 1924)
07. Le Jour se lève (Marcel Carné, 1939)
07. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1928)
10. Brief Encounter (David Lean, 1945)
10. La Règle du jeu (Jean Renoir, 1939)

Sight and Sound Critics Poll, 1962 Edition

01. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941) [new]
02. L'avventura (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1960) [new]
03. La Règle du jeu (Jean Renoir, 1939) [up 7 slots]
04. Greed (Erich von Stroheim, 1924) [up 3 slots]
04. Ugetsu Monogatari (Kenji Mizoguchi, 1953) [new]
06. Battleship Potemkin (Sergei Eisenstein, 1925) [down 2 slots]
07. Bicycle Thieves (Vittorio De Sica, 1948) [down 6 slots]
07. Ivan the Terrible (Sergei Eisenstein, 1944 & 1958) [new]
09. La terra trema (Luchino Visconti, 1948) [new]
10. L'Atalante (Jean Vigo, 1934) [new]

Sight and Sound Critics Poll, 1972 Edition

01. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941) [no change]
02. La Règle du jeu (Jean Renoir, 1939) [up 1 slot]
03. Battleship Potemkin (Sergei Eisenstein, 1925) [up 3 slots]
04. 8 1/2 (Fedrico Fellini, 1963) [new]
05. L'avventura (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1960) [down 3 slots]
05. Persona (Ingmar Bergman, 1966) [new]
07. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1928) [reentry, no slot change]
08. The General (Buster Keaton, 1927) [new]
08. The Magnificent Ambersons (Orson Welles, 1942) [new]
10. Ugetsu Monogatari (Kenji Mizoguchi, 1953) [down 6 slots]
10. Wild Strawberries (Ingmar Bergman, 1957) [new]

Sight and Sound Critics Poll, 1982 Edition

01.
Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941) [no change]
02. La Règle du jeu (Jean Renoir, 1939) [no change]
03. Seven Samurai (Akira Kurosawa, 1954) [new]
03. Singin' in the Rain (Gene Kelly & Stanley Donen, 1952) [new]
05.
8 1/2 (Fedrico Fellini, 1963) [down 1 slot]
06. Battleship Potemkin (Sergei Eisenstein, 1925) [down 3 slots]
07. L'avventura (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1960) [down 2 slots]
07. The Magnificent Ambersons (Orson Welles, 1942) [up 1 slot]
07. Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1948) [new]
10. The General (Buster Keaton, 1927) [down 2 slots]
10. The Searchers (John Ford, 1956) [new]

Sight and Sound Critics Poll, 1992 Edition

01. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941) [no change]
02.
La Règle du jeu (Jean Renoir, 1939) [no change]
03. Tokyo Story (Yasujiro Ozu, 1953) [new]
04. Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958) [up 3 slots]
05. The Searchers (John Ford, 1956) [up 5 slots]
06.
L'Atalante (Jean Vigo, 1934) [reentry, up 4 slots]
06. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1928) [reentry, up 1 slot]
06. Pather Panchali (Satyajit Ray, 1955) [new]
06.
Battleship Potemkin (Sergei Eisenstein, 1925) [no change]
10. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968) [new]

Sight and Sound Critics Poll, 2002 Edition

01. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941) [no change]
02. Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958) [up 2 slots]
03
. La Règle du jeu (Jean Renoir, 1939) [down 1 slot]
04. The Godfather/The Godfather pt. II (Francis Ford Coppola, 1972 & 1974) [new]
05. Tokyo Story (Yasujiro Ozu, 1953) [down 2 slots]
06.
2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968) [up 4 slots]
07.
Battleship Potemkin (Sergei Eisenstein, 1925) [down 1 slot]
07. Sunrise (F.W. Murnau, 1927) [new]
09.
8 1/2 (Fedrico Fellini, 1963) [reentry, down 4 slots]
10.
Singin' in the Rain (Gene Kelly & Stanley Donen, 1952) [reentry, down 7 slots]

++++

Sight and Sound Directors Poll, 1992 Edition

01.
Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941)
02. 8 1/2 (Fedrico Fellini, 1963)
02. Raging Bull (Martin Scorsese, 1980)
04. La strada (Federico Fellini, 1954)
05.
L'Atalante (Jean Vigo, 1934)
06. The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola, 1972)
06. Modern Times (Charlie Chaplin, 1936)
06. Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958)
09. The Godfather Part II (Francis Ford Coppola, 1974)
10.
The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1928)
10. Rashomon (Akira Kurosawa, 1950)
10. Seven Samurai (Akira Kurosawa, 1954)

Sight and Sound Directors Poll, 2002 Edition

01. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941) [no change]
02. The Godfather/The Godfather pt. II (Francis Ford Coppola, 1972 & 1974) [up 4 slots; up 7 slots]
03.
8 1/2 (Fedrico Fellini, 1963) [down 1 slot]
04.
Lawrence of Arabia (David Lean, 1962) [new]
05. Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (Stanley Kubrick, 1964) [new]
06. Bicycle Thieves (Vittorio De Sica, 1948) [new]
06.
Raging Bull (Martin Scorsese, 1980) [down 4 slots]
06.
Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958) [no change]
09.
Rashomon (Akira Kurosawa, 1950) [up 1 slot]
09.
La Règle du jeu (Jean Renoir, 1939) [new]
09.
Seven Samurai (Akira Kurosawa, 1954) [up 1 slot]

++++

Nathaniel Tyson's Rough Top 10 Films of All Time, April 2004 Edition

01. Chinatown (Roman Polanski, 1974)
02. Seven Samurai (Akira Kurosawa, 1954)
03. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941)
04. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (Stanley Kubrick, 1964)
05. Lawrence of Arabia (David Lean, 1962)
06. All About Eve (Joseph Mankiewicz, 1950)
07. Cabaret (Bob Fosse, 1972)
08. Manhattan (Woody Allen, 1979)
09. Wings of Desire (Wim Wenders, 1987)
10. Breathless (Jean-Luc Godard, 1960)



Nathaniel Tyson's Rough Top 10 Films of All Time, April 2008 Edition

01. Breathless (Jean-Luc Godard, 1960) [up 9 slots]
02. Cabaret (Bob Fosse, 1972) [up 5 slots]
03. Do the Right Thing (Spike Lee, 1989) [up 13 slots]
04. Manhattan (Woody Allen, 1979) [up 4 slots]
05. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Ang Lee, 2000) [up 72 slots]
06. Chinatown (Roman Polanski, 1974) [down 5 slots]
07. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michael Gondry, 2004) [new]
08. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (Mike Nichols, 1966) [up 7 slots]
09. Being John Malkovich (Spike Jonze, 1999) [up 8 slots]
10. Wings of Desire (Wim Wenders, 1987) [down 1 slot]


Nathaniel Tyson