The Meaning of the Life of Paul

-- Yup...I'm old. So they say.

-- School's almost done, just a couple of exams, but they don't count.

-- Really hurting for some creative outlet of late. Education just ain't cutting it...coincidentally I can cite at least three theorists we've studied that have pointed out just that fact.

-- B-day haul: Batman Forever/Batman and Robin, 30 Rock seasons 1 and 2, Robot Chicken: Star Wars Episode 2, Arrested Development Season 3, Theodor Adorno's "The Culture Industry" plus the biggie: Portable Record player!!!!!!!!! It equals awesomeness...

-- Brain hurts tonight...need sleep and to do nothing...NOTHING!!!!!

-- More coherent posts to come.

-- Like Erik noted, I am also tired with education and am, as every year, questioning its purpose. Once essays are done I usually feel better about it, though.

-- Writing essays like a behemoth. Almost done em.

-- Dad's doing better. Still needs the second surgery, but he's never looked better even if he doesn't sound the same.

-- 22 next week...yup, can't get too excited with school and all.

-- More later, on my b-day probably.

 -- Since my recent onslaught of film related posts, I've taken a break from posting them. It's not that I've stopped, though. I'm writing the film reviews for the Brock Press this year, so I am officially published as a result, and it feels good to be doing something.

 -- My busiest year yet. School, two jobs (brock again and Empire) and general lifeness, which I can't not do. It's a balancing act, for sure, and so far I think I'm doing okay with it. I was sick the last week and a half so I missed some of each, but I'm working my best to be as caught up as possible. I ordered the rest of my books online (two classes with weekly novels....gah)...so I'm perpetually busy but don't care.

 -- Turkey doom tomorrow!

 -- Missed Supernatural and Dollhouse this week...thank God mom tapes shows relentlessly. But Paris Hilton on Supernatural isn't so much a draw for me...and for the first time during that show I may actually want to throw up...we'll see. Dollhouse is also coming close to becoming cancelled unfortunately. I hope it grows legs soon, because most of the criticisms it's getting right now I kind of agree with.

 -- Cat chewed through my brothers microphone cable, so I haven't been able to record lately, which makes the urge to record that much stronger. I'll just buy a used one at some point then start up again. I had a good thing going recording acoustic stuff and recording with Justin. Also I should probably do some work on that script him and I are working on at some point, too, among my own I've been working on.

 -- Applying for my masters studies this year. Need to talk to some more profs soon, but it looks like I'll have a shot at it.

 -- Thats it for now I guess. Take care everyone.

   As much as I love Hollywood, it's always much better when a brit gets involved. Of the two Scott brothers, Ridley is the far superior, and today holds a very high status in my own personal regard for filmmakers. It is interesting to note, however, that in all that I have said about film style and alluded, rather heavy handedly, to my preferred style of film, Ridley Scott does not create films that fit into that style. He is a rather romantic, visual filmmaker, the difference is that he does not sacrifice the story for the sake of the visual effects, only enhances it. I digress, however. Of his films I've seen most, not all, but a fair amount to understand one thing; much less a visionary, his films are top example of contemporary cinema at the time. When Hollywood traditionally picks a genre to beat into the ground (about every four years or so), it is always Ridley Scott who creates the best genre piece released by the mainstream, at least of the last decade.
  Post-oscar Scott picked up steam in Hollywood and immediately jumped to the commercial boat with the largely pre-sold Hannibal, sequel to Silence of The Lambs. This film did not need a noteworthy director considering Hopkins was returning, however it was Scott who brought the film to new heights. Silence's more realistic style was transformed into an oddly poetic, one could argue operatic scope for Hannibal; a style that much befit the character of Hannibal Lecter. Whereas the confines of his cell defined Hannibal in the previous, the vast open spaces, long shots of a small Lecter in a large, Romantic Italian arena suggest the kind of scope that Hannibal is operating in. The music befits this situation moreso, keeping in tune with Silence quite adamantly; re-using pieces and branching off of them. It is in the surrounding environment of Lecter and how it is framed and how it sounds that lets one know that this is Hannibal Lecter; the entire feeling of isolation is removed and the world itself feels larger than life. Scott's own motive is clear when one reads the DVD insert, noting that sequels, the good ones, branch off from their previous works into uncharted territory, not simply a rehash of the original (see Red Dragon).
  The war film has been popular the entire decade, and in the 2000's we have had the priveledge of seeing two from Scott, with varying success. 2001's Black Hawk Down and 2008's Body of Lies. While I haven't seen much of Lies, the tone that Scott sets out with is more personal than any of the Iraq war films I have seen to date, in comparison to hack films like Rendition which attempted sly political commentary to result in only boring and cheap storytelling. Black Hawk Down on the other hand was a tense piece of film stripped of politics and a story of the effect of the war on the people involved in it. For the vast amount of characters and the rather short running time it is surprising how much of a connection is made given the frenetic action. There are current stars in this film who are no more than character actors (Eric Bana, Orlando Bloom, Ewan MacGreggor) and with the pressure off their performances as leading men, Scott gets them to truly act.
   Unfortunately Scott mis-steps with Kingdom of Heaven in one crucial area: assuming Orlando Bloom as a heroic lead. The rest of the character acting is spot on, yet Bloom cannot carry a movie, and I feel it is Scott's willingness to negotiate with studios that caused this. Bloom was a star coming off of the success of The Lord of the Rings films and it only made sense; yet this was only the beginning of the problem of Kingdom. The theatrical cut ran just over two hours and felt rushed and confusing; I exited the theatre knowing there would be a director's cut, given Scott's notoriety for doing so. Sure enough the directors cut came, and sure enough it was exactly what was needed in the cinema. The loose ends, the tension, the characterization and the beautiful story all came to fruition when put over the 3 hour mark and he had delivered one of the best historical epics since his own Gladiator. Where films like Troy and King Arthur were being sold as star vehicles and historical addendums, Kingdom was now a character story where the actors (including, to a new extent, Bloom) disappeared into their characters. The visual poetics that romanticized the genre since Braveheart remain and were solidified when Troy cheaply was released as a directors cut, but it was Heaven that initially had dignity that was wrung in by studio heads wanting a shorter film with more Bloom.
   Of the recent films those are the most I have seen (aside from a large chunk of the incredible Matchstick Men), but it will be very interesting to see a third take on historical drama's with the forthcoming Robin Hood. However, to look out for most is Scott's prequel to his own Alien. To see not only the franchise, but the genre itself back in capable hands alongside newcomer Neill Blomkampf is going to bring the genre of science fiction back to the respectable forefront so long as Robert Rodriguez's script for Predators isn't a direct Aliens rip-off.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             I was going to do a review of David Cronenberg's Scanners for my next post, but I just couldn't get into it. It could very well be because I had only watched it once or that it was the least interesting of Cronenberg films for me, I really am unsure. Perhaps I just need a break from reviews, but I think more that, since Inglourious Basterds and the not yet reviewed District 9 (I might get to it--honest!) there hasn't been much anything really interesting to review; and I think my problem is that I personally have the need to include the word interesting in there. See, for me, I get tired real fast of the same old same old. This is why Transformers:Revenge of the Fallen and G.I. Joe bored the living daylights out of me. Yeah, they were entertaining, but they were mind-numbing also. What kind of audience finds a robot-scrotum funny? It's not funny, it's stupid and illogical. I know I'm talking about Transformers here, but it's so confused because it wants to be taken way too seriously on the one hand and then we get robot balls and ghetto-ized robots. I've been so desensitized by Hollywood that my standards are so high right now, but I'm not exactly displeased by this.
  I consider the best decade for film to be the 1970's, closely followed by the 1990's; the 2000's don't even come close. The 1970's, more accurately the last three or four years of the 1960's saw not only incredible social change, but artistic changes as well. It seems we started to see faults in our governments and felt the need to do something about this; so our cultural sphere began to change. I noticed more importantly at this time that cinematic style began to change. It appeared to me that many actors and directors were taking their film cues from stage, though some mocked the differences (Singin In The Rain), yet the rough feeling of classical Hollywood cinema, which can feel sometimes awkward viewed by today's audience, was replaced by more graceful editing and more natural acting and environments while maturing in their own rights. This was called 'New Hollywood' as influenced by the French New Wave among other European influences. Deeper psychologies began to seep into films into the 1970's, genres developed and some became self-reflexive and parodic. Some films clearly influenced this type of movement, and they provide for me the same kind of 'interest' of District 9 and Inglourious Basterds, and this comes from any filmmaker who obviously pays absolutely no attention the film 'industry' at least in style. Alfred Hitchcock immediately comes to mind as one who layers his films beyond immediate entertainment, as is Godard, both of whom use the filmic medium to construct timely essay like arguments-- Vertigo is namely an analysis of male point of view (aka the 'male gaze') at the time, an argument mis-used by Laura Mulvey. Mulvey's 1975 essay attempts to argue that films objectify women, as an object of the gaze, and uses Vertigo as an example of her argument, however Hitchcock is arguing very much the same thing. The only filmmaker I think to stir up this much debate in contemporary cinema would Steven Soderbergh with films like Sex, Lies, and Videotape and The Girlfriend Experiment, which coyly attempts to uncover the gap between pornography and cinema, and I rarely like Soderbergh unless he's funny (the upcoming The Informant with Matt Damon looks incredible). The 1970's brought to the forefront the 'Movie Brats', known as cinematic legends by now: Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Speilberg, Martin Scorsese, and George Lucas; film school graduates with knowledge of film history to go on; really, the first people who had something to bounce off from. Any study of film really negates a lot of Hollywood film and focuses on foreign cinema and theory; this is where these brats started from, and among others like Bernardo Bertolucci, Godard's continuing career with the exceptional Tout Va Bien , Fellini, a formidable growing Japanese film market with Akira Kurosawa, the 1970's was the strongest artistically groundbreaking decade in film history when compared to the 1980's action film craze.
   Two of the most influential of these pre-1970's films are obviously Stanley Kubrick's 2001:A Space Odyssey and Mike Nichols' The Graduate. 2001's super realistic special effects still, to my mind, trump much of what Star Wars attempted to do, and it's philosophical vein only strengthens it in comparison, but it was the way The Graduate blatantly called into question the intentions of the establishment that led into a generation of hippie movement films like Easy Rider and Joe. The world was clearly capable of much more.
  So, what are these kinds of 'interesting' films that I'm talking about? It's all relative, of course, but there really are a lot from this decade that I credit with being influential that it would take far too long to think of, then post them. Easier to write would be films from the 90's and today that fall into this category, again, it would take far too long and result in being a list of personal favourites instead of canonical bests. In Canada and The United States the bombardment of popular culture imagery deters much originality; it's very hard to introduce something new into a world where everything is already so strongly established. District 9 managed to invade this sphere, and that is the incredible strength of originality. A film like Funny People, which I loved, fell flat because this very pop-culture sphere neglected it; it was largely mis-marketed, but was one of the most interesting comedies I've seen in a long time. Inglourious was pre-sold no matter what, with Tarantino and Brad Pitt there was no way it was going to flop, but it was beyond good, it was no a pop-culture movie like Kill Bill, it was something more, like what last year's The Dark Knight was. Dark Knight could have been little better than Batman and Robin and it would have made back it's budget, but it was capable and different and original (for a 70 year old franchise some would call it unbelievable), but it also called into question the very social-sphere it was portraying. Sure the teenagers have the money, but it doesn't mean they don't want to think; don't fault the rest of the audiences because of one age group, Hollywood, we're out here too!

  The Silence of The Lambs ****/****

There is one moment in The Silence of The Lambs where Hannibal Lecter shows a sign of weakness and his pride is ultimately shattered by a rookie FBI agent. In their discussions at the Chesapeke Institution where Lecter is being held, Clarice Starling and Lecter are exchanging information about Buffalo Bill. In examining serial killers, Clarice notes that most serial killers keep some sort of trophy of their victims. Hannibal's response, 'But not me.' The sly smile on his face and the fierce look of victory upon his face imply that he has won, that he is better than his captors and this lightfooted girl in front of him. His pride is shining in the dark-lit room until Clarice steps up with a logical response, hardly accusatory. "No, you ate yours." Ever so subtly, almost incomprehensibly, the pride in Lecter's eye is battered and beaten away, the smile gone. Worse than being associated with serial killers, he has transcended to be their sort of evolution; you're one of them, but you're worse. Notice just how quickly Lecter changes the subject of their conversation in order to distract the attention away from his ego-battering conclusion.
  The Silence of The Lambs is my favourite film and one of the best I have ever come across, and as sick as it sounds, aside from the likes of Jurassic Park, it is the film I have grown up with and have come back to on several occasions. The acting, directing, writing have all been praised endlessly and it would be tiresome for me to continue such a trend, so here I compliment the subtleties of the film and it's style. I most callously see Lambs being labelled as either a thriller or a horror film. It is a thriller, yes, but by no means is it in itself a horror film. Though it sparked a new subgenre of horror, it remains a psychlogical thriller to this day, and remotely at that. The film's style is placed so deeply underneath everything else that it is a story-driven style -- all the shots in the film and cinematic techniques are only ever used to compliment the story. There is no brash experimentation for no reason; the framing of Dr. Lector or the constant point-of-view shots from Clarice's perspective are only serving the plot of the film. There's no need for a gimmick when you've got transexuals and cannibals in your story already, and Jonathan Demme's direction cleary expresses this. As a horror there are few scares, and as a thriller there is far too much political baggage to concern itself with being a 'genre piece.' So this leaves Lambs with becoming the impressive oscar-winner that it is.
   Demme uses genre ironically more than anything in Lambs, something that Brett Ratner's Red Dragon could have used a little less obtusely. When Ratner ironizes a genre it involves slow motion and close cutting; when Demme does it, you get an intro that looks like your typical horror film -- a girl running through the woods. It is seconds later that we see it is an FBI training ground; no beating around the bush for Demme; even the music slightly hints at the horror genre given a close listen. Everything in this film is layered so carefully as to not be jarring; the common mis-step of horror films today is the shocks turning you away from the screen, covering your eyes or hiding behind your boyfriend's shoulder. The primary goal of any film is to continue your focus on the film. The shock's in Lambs are puzzling and confusing, and not gratuitous, and not offensive in the manner to turn the viewer away from the film. Hannibal's slow boiled escape is to this day one of the most haunting fifteen minutes of film I've ever come across because it is not played up as an escape. With today's style of film where the audience is let in to the immediate thoughts of a character, the scene would begin with tense music instead of the classical piece that is playing and several closeups. Instead of implying anything, Demme keeps the scene as tranquil as possible and shows us that Hannibal has a lock-pick, and we can safely assume he's not simply admiring his handiwork. The audience is let to build up their own tension without the help of any hack genre techniques, and this is it's benefit. Demme's confidence in his actors in Lambs simply strengthens the film, and that is how he gets away with such chilling scenes.
   Equally important to any discussion about Lambs is Ted Levine's performance as Jame Gumb. Quite a dummy in the book, he's fleshed out horrifically in the film and appears as someone who desperately needs help, but is too fargone to accept it. Whereas Red Dragon was concerned with putting a famous actor in the role of Francis Dollarhyde (the instantly recognizable Ralph Fiennes), Lambs was not some event film, so they could afford to create a character with an actor and thus improve the story. Gumb is as terrifying as Lecter, if not as calculating.
   More impressive is that The Silence of The Lambs continues to stand through time as an excellent character piece that constructs scenes for the purpose of a story that is fully capable to disturb an audience without any cheap tricks.

  

Inglourious Basterds ****/****

The first film from Quentin Tarantino that I had the pleasure to see was Kill Bill. The hype was tremendous, and I only caught the tail end of it, seeing it on dull DVD. The real way to see any Tarantino film (hell, any film) is in theatres. The scope of everything from the image to the emotions runs so high. Alas, I gush. I was disappointed with Kill Bill upon viewing Tarantino's superior films, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and especially Jackie Brown. These were films, not so much events, Kill Bill is spectacle to the previous film's speculation, and it is to here that Tarantino returns for the massively impressive Inglorious Basterds, a film which has subdued Tarantino for the most part with one hellish rampage near the end to remind you you're watching Tarantino.
   What Tarantino does that few others can do is get away with half hour stretches of scenes that are quite literally nothing but dialogue, and interesting, plot relevant dialogue. In an interview I heard Tarantino say that, and this is paraphrasing, most movies are events, and no one tells a story anymore; a mantra that is taken full advantage of here.
   We open with 1941 France, occupied by the Nazi's at this point. Hans Landa, also known as "the Jew Hunter" is looking for a dairy farming family who has evaded capture, being looked after by Perrier LaPadite. Many people look for cameo's in Tarantino's work, here you won't really find that many famous actors or even friends of Tarantino (aside from two quite obvious ones). The best part of watching Inglourious Basterds is the acting. The range is actually quite limited to emotional responses of fear and intimidation, but there are a few instances where we see characters let their emotions go, Pierre LaPadite being one of them. What Tarantino's strength lies in is clever dialogue; he's never been known for emotional scenes, but he's evolving as a filmmaker. There is only one star-status to take care of here, and that is Brad Pitt, and he delivers a performance that needs no assistance from QT.
   The 'Basterds' themselves get surprisingly equal screen time to everyone else, which is to say I wish there was more of them, but Tarantino tells a story, and it's not (thank God) a film of the Basterds scalping people for the two and a half hour running time; no, there is plenty more here. In fact, Tarantino is careful in not playing the Basterds not too close to the Nazis, because their motive is one in the same, if not mutually exclusive. The Basterds exist only because the Nazis exist, and the Nazi's exist only to persecute Jews, like the members of the Basterds. Too easily a liberal-minded filmmaker could have pointed out the obviousness of each team marking their victims/captors with symbols and their savage hunting down and massacring of each other. Tarantino lets the audience assume this, rather than spell it out for them on several instances.
   In short, where Kill Bill and Death Proof were exercises of Tarantino's masturbatory ego (sorry, but it's true, and I liked Kill Bill), Inglourious Basterds is smarter film, and more enjoyable to watch because of it. It's a mark of talent that this film turned into one of the more interesting WWII films released as opposed to the several Saving Private Ryan ripoffs of the last little while. 

The Lost World: Jurassic Park ***1/2 /****

Working at a movie theatre offers perks. Our theatre in St. Catharines offers, once a month, a 'fan favourite' film to its audiences. These films in the past have been the likes of Alien, The Shining, and Bruce Campbell vs. The Army of Darkness. This month, to many 'meh' and 'why?' complaints, the feature was The Lost World: Jurassic Park. To get it out of the way, yes, the ending is silly, but twelve years after the fact, can't the audience understand that it's not to be taken seriously? The strength of The Lost World lies in everything up until that point, and in some spots I find it is superior to it's predecessor. 
   I appreciate Spielberg's directing and his scene construction, it is something rarely seen on screen today. His style in Lost World ably incorporates multiple characters that, *gasp* we can relate to! It is a more verite style, shaky camera and framing that doesn't explicitly tell the audience what to focus on, and it's a testament to the actors that they're actually given a chance to act against each other, where three to five cast members are in one continuous shot against each other, none of this excessive cutting to medium/close-up shots of reactions and individual lines. Of course the film is not free of these, what film is? It's a filmic technique used only to relate characters closer to others. Putting all these characters into the story, and there are quite a few of them, and having them equally fleshed out can be problematic, such as X-Men 3: The Last Stand, but Spielberg gives them a story and roles to play without tacky backstories that tend to bog down today's modern cinema. We need to stay with the initial story at hand, and not veer off into territory that plays no bearing on the current plot.
   To the film's style again. I love using real locations, I find they draw me into the story. Terribly rendered CG-skylines are the harbinger of doom for today's cinema. I recognize it, and it terrifies me that they expect me to believe that it is real. Shooting a film on location provides beautiful landscapes to frame scenes in, and create proper senses of depth for a scene, making scale and space mean something, and when playing with dinosaurs, The Lost World gets this right. CG dinosaurs in a CG landscape loses it's resonance. Audiences don't buy the landscape, nor what's in it, then there is no sense of dread that results in spaces being invaded by giant lizards of 'fruitcakes'.
   I will continue to bring up the reliance on music to create an emotional response in films because I find it to be so tacky in contemporary Hollywood. The actors job is to take a role and make the audience relate to it. Music shouldn't have to help. That being said, the music in The Lost World is exceptional in enhancing the already incredible job that the rest of the film does. It's secondary, not the driving force; it's a movie, not a music video. John William's score can afford to be as quirky as it is (if you listen close, it really is quite odd at times, bordering on carnivalesque). For all the overstylization of the sequel, the aptly named Jurassic Park III, The Lost World focuses on everything but it's style; it's tension comes from the events taking place (Rexes pushing the trailer over a cliff is harrowing in itself), not relying on cuts and camera angles with blaring music to beat the audience over the head to say "SEE THIS? THIS IS SCARY!!!!" The Lost World is a slow boil of almost Hitchcockian tension that is only surpassed by the original Jurassic Park, which needs no defence.
   What strikes me the most is how many people pass this movie off and, surprisingly, even state that Jurassic Park III is superior. After watching Lost World again last night, I can understand that comparing it to the original leaves maybe a little to be desired, but it is a more than capable sequel that does not deserve to be passed over. I have to wonder, to what bar are people matching Lost World to that it fails so miserably? As I see it, it is a very capable piece of film that does not insult the intelligence nearly as much as several films release at the time or since. It's no oscar winner, but doesn't deserve the hate.

 I know many months ago I promised a conclusion (or at least more) to my brief piece 'The Aesthetic From Hell'. I don't know who read it, if anyone, but the reason I didn't conclude it is that it didn't feel the right time to continue it. I had material, and a more academic approach to it, but it felt that there was no urge to continue and contemplate it. I realize today, however, that that article is simply my own opinion attacking Hollywood. What I propose to continue it is an appraisal of realism (not documentary) in film. Though I have yet to see it, District 9 uses documentary film techniques to situate it's allegorical narrative in a world so impressive and our own that it is easy to get wrapped up in it. My thoughts on From Hell stem from not only my disappointment with the film, but my adoration from Alan Moore's graphic novel of the same name. The GN, from the time I heard of the film, was the exact sort of thing that I was expecting on screen. You can imagine my disappointment.
   Long and drawn out as they can seem, I think the primary examples of my ideal cinema are Sergio Leone's westerns, but not in full. Indeed, he does use music to the effect that I personally find detrimental. Yet there are other elements and scenes that are long, proving the acting abilities of the talented cast. It's often said that Once Upon A Time in The West opens to a half hour scene of a man shooing a fly, and this is not far from the truth. What works is that it is the actor alone that makes this engaging. There are few cuts, and none so boldly inane as a close up of the fly to draw the viewer's attention. No music overtures the scene. It is a man, and a fly, and by god it's funny. I grow tired of films where the camera deliberately guides the viewers eyeline and emotional response. Wolverine, Transformers 2 and even romantic comedies and other children's films are all guilty of these sorts of techniques to bore holes of inane meaning into the audience. People complain about predictability yet still shell out the money for Transformers assault on the senses which don't offer a chance for the viewer to analyze properly what is going on. I understand that the movies can be escapist, but let's not escape our own heads while we're at it.
   Cue the music to shock, and cut to a photograph that tells us exactly what kind of plot twist is to take place. The recent A Perfect Getaway came so close to screwing this up, but David Twohy is smarter than the average filmmaker (see Pitch Black, and just forget about The Chronicles of Riddick). Through Cliff (Steve Zahn) he imports a screenwriter (although a rather pointedly dull one) to establish the mode of the thriller, the exact film they are in...sort of. Perfect Getaway isn't your traditional thriller. It does lack in the thrills, but it's aim is to analyze the genre, not utilize it. There are grandiose, sweeping aerial shots of Hawaii set to sweeping music, but the effect is largely different to other films, and the opening is hand-held video footage of a wedding; we switch from layman home movie to super-produced Hollywood film, and both are implicitly illusions, a theme which follows through the film. I was impressed with this film, but not as much as I would have been if it had followed through even more upon this theme, even though the film is largely dialogue driven, at times Twohy's aim is still deception instead of analysis. He seems confused on how much he wants to toy with his audience or analyze with his audience. This was the strength of Funny Games, it knew exactly what it was and engaged directly with the audience while playing with the film's characters to prove a point. When a film talks at you the effect is far superior.
  My ideal film is one that is so close to two favourites from the past two years, being The Dark Knight and Zodiac. Neither film is concerned with a pre-sold audience. True, Dark Knight was pre-sold, but the fact that it exceeded expectations with an incredibly engaging story and characters and a style mature beyond Hollywood standards is credit to Christopher Nolan. Fans or not, he wanted to tell a good story, otherwise, what's the point of going to the movies? David Fincher's largely underrated Zodiac is a tougher sell; a historical drama about an unsolver serial murderer with no real conclusion. It's also dialogue driven and the violence is quick and brutal, while not being the focus. I think what Fincher and Nolan realize are that at least a large portion of the audience is bored with the over exaggerated violence in films and the cinematic style that today tends to go with it (Watchmen), so why not shift the focus to something deeper? It's not their goal to do anything unique, what their goal is simply the story, and apply the film elements to accomodate the story.
   This isn't to say that film style is useless, just overused. My favourite film of all time, The Silence of the Lambs, is constantly referred to as a genre film (thriller) by the production staff (*check out the DVD extras, I don't feel like looking up the quotes) and many other people apply the horror label to it. After re-watching it several times recently, I can see several elements that do point to the thriller genre, much of the framing, especially in certain shots of Hannibal Lecter, do imply generic tendencies, making him a 'central' villain. Whereas Hannibal and Red Dragon exploit the monstrocity of Hannibal Lecter, using horror film techniques to generate cheap scares and general weirdness, the focus of Lambs is the surrounding story. Hannibal is not the only element. The sequels made Lecter the focus of the films, Hannibal being arguably an event film, the hype largely being that Hopkins was back in his oscar winning role, but the film was nothing more than a genre piece, though a very good one (I have nothing bad to say about Ridley Scott, the man is by far one of the foremost directors of our time). Silence was never intended to be a success, but was filmed with all the strength of the story behind it (the book by Thomas Harris is also by far the strongest of the series). The film is, what I like to call, largely style-less in that the style does not overwhelm the plot. It is not event cinema, it is purely cinema, and uses film techniques around the story, to compliment it. When Hannibal's face fills the frame, his presence is meant to be overwhelming, but the viewer is so engaged that they do not notice just how subtle the entire scene is. 
   My main problem with contemporary style is its abuse of music to drive the emotions of the viewer when the characters and story fail to. It seems to me cheap and tacky, and even worse when it is a popular song calling reference to the artist more than the events of the film. Cue the music, cue the tears is like a Hollywood mantra. Granted some of my favourites are still guilty of this (Braveheart) but there is much more in the film to forgive that. A popular song calls attention to itself, drawing the ears away from the events in the film, as if they are unimportant. When in Rome, opening sometime in the next six months, features a three minute trailer of your usual bore-fest of stupid romantic comedy, and ends on the line "Featuring new songs by". Do the studio's even care about the movie at this point? No mention of the actors in it, including the popular likes of Danny Devito, Jon Heder, Will Arnett and Dax Shepherd among others, even though they are put to short use. Watchmen again is terribly guilty of this butchering of music that it is appaling and not even worth going to the movie. A movie that got music right? The Graduate; another style-less gem. Music and sound editing is a lost art in film today, with the focus on star vehicles turning out to be more exploitations for cheap laughs or cries. I'd like to see more style-less films out, or perhaps more properly, style-less genre films that make the audience think a little more at the cinemas. For anyone interested in what I'm talking about (note: none of these are perfect examples, I don't think one actually exists), here is a short list, starting with the films I mentioned:

1.The Silence of the Lambs
2. The Dark Knight
3. Zodiac
4. The Graduate
5. Funny Games
6. Once Upon a Time in the West
7. Chasing Amy/ Clerks
8. North by Northwest
9. Alien
10. Children of Men
11. Full Metal Jacket
12. Jarhead
13. The Wrestler
14. Surveillance

...and with hope, not only District 9 can be added to this list, but upon viewing The Hurt Locker this list will continue to grow.

There are tons of things going on in my head and the insanity/insecurities just pop up again. I'll think that I have them taken care of, then I go and fuck it up all over again. I try my goddamndest and then I fuck it up, leaving me to feel sick for days. I beat myself up enough over it. The worst part, though, is that it's times like these where I can hit some weird creative points. I miss, sometimes, my old social life, when I was closer to people, but I hated it then, why would I like it now. Why do I always think of two sides of everything? I'm not happy, but I'm not depressingly unhappy, either, though leaning in that way more than usual.

We put a star to eight and a bracket to nine,
Yet where on here do we draw the line?
I admire from afar the mantle which you rise
With many looks devoid of surprise.
With the bowels of hell agape
I am reduced to primal form,
And must escape my tabula rasa scorn.

Just thinking out loud.

-- And there's nothing new to say. Everything is in its right place, so to speak. No intense drama, very few-to-no frustrations. Reading consistently (now onto "The Silence of The Lambs") and writing. I did finally finish my script for "Your Uncle Chan is Dead" but have yet to receive any feedback from it. I'm not really ever bored anymore, which is good. Shifts at work sort of picked up, but not like I'd like them to.

 -- At the next open Mic at flyers I might play, since I do have a couple songs ready. Actually, I have enough to record an entire acoustic album by myself. I might consider that.

 -- I did record two new songs on PV and I am impressed with two things in them: the recording quality is much better than it used to be, as is the songwriting, instrumentally.

 -- Saw "My Sister's Keeper" yesterday, and it is on par with "The Soloist" as one of the best movies I've seen this year, while "Transformers" is on the list of the alternative. I'd review it, but it would be so full of expletives that it wouldn't hold any real value, and I've vented enough about it.

 -- Hangin out with old friends again, and it is good!

 -- Did a guest recording on Justin Pleau's myspace on the song "Pretending To Love."

 -- Have found a title for my book. "The Avaelic". Yes it's nonsensical, but why would it have to reference something?

 -- I'm off for now, Cheers everyone!

 -- music is getting interesting again. Working with Justin Pleau to put a few tracks together. Its feels good to get those creative juices flowing again. Writing 'Your Uncle Chan is Dead' with Dave, Rich, Julian, and Jeff. Hopefully we can actually make something of it. My section is near completion. My novel, or whatever one wants to call it, its progressing as well.

 -- Only gripe is that my shifts at work aren't picking up at all, so I'll have to find a second job for comforts' sake. Keeping fingers crossed.

 --Mastodon's "Crack The Skye" is an incredible album. Listen.

 -- I'm reaching creative heights this summer, and I'm enjoying it.

 -- saw Gojira last night, amazing concert, but sore. I realize I am definitely not the concert type of person, so that makes it hard for me to go to them. I much prefer to put the headphones on and closely listen to intricate details of the music. That's just me.

 -- The Soloist is one of the best movies of the year. Finally seeing it in full I understand the praise for Fox. The marketing makes it seem like his is more stereotypical in his mental illness, but in the film the degree to which he is ill is questionable, and he pulls off a nice performance out of everything. Another striking element was racial tensions in the United States, which goes unadvertised in the marketing of the film, yet remains subtle enough in the film to suggest a much different type of tension between the destitute and the government.

 -- I'm enjoying living this summer. New people at work are pretty cool.

 -- Living in general this summer is so much more enjoyable than the last.

 -- On to new things again. New place is (almost) unpacked.... Of course I kid myself. There's a lot of work to do yet. But It's taking shape and feeling like home. New job is going good. Hard to tell what direction it's taking me, but for once I'm actually willing to see. Marks came in, got an 85% in my only actual film class, which is awesome. One more year to go.
 
-- Seen so many movies lately, one of the perks of working at a movie theater. The shame of it is there are some movies that we preview that we don't get, or there are some movies that last two weeks while others last over a month and a half. I don't really care, but it can be a light bit annoying.

 -- Been reading, as usual. Kingdom Come, an incredibly written and painted graphic novel about an allegorical apocalypse; and Neil Gaiman's Interworld about alternate dimensions uniting in a centre to fight against two warring factions in science and magic based realms.

 -- Jazzing up my guitar has proven fruitful. Now I just need to record it at some point.

 -- That's all for now, perhaps a rant at some point, but I've been in too good a mood lately.

 -- Well it's been a while since a serious update, and there's a lot to get to.

 -- Moving in with Sarah in less than two weeks. Her family hates us, but its the price we'll all have to pay. Her and I are excited (mostly) so we'll go with it from there.

 -- Job at the theatre is awesome...except getting puked on by 7 year olds after Hannah Montana...ugh.

 -- No new bands really, except for one I saw on Disband that told MuchMusic to fuck themselves: Isosceles Project. A three-piece post-rock instrumental band that is just my style.

 -- New comics: The Winter Men...except I think I started at the end. Only means I have to catch up.

 -- Almost done school. Two more exams and then done. Yippee---ki-----YAY!

-- Been sick almost constantly this last month. I think I've almost killed it this time, but I'll wait and see.

-- Been jazzing up my guitar lately, since rock and metal has just been boring me to death. My music class has helped me along with it, as has Sarah, who knows so much more about jazz than I do. I've always had the improv and chords of jazz in me, but getting it more focused improves my playing style.

-- Not really as much to get to as I thought. I've led a busy as hell existence and being sick for almost half of it lately sucks. I don't really get out anymore but I don't want to half the time. My lifestyle has changed a lot. I'm happy where I'm at. As such, I'm out for now. Take care everybody!

Watchmen **/****

I know we've waited a long time for this movie, anyone who has read the graphic novel, but I just knew it would be riddled with disappointment. There are several problems with this movie. To start, a film that has expectations this high cannot rely on stunning visuals alone, which this film seems to do. Sure, the plot is all there, with a few differences from the original source, but I can see why Alan Moore is not credited in the film and is so distasteful of Hollywood. The adaptations of his work seem to focus on 'stunning visuals' than the actual story, which, for me and others, is the actual draw to Moore's work. Watchmen falls into the same pit.
  First, how the hell is Zack Snyder a 'visionary' director after only the horrendous 300? He is not visionary, these two films are a testament to that. His style of overused slow motion and borderline 'gore-porn' tendencies (and Watchmen is very violent at times, very much unnecessary) hurt the movie, taking away from the actual story. The movie works best when he throws away these techniques, mainly the scene with Rorshach (Jackie Earle Haley) in prison. No slow motion, all story and character, and it works. Haley's performance as well is the best of the film, adding to this scene. The problem is that this is the only scene that really has any replay value for me, and I don't want to watch two hours just to see this scene.
   I didn't see what most critics didn't like about Malin Akerman's performance as Silk Spectre II, I didn't see it as horrendous as others did, but it wasn't memorable, if that's what they were getting at. Other than that, the timing constraints really hindered what could have been incredible performances. It felt like so much of the characters just were not there, and I'd rather read the novel again as opposed to watch the movie. I found myself waiting for more of the philosophical parts of the novel that weren't there. Snyder's preoccupation with action, which wasn't the draw of the GN, is what is at fault for this. These characters weren't relatable in any sense, it was as if Dr. Manhattan's detachment had passed to all the characters. 
   The ending. Everyone says it 'worked'. Bullshit. Sparing my own theory about why it didn't work, the original ending was important the way it happened. This isn't a fanboy attack on Snyder for the changing, but the ending, a veritable apocalypse, had no feeling of the scale that it should have had. I didn't feel that so many people had died. I didn't care. In the GN, it was also important that only New York had been attacked, and not all the major cities in the world. 
  My last of the gripes is with the music. Pop culture references in the GN were quotes from the lyrics of Dylan and others, it doesn't necessarily mean that they could translate to screen that easily. This is why I hate pop culture directors, they have no idea what they're doing. Hallelujia? Sound of Silence? The Times They Are A Changing? None of these songs blaring over the loudspeakers resonated with the movie and the scenes didn't even feel ironic, which would have given them some substance. I feel Snyder just put them in there because Moore referenced them or they were released in the 1980's. Watchmen is a pop culture movie trying to be important. It's too bad Dark Knight  raised the standards so high, because that's what Snyder probably wanted to do. Instead, Watchmen comes across as self important and timely. It wanted to have the effect the GN originally had. Sorry, Snyder, but you fucked it up. I knew you would. But I never really liked your movies anyway.

Well, it's that time again for the Ol Oscar pics. After watching the DaColbert Code predictions this morning, I'm going to try to pick accurately, but know that it has as much success as my predictions usually do, so here goes!

Best Original Screenplay: I feel the screenplay awards are important, so why they're usually left out of many predictions is beyond me. These writers are the source of what we see, and without them we wouldn't have the captivating narratives that we have in Hollywood and Foreign cinema. Having only seen one of the films nominated, Wall.e, and loving it so much, I'd have to say that it was an incredible film that was written so well for a film with no dialogue for over forty-five minutes. However, from what I've heard of 'In Bruges' it has a good shot as well, and as the underdog, with animation award going, hopefully, to Wall.e, here's hoping that 'In Bruges' takes home the statue.

Best Adapted Screenplay: That Christopher and Jonathon Nolan are not nominated for their incredible screenplay for 'The Dark Knight' is one of the most disappointing snubs of the year, and this is not just because I'm a fan. One of my favourite lines in the film comes from Gordon, "I don't get political points for being an idealist, I have to make due with what I have" right after attacking Harvey Dent for his insidious work in I.A prior to becoming District Attorney takes this film to a level that not only no other Batman film had reached, but few films directed at a mass audience reach without Micheal Bay-esque explosions; and wouldn't you know it, this film had both.
      But I digress, and that tangent applies also to the Directing category and Nolan's absence. Of the films nominated, though I've only seen 'Benjamin Button', the accolades I've heard about 'Frost/Nixon' lead me to believe it is a formidable success at taking something that has such little action but so much historical significance seems, to me, a clear winner against the sometimes bland and traditional (i.e. boring) classical nature of 'Button'. My vote goes for 'Frost/Nixon'.

Best Supporting Actress: 'Doubt' seems like the classical example of overrated Oscar-bait we see every year. Two Oscar winning actors and a narrative involving controversy that relates to contemporary anxieties. We've seen it, it bored us before and that's not going to change. Though I think Marisa Tomei did a formidable job in 'The Wrestler', her previous win and the confusion surrounding it are going to hold off the Academy I feel. Penelope Cruz seems the only competant actress this year in the category (again, outside of Tomei), and Henson from 'Button' was too much a stereotype of the post-colonial mindset for her to really be seriously be considered. My vote: give it to Cruz, its her time.

Best Actress: Winslet! Five nominations prior and no win? Streep is past her prime, and Jolie is doing nothing but Oscar bait lately, entertaining as 'Changeling' was. Hathaway and Winslet are the only ones who have heart in their performances anymore of those nominated, but if Winslet doesn't win, I feel there would/should be an uprising against the Academy. Winslet will win.

Best Supporting Actor: Heath. He revolutionized the comic book film, he returned the villain to what it needed to be: omnipresent, without a trite and annoying back story, and menacing. Hoffman won't get it, for the Oscar-bait reason again. Downy Jr. should have been nominated for 'Zodiac' last year, as good as his performance in 'Tropic Thunder' was, its far from Oscar worthy. At least have the guts to have nominated him for 'Iron Man' if anything. If Heath doesn't get this, expect another uprising. Vote: Heath.

Best Actor: Sean Penn has GOT to stop making Oscar bait films. It gets annoying. Rourke deserves the award because he poured himself into this role, which seems to me to be somewhat autobiographical. You can see his soul on screen here, and Pitt is disappointing as the stoic man who ages backwards, except that he shouldn't be so stoic in dealing with his agelessness. He comes across as stale, and this is more in part of the writing than Pitt himself, but making Button a hero seems the wrong way to go with something that could say so much more. My vote: Mickey Rourke.

Best Director: Up until now, I've pretty much agreed with the DaColbert Code predictions, but the man is smart, just lacking in explanations (which is the joke anyway, so its okay). Here is where I tend to digress a little from the normative expectations. Now...I love the films of David Fincher. Here he is, nominated for an Oscar. I don't think he deserves it and I don't think he will win it. Had this nomination come for 'Zodiac', the far superior film, then I would be singing a different tune. But it's not, so I remain tuneless. Howard seems to have made a film that I actually may like, once I do see it, so I will give him credit, especially because it seems like he transcends his usual Oscar-bait category with something bold and different. Danny Boyle always does something different, from one film to the next he is always doing something different stylistically and narratively. This is the man who made 'Trainspotting' and '28 Days Later', a god among cult film fans, and 'Sunshine' was one of the best contemporary sci-fi films of the last decade, in the vain of '2001'. 'Slumdog Millionaire' has emerged as the pop hit of the year, and still seems like an underdog because it seems so honest about what it is. It has no preoccupations about what an Oscar film should be, it is a classical narrative style film with a few embellishments for entertainments sake and does what it does so well, and Boyle had no delusions of grandeur, and never has. Give Boyle the award, he deserves it. My Vote: Boyle.

Best Picture: That the Picture and Director nominations tend to mirror each other more consistently year after year (this year exactly) seems like a cop-out to me for producers to get credit for doing very little. In many cases the award goes to both, but not always. When an iconic filmmaker is up for the award, they undoubtedly win Director, but sometimes the film itself seems like an obvious without considering other great films (ex. Scorcese and 'The Departed'). I haven't seen 'Slumdog', or anything but 'Button', and my feelings on Button are that it is good, but not great. I almost know, like many, that 'Slumdog' will win the best picture oscar, but I almost want 'Frost/Nixon' to win based on the fact that it is something different, even though I'm not a Howard fan. 'Frost/Nixon' seems to me to be more an underdog film, because of the power that 'Slumdog' is rushing in with. The award will go to 'Slumdog Millionaire' though I think it should go to 'Frost/Nixon.'

There it is, a little later this year, but my Oscar predictions for everyone. Speculate, place your bets, and on Sunday we'll see how everything turns out!

 -- I don't know if I feel sick (i.e. vomity, something I ate was rotten sick) or if I just need food.

 -- I am too tired right now to attempt to solve the problem with the food method.

 -- I am hoping that if the vomity-ness is the problem I am not too lazy to solve that one...lest my computer monitor become a vomit square.

 -- I apologize for that image. Haha...though it would be funny.

 --It's another of those days we all have: the 'What am I going to do with my life?" moment. Or, the idea that you're not so secure in your 'career choice' as the world has outline that you MUST have. Academia is a troubling realm. They say 'those who can't do, teach.' Is this where I end my pondering of professorship/teaching? Should I quell those ambitions now and turn back to writing and filmmaking? It seems far more fullfilling for me to create than relate one theory to another. I would rather publish and write and create, but I don't know where to publish, if I have the chops to be an adequate writer? Do I have an audience outside myself? It is easy to ask 'what's wrong with the world' and write a medidative novel on the subject; Dostoevsky killed that subject even before Steinbeck approached it. We are entering an even more prominent era in which we can utilize the term 'depression'. People are emotionally broken, the economy in the hands of Obama and the European Markets. The artistic types are suffering the most. The niche is there, but the government doesn't support the moral health of the people. Capital is the heartbeat of the Nation-Globe. We class nations on economic status in relation to China, Russia and America, yet we fail to do anything regarding this moral emptyness and false personifications that are created.
     I've started writing a new novel, if you'll indulge how obtuse that sounds. I'm toying with titling it one of two things: "The Importance of Being", or "The Impotence of Being." Both titles apply, and detail very personal concerns of my own and my generation and age group and what we consider important. This is less to say with priorities and more to note that some people don't seem to have any, or that their ideas of life are preordained hopes of success with a BA or a BSC. A T.A. at Brock has said that "The MA is becoming the new BA". Granted, there are things I've learned through school, but the general feeling is frustration with the inability, in Canada, that I could create the films I'd like to. I like to at least try to be ambitious, but I'm sucked into jobs to get by on for now and then there's the student debt, and it always goes that I feel like an underdog that's getting kicked down repeatedly, this even before I leave school. All these conflicting ambitions, and all I want is the freedom and ability to create. I'm thinking of starting a film group with some people in my class. Here's hoping.

 -- I've come to accept that certain people change. I haven't come to accept that I've purposely cut people off from my life in the past. I've debated how this is acceptable, but this world just seems to be self-involved to many extremes, I guess that even I have to conform at some time, in my own way.

 -- Reading Alan Moore's From Hell , startling, really. Writing my British Pop Culture paper on it, hopefully.

 -- Had to restart my Fable 2 save...much farther with a much better (evil!) character. That game is addictive.

 -- House hunting is going okay, could be better, but looking for a place for April in non-student areas is tough.

 -- Superbowl next weekend...didn't pay any attention to football this year, so I'm using it as an excuse to go with Sarah and visit family.

 -- Tired...possibly hungry. I'm gonna go make some food :D !!!