Yet another A paper, this one from my 200-level film class. This paper is about duality on the silver screen. As usual, it's not exactly the most exciting work I've done. It is, after all, an academic paper. As such, it was done in a rushed manner, though not without care and attention to detail. I do wish I had more time to smooth out the transitions and otherwise refine the paper before I submitted it.

Duality in people exists as qualities that are seemingly in opposition of each other. It is far easier to classify people with one label, to categorize them in such a way that is convenient. However, duality is part of the human condition. In both Jonathan Demme’s The Silence of the Lambs and David Lynch’s Blue Velvet, duality is a prominent theme displayed in the main characters.

Clarice Starling is the heroine of The Silence of the Lambs. At the beginning of the film, she is an F.B.I. trainee with great ambition and aspirations. Immediately we see dualism manifest in Starling’s choice of career. In the field of law enforcement, she is a woman in a man’s world. This contrast is highlighted in several key scenes in the film. One such shot places Starling in the middle of a crowded elevator full of men who are all easily taller and stronger than she is. The distinction is further enhanced with the use of color: the men are wearing red shirts in contrast to Starling’s gray sweatshirt.

Starling is portrayed as a strong, smart, and resourceful woman who, through her ambition and bravery, overcomes obstacles that prevent her from reaching her immediate goal: to capture serial killer Buffalo Bill. While the classic depiction of the female image is that of daintiness, demureness, and otherwise one that is softer and more nurturing, Starling exhibits leadership qualities that are not traditionally portrayed in women. Throughout the film, she also shows us that she is a very strong and capable woman who can take care of herself.

One such example of Starling’s strength and leadership is in the funeral scene. All of the police officers seemed resentful of having a woman in their midst (one who means to overtake the investigation using expert knowledge no less). She takes charge by respectfully telling all of the officers to leave so that she and her colleagues can get to work. This is a clear demonstration of Starling’s strength and courage, especially given the male-dominant atmosphere. Demme shows us that she has the gumption to take command of situations where necessary.

This unusual display is offset in the same scene however. When the coroner passes around a small jar of ointment to apply to one’s upper lip, just below the nostrils, Starling shows us that she is not out of touch with her femininity. Out of a feminine sense of modesty, she demurely turns around to apply the ointment. Later, when Starling visits some academics to learn about the origins of the cocoon that was forced into a victim’s throat, she is asked on a date by one of the experts. While she showed no deference to the earlier flirtations of the hospital administrator, she acquiesced to the expert’s advances with feminine charm. As we can see, Clarice Starling exemplifies the duality of masculine strength and power coexisting with feminine demureness.

Another character in the same film exhibits such duality as well. Dr. Hannibal Lecter is a brilliant psychiatrist who reached the top of his field. He is well educated and very cultured as can be seen in the way he carries himself. His ability to figure someone out with minimal information is a demonstration of Lecter’s powers of observation and inductive reasoning, a sign of his incredible intellect. He also appreciates courtesy and civility, a trait congruent with his appreciation of the fine arts.

However, beneath his refined poise and respectful manner lies a savage animal capable of killing and eating another human being. In the scene where Lecter escapes captivity, we see that despite his intellect and civilized demeanor, he effects his escape with a great deal of brutality and violence. In the same man who appears to be the civilized epitome of fine living is a terrifyingly violent monster.

One might conclude that this horrific side of Lecter is indicative of an inherent evil that pervades his every move. However, he seems quite capable of controlling his murderous impulses, engaging in them only as he sees fit. Despite Starling’s clear threat to his freedom, he chooses not to hunt her down. The murderous violence that Lecter is capable of seems so wildly visceral and animalistic, yet he demonstrates that he is in control of his actions.

Duality is also prominent in Blue Velvet, perhaps more so than in The Silence of the Lambs. Dualism is seen not only in the characters but in the environment itself. David Lynch portrays protagonist Jeffrey Beaumont as a young man living in two different worlds. Jeffrey begins his journey in the relative safety of the suburban comforts of Lumberton. Lynch paints Lumberton’s safe existence as an idealized fantasy with the overly blue skies serving as a backdrop to the perfect white picket fences and oversaturated red roses. Lumberton is a town where children walk home in safety under the watchful protection of the crossing guard. It is a place where the grass is healthy and green, where firemen pass by happily with huge grins and friendly waves.

Jeffrey transitions from this picture of suburban perfection into the much darker and more dangerous world of criminals like Frank Booth. He becomes exposed to a sexual world intertwined with violence and abuse, a stark contrast to what he is accustomed to. This dark and dangerous world, hidden away from view, is the polar opposite of the surface of Lumberton, yet it exists in the same physical realm of Lumberton.

Accompanying Jeffrey on this descent into the seedy criminal underworld is his counterpart, the young and pretty Sandy Williams. When Jeffrey suggests that they sneak into a woman’s apartment, Sandy balances his enthusiasm with skepticism and a grounded perspective. She represents the voice of reason. She serves as a symbol of purity, as Jeffrey’s anchor in the world of normalcy. Even so, she too succumbs to mystery and goes forward with Jeffrey’s plan, suggesting that even the pure will have their moments of misjudgment and temptation.

Sandy’s pink and white dresses and blonde hair distinguish her from the woman central to the underworld. That woman, Dorothy Vallens, wears deeper and richer colors. Dorothy’s hair is black, and her apartment is couched in plush velvety textures and sumptuous reds. Compared to the virginal Sandy, Dorothy exists as a darkly sexualized female figure. It is she who initiates Jeffrey into a world of sexual perversion and violence.

Before this initiation, Jeffrey himself is relatively innocent. He is confident and silly, making Sandy laugh with his rendition of a ‘chicken walk’. He is, however, bored. Boredom, along with curiosity, serves as a catalyst to his adventure: “There are opportunities in life for gaining knowledge and experience," he says. As soon as he steps into the underworld, his innocence is corrupted. What started as an exciting little mystery in a small town soon turns into a nightmarish trip into a disturbing realm hidden away from public view. He becomes dragged into a world of perversion and sexual deviance. Very rapidly, Dorothy snares Jeffrey and keeps him in a sexual relationship with her. While having sex, she asks Jeffrey to hit her. Although Jeffrey initially finds this repulsive, he does give in when provoked and strikes her. Here, his inherent desire to do good crosses paths with his darker side when he succumbs to the sexual opportunity presented by Dorothy. In this way, Jeffrey is not as different from Frank as we might like to believe. Here we have a person who risks life and limb to save a strange woman, all the while taking advantage of a sexual relationship that is borne from that woman’s dysfunction. It is difficult to reconcile these two sides of a person, making Jeffrey a fine example of dualism.

These two films show us that dualism is an inherent part of human existence. They illustrate that the good and the bad exist together, oftentimes in one person or one place. People are complicated. It is not necessary to flatten one’s character into a single dimension in order to understand them. Rather, one need only to understand that seemingly disparate qualities, be it good and bad or male and female, can exist together to create a complex dynamic in people’s psychology.

May we suggest you have a gander at these?

1. I still want Sandy! Unfortunately, my personal secretary, who happens to service probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other folks organize their thoughts, is going to be retiring. Her name was Sandy,...
2. Once Upon a Time In Bohan — My own Western short film I got sick over the summer, came down with some major flu or something. During that time, I took the chance to watch a couple of long movies I had...
3. Spreety TV helps my sleepless nights In the interests of saving money, I canceled my Netflix subscription. And it’s during my sleepless nights that I find myself regretting that decision. This is where Spreety TV comes...

I was eagerly awaiting the release of Tom Ford's A Single Man to home video. This was mostly because I love seeing suits on film and I had heard quite a bit about Tom Ford's fashion background having an influence on the film. Unfortunately, fashion seems to be all there is to this flick.

Colin Firth plays protagonist George Falconer, an English professor whose partner died in a car accident. We follow him on a single day as he contemplates suicide. Throughout the course of the day, nothing really happens. He meets an interested student, comes across an incredibly handsome young Spanish fellow, meets up with his old friend Charley (Julianne Moore), and ends the night by having a drink with said interested student and proceeding to take him home after a naked swim.

I'd like to get into a plot analysis and all that jazz, but the truth of the matter is that it's really nothing more than a cursory character study of a gay Englishman. As a movie, Ford creates some visually stunning images. As an appreciator of classic male fashion, I noticed the great attention to detail to the character's wardrobe. George Falconer was one helluva dresser: impeccable and tasteful. Ford's use of saturation and desaturation, while overused, was duly noted and appreciated as well. Sound, usually an underused and ignored part of film making, was finely utilized: the dramatic and wistful score, combined with the stunning imagery, almost stands to say volumes on its own.

Unfortunately, it doesn't say enough. I am a huge fan of character studies. My own screenplay-turned novel is a character study. That is why I know how difficult it is to write one. For a character study to be successful, it must have conflict, and it must cause the audience to ask questions. It must engage the viewer's emotions and challenge the intellect. The greatest difficulty lies in a character study that doesn't exactly have much going on in it. It takes a very skilled writer to pull it off. Getting the audience to become invested in the psychology of the main character is difficult. When I watched the movie, it lost my interest a little more than half way into the film. I kept wondering if this was just some kind of exhibition show for homosexuality and fashion in the sixties.

Personally, I think it takes a great deal of skill and talent to be able to adapt a novel into a screenplay. I imagine that it would take someone who is firstly trained in literary writing to understand the source material. Then it takes someone who is also a cinematic thinker. An adaptation of a novel can only be successful if the screenwriter has both skills. Otherwise, things are lost in translation as they usually are when making the traversal from novel to movie.

Because the film doesn't deliver as a character study (though Firth's performance is undoubtedly as excellent as the clothes he wears), it is nothing more than a moving painting. Yes, there is no doubt that the cinematography can be described with words like "beautiful", "stunning". But a film needs to be more than just appealing to the eye. It seemed to me that A Single Man was more a vehicle to show off Ford's outstanding sense of fashion and attention to detail; a showcase of what a well-dressed man would look like in the sixties. I felt like there was much more to the book than we were shown in the movie. I imagine that the novel would be a far more satisfactory emotional ride. The movie is akin to a blonde bimbo: very good to look at but not very intelligent or engrossing.

If Tom Ford can marry his visual sense with better storytelling, I'm sure he'll be a great success. But for his debut, he exposes his lack of cinematic vision and tells us that he is still just a fashion designer.

May we suggest you have a gander at these?

1. Goddamned novel I’m not sure if it’s writer’s block or what, but writing this novel seems to be a great deal more challenging than my screenplay. Two pages in and I can’t...
2. Mall cop meets Taxi Driver? No way. New York Times Movie Review — Observe and Report (2009) [PDF] I haven’t seen Observe and Report yet. But just reading that this guy was inspired by Taxi Driver.…oh marone…The...
3. My contention with studying Greek plays Greek plays are often the subject of study in literature classes all across America. They’re often wonderful examples of tragedy and dramatic irony. But really, is reading them most effective...

This is a paper I wrote for my 300-level Spielberg film class. 1,466 words long and coming out to a little over four pages, it earned me an A. A decent read for anyone interested in Spielberg, though this is certainly not the most well written paper: I could've done better. Speaking of which, I'm going to study Spielberg's Catch Me If You Can right now, just for fun.

The family is an entity present in Steven Spielberg’s films. With family being central to his work, the hearth and home is important to the meanings behind his films. Two movies, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Poltergeist, feature the home as the main source of conflict.

In Poltergeist, protagonist Steve Freeling is a husband and father of three. He and his family live in a house in a developing suburban neighborhood. Spielberg creates a portrait of the neighborhood as a relatively happy one where children play in the streets and neighbors gather to watch sports.

However, all is not perfect. There is a scene in which youngest daughter Carol Anne catches her mother Diane as she is about to flush her recently deceased pet bird down the toilet. Previously, she had complained about the bird’s death, saying, “Oh Tweetie, couldn’t you have waited for a weekday?” Diane’s comical reaction to the bird’s death is a statement that death is a part of everyday life. While Carol Anne’s reaction to the death of her pet is one of respect and sadness, she also moves on from the death rather quickly, cheerfully asking to replace the bird with a goldfish immediately after she has completed the burial. Again, while this is funny, it also serves to illustrate the lack of reverence for the dead: Carol Anne, who sheds no tears for her bird, does not grieve the death of her pet bird any longer than is convenient. Death then would seem to be something that is not particularly traumatic to the residents of the Freeling home. Later, the spot in the yard where the bird is buried is dug up by a bulldozer, causing the box in which it was buried to tumble, foreshadowing the later discovery that the house is built on top of desecrated burial grounds.

In the first scene of the movie, Carol Anne awakes in the middle of the night while the rest of the family is fast asleep. She wanders down into the living room, drawn towards the flickering television set. Carol Anne speaks to the spirits inhabiting it. Later, the spirit manifests itself as an ethereal hand that suddenly penetrates the screen, breaking through the spiritual dimension to the physical realm. Visually, it is quite startling. It is a physical act of invasion, showing us the spirits breaking into the Freeling home. More specifically, the spirits invade the home when everybody is asleep. That is to say that they invaded when everyone is unguarded and nobody is watching the home. Spielberg illustrates that it is a strange force that violates the safety of the home by literally entering into it. This idea that danger comes from within the house is further reinforced by the fact that the ghosts attack the family from inside the house; the portal exists in Carol Anne’s closet and they dominate her room. Save for the initial distracting attack by the ghosts, all of the danger comes not from the outside, but from the inside of the house.

In Close Encounters of the Third Kind, the conflict and threats to the family come from within the house as well. Roy Neary is the head of his household, a husband to Ronnie and a father to three children. One night on a dark road, he encounters a U.F.O. He becomes obsessed with this encounter. Because of his strange, distant, and obsessive behavior, he becomes estranged from his family and argues with his wife.

Roy has an emotional breakdown in front of his children during dinner. That he does so during dinner is significant. Gathering together for a meal is a routine central to family interaction. Family dinners are a part of creating a normal home atmosphere. It is a time where everyone comes together to share nourishment and to share in each other’s lives. Roy realizes during dinner that he is going through something abnormal (evidenced by his reaction to his creation of a mountain made of mashed potatoes). It is during this cornerstone of family life that Roy humbles himself before his family and tries without success to explain his strange behavior. Not only does this scene clearly illustrate tension between the family members, it also expresses the disturbance of the normalcy in the family dynamic. It is not every day that children see their fathers messily sculpting a mountain out of the mashed potatoes at the dinner table.

Here, the family is not attacked by external enemies. Rather, the destructive force comes from within. With the stage set with the great deal of tension within the family, the breaking down of the family is shown explicitly in the scene where Ronnie is trying to deal with Roy’s breakdown in the bathroom. She yells at him to attend family therapy. His son enters the scene and, upon seeing his father broken down and wet in the bathtub, repeatedly screams, “Cry baby!” at him while banging the door open and shut. Ronnie responds by screaming at him to get out. All of this commotion scares the young daughter who herself screams desperately for everyone to be quiet. Summarily, the things that cause Roy distress happen to him in his own home. The source of the stress and damage that destroys the family is the family itself. Where the wife could be supportive of Roy’s experience, she yells at him in a desperate attempt to hold on to the normal life she once had. His own children are fearful and distrustful of him. Later, his wife takes the children and leaves him to his own devices. In other words, she takes his loved ones away at the most pressing of times, a time when he is most in need. Roy’s demons exist not out in the world, but in himself and his own home.

The home should be a safe place. Yet it also appears in Spielberg’s work to be a place that is quite prone to invasion. There is a scene in which a boy named Barry is abducted from his home. His mother, named Gillian, sees a mass of morphing clouds giving way to a formation of lights. Understanding that the lights are aliens approaching her home, she runs inside and tries to secure the house by jamming the doors and drawing the blinds. Despite her efforts, the alien presence approaches and invades her home. A shaft of light appears to enter the house through the keyhole of a door. This is a visual symbol of the invasion of a strange force that means to harm the family, similar to the ethereal hand invading the Freeling household through the television set in Poltergeist.

Aside from the visual entrance of the alien presence in the form of light through a keyhole, the alien presence manifests itself in the manipulation of the physical realm. It attempts to enter through a vent in the floor. An invisible force throws the carpet clear of a vent in the floor and unscrews it. Shortly thereafter, the entire house beings to rumble and appliances shake violently, turning themselves on. In the ensuing terror and confusion, Barry leaves the house through the pet door and is abducted.

The moving of inanimate objects by an unseen force is the ultimate invasion of one’s home. It takes away the sense of familiarity that comes from the predictability of a home, violating one’s sense of safety. This invasion is also seen in Poltergeist. After breakfast, Diane cleans the kitchen table and tucks the chairs away. She turns away very briefly to get something from a cabinet and is shocked to see them stacked in an unusual and impossible formation on top of the table when she turns back. This very visual act of paranormal mischief is shocking and amusing to her, but it also serves as a reminder that an invisible force is inside the house. It is the visual representation of an unwelcome entity that seeks to impose its will and is a threat to the family, in much the same way that an unseen alien force invades Gillian’s home and abducts her son Barry.

Spielberg’s movies have a particular theme revolving around the family. In these two films, the home is something that must be defended. Poltergeist puts forth the idea that one should be wary of strange malevolent forces making its way into the home and that one should remain attentive in the defending of one’s home and family. Close Encounters of the Third Kind warns us that sometimes a family’s greatest enemy is itself. Together, these two films show us that threats to families can come from both within and from without and that the family as a unit must be watched vigilantly and guarded closely if it is to remain intact.

May we suggest you have a gander at these?

1. Magic and Sleight of Hand: Lessons in Hard Work I’ve been working on sleight of hand for a small while now, and it’s a beautiful thing really. Perhaps I just have an affinity for it, but it’s one of...
2. Reclusiveness As Penn and Teller once explained, jugglers start as socially aware children who go outside and learn juggling with other children; magicians are misfits who stay in the house and...
3. My childhood taught me how to be a parent The New York Times — When a Parent’s ‘I Love You’ Means ‘Do as I Say’ — [PDF] There is so much in this article that I didn’t need to...

In my film class, I've been studying Spielberg and his recurring theme of paternal absenteeism. Aside from that, I've basically been forced into the habit of studying the structure, symbols, and themes of movies. So when I took the day off yesterday to go see Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, I immediately saw parallels to Spielberg's Hook.
For one, Peter Banning in Hook returns to Neverland as an adult without any memory of his prior visit. Peter Banning is simply Peter Pan all grown up as an adult. His identity as Peter Pan is questioned however. He arrives in Neverland in order to save his children but requires the help of Tinkerbell in order to coach him into developing the necessary skills. In the end, Captain Hook is killed and the imaginary world of Neverland is rid of evil.

In Alice in Wonderland, Alice returns to Wonderland (sorry, Underland according to Burton) as a girl who's grown up (not nearly as advanced in age as Peter Banning, but still). She also has no memory of her previous adventures. And like Peter Banning, her identity as the correct Alice is questioned. By the end of the movie, Alice restores order to Underland and dethrones the evil Red Queen.

I'll have to wait until Alice in Wonderland comes out on DVD (unless I go watch it again with pen light and notebook in hand), but so far I'd have to say that the connection between Alice in Wonderland is a pretty strong one.

I viewed the movie in 3D at the Union Square theater. The 3D effects were slightly off: I'm not sure if it was an issue with the projector or something, but it just felt slightly miscalibrated. In Avatar, the 3D effects were spectacular and I never felt any fatigue in my eyes throughout the movie. In Alice however, I did feel the fatigue that others have reported. I wonder if such fatigue is due to poorly set up projection equipment or if it's an issue with the source material.

On another note, I was pretty disappointed that Burton's reinterpretation of Alice in Wonderland wasn't rife with twisted creepiness and all those other hallmarks of a Burton film. Visually, it is undeniably Burton-esque, but the story was rather straightforward and the character development felt a little sparse. Then again, I do need to watch the film again to make a better judgment. I also have to admit that I had only gotten three or four hours of sleep the night prior to my viewing, but I didn't fall asleep or anything.

May we suggest you have a gander at these?

1. Infidelity and the Morality of Children I have no memory of how this woman’s blog got into my list of RSS feeds, but it is certainly an interesting read on one view of infidelity. I haven’t...
2. Movie time! I Love You, Man Friday night. I’m a single man who isn’t out on the prowl for young ladies. I’m looking for a good time though. So what do I do? I flip through...
3. Move Time! The Ugly Truth I had written about my criticism of most romantic movies a small while ago. Now, I normally didn’t have such a critical eye with romantic movies prior to my realization....

For the longest time, I ditched my unfinished screenplay in an attempt to write a novel instead. There were 88 pages. Two days ago, I decided I would pick it up again. To be honest, it was a screenplay contest that really kicked me out of stasis and back into motion. The chance to have actually Hollywood hotshots take a look at my screenplay was too good to pass up.

The thing is, I started a new screenplay. It was sort of a lighter spin-off of the original screenplay I had written. In a day, I wrote 33 pages. But then I started wondering whether or not I should simply finish my old screenplay. Right now, I'm still not sure.

The first one is about a security officer. It, like most of my creative works, is an examination of the human condition of loneliness. It had a dark tone and a pessimistic view of people. I was very careful to avoid writing a Taxi Driver ripoff, though the similarities are inherently there. It was the ending that I was most afraid of being turned into just another blatant and poorly executed "homage" to Travis Bickle's murderous rampage. It was that fear that ultimately stopped me from writing the ending of that screenplay. It hit 88 pages, which I thought was already a little too lengthy. That's why I started up this new screenplay.

This new one is of course another "portrait of loneliness", though presented in a much lighter tone. I felt that loneliness could be more powerful if the protagonist was more hopeful and likable. It is the story of one summer in a salesman's life.

My fear here is whether or not it is commercially viable. The film doesn't have any violence, it doesn't have any intense romance. The story in itself, when broken down purely into actions, is not very exciting. It is not particularly action oriented. Film as a medium is best at imparting an emotional experience in real-time through the use of moving images and dialogue. But as far as I can tell, my screenplay is far too subtle to be a commercial success. It would be billed as a drama, but there is no overt display of emotion. There are no scenes of flippant anger or intense sadness. It would be a rather difficult film to execute, and to be honest, in today's culture of immediate gratification and easy entertainment, my screenplay wouldn't show much promise.

However, as a piece of artwork, it would succeed fantastically. The film's central premise is all about the way the protagonist relates to the people around him. In order to get anything out of the film, one must constantly think of how he interacts with everyone. The nuances in a simple scene where he successfully makes a sale are subtle. I am afraid that people are not smart enough to pick up on the purpose of such seemingly actionless scenes. Perhaps it isn't a question of whether or not they are smart enough, but whether or not they are willing to dissect this character.

I had created a short film entitled The Hobbyist using the GTA IV PC Video Editor. If you break it down into actions, this is what you get out of the film:

Niko stands out in the street under a streetlamp. We cut to him exiting his apartment at night. He gets into his car and drives away to look for prostitutes working the streets. The first prostitute he takes into his car gives him a handjob in a dirty alley filled with garbage. He finishes and goes to find yet another prostitute. He takes her to the same place and this time receives oral sex. Niko finds a third and final prostitute, bringing her yet again to the same spot. He has sex this time. When he finishes, he sits in his car, thinking. He then climbs a ladder in that alley and goes up to the roof. On the edge of the roof, he waits for a bit, thinking. He then jumps off, plummeting to his death.

On a very basic level, this is just a short film about some guy who's horny and gets his rocks off three times, and then kills himself. Doesn't seem very interesting. But there are subtle nuances in that film. There is a reason for all of the shots there. Admittedly, I don't know much about editing (ways you cut from shot to shot) as a form of mise en scene, but aside from that everything you see is there for a reason.

I'm just not sure whether or not big Hollywood companies would be interested in making a more artistically or intellectually inclined film. I am not sure whether or not I should "commercialize" my screenplay for this contest. But in the interest of artistic integrity, I suppose I will not.

Even so, it's a difficult thing to work out these two screenplays. They share the same central themes and have a very similar structure. They even have some very similar visual representations (at least in my own mind). If I use ideas in one screenplay, it's not in my best interest to use them again in a different one. This is the difficulty I'm dealing with, and I suppose I'll just have to figure it out.

May we suggest you have a gander at these?

1. On Writing: Novel or screenplay? (and how the summer sucks for writing) I had made my decision to move from writing for film to writing a novel a while ago. I wish I had come across this article first: it would’ve sped...
2. Once Upon a Time In Bohan — My own Western short film I got sick over the summer, came down with some major flu or something. During that time, I took the chance to watch a couple of long movies I had...
3. A critical decision about my screenplay I’ve made a very important decision. I’ve decided to switch from writing my story for a screenplay to writing it for a novel. I realized that my verbose and literary...

The Accidental Husband (2008) stars Uma Thurman and some fellow by the name of Jeffrey Dean Morgan in a romantic comedy.  As usual, I'm rather critical of the romance in most movies, and I'll try to articulate what it is about this flick that I think could've been done better.

Dr. Emma Lloyd (Uma Thurman) as talk show host (hostess?) of popular radio program 'Real Love'.  She dispenses advice about finding real love: the type that lasts forever, not just the type that gets you all hot and bothered for a couple weeks and then leaves you high and dry.  A lot of what she says seems quite in line with my own beliefs.  Dr. Lloyd believes that "love is supposed to nourish you".  Like myself, she knows that though Prince Charming may seem awfully enticing and exciting at the onset, "his charm will run pretty thin, which is what charm does."  She knows that the recipe for real love that lasts a lifetime involves finding a loving man who is a responsible adult and an equal.  This very smart lady is engaged to Richard Bratton (Colin Firth).  Richard is stable, loving, responsible, and pretty much a "safe bet".  He may not be exciting, but I'd say that he's excellent marriage material.

Patrick Sullivan (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) is a fireman from Astoria, Queens.  He had been dating a woman for five months and got engaged to her.  This woman, upon receiving advice from Dr. Lloyd, broke things off with him.  Some time later, his young neighbor friend helps him exact a little bit of vengeance.  With a little computer wizardry on the part of this helpful neighbor, Patrick Sullivan is registered with the state of New York as Emma Lloyd's husband.

Emma goes to find Patrick so that she can annul the current fluke of a marriage.  Being out for blood, Patrick doesn't make it easy for her.  In short, he makes her jump through a lot of hoops to get these papers signed so that she can legally move forward with her actual intended marriage.

Of course, the movie mixes things up a little bit and Patrick finds himself starting to like Emma as he holds her annulment papers hostage.  As he impersonates her real fiancé, the roleplaying serves to inadvertently bring out some latent attraction between the faux couple.

But here's the thing: you really have to question just how committed to marriage Patrick was if he's already starting to develop feelings for the woman who ruined his engagement.  And you have to wonder how committed Emma was to marrying Richard if she starts making out with Patrick in an elevator. There were also some loose ends. Richard seemed to be catching wind of the hacking that was going on, but didn't follow through with any sort of exposure of Patrick's scheme. Overall, it just didn't feel quite right that he would just lay down and take it.

As with most romantic movies, we never really see the emotional motivations of the characters to break their current engagements.  We never see that pivotal moment between the characters where they fall in love for each other.  So often, these moments are told to us, but not shown.  I imagine a great scene that has a moving score, powerful imagery, and beautiful cinematography could pull this off, along with great acting.  But most of the time, this scene is explained to us rather bluntly with some dialogue.

I find it silly that Emma would throw away all of the advice she gives to others.  There is a much potential for some good drama, but Emma doesn't seem to have any real issues with physical and emotional infidelity.  We don't see any internal conflict that convinces us that she isn't just some big hypocrite.  The movie paints Emma as a woman who is just swept away with a surprising spark of romance.  But she's really more of a flip-flopper.  Her decisions do not have any grave consequences, and without the weight of the severity of her actions, it's hard to see anything meaningful.  Richard just simply lets go and forgives her.  In my opinion, the real hero in this movie was Richard Bratton.  He was big enough a man to graciously set her free. However, it'd be far more dramatic if Richard didn't just give up his engagement. In fact, Emma doesn't exactly seem remorseful of her dissolution of her engagement with him.

It seems like the message to be read from this movie is this: Girls, you can read all the books and magazines you want, listen to all the experts' advice, but when true love strikes, when you recognize the real thing, drop everything and chase it down, regardless of the consequences. An irresponsible and seemingly stupid lesson if you ask me. Of course, the movie is ultimately enjoyable, although it certainly does not surpass the very low bar that modern romance movies have set. As usual, there is a high potential for drama, but it fails to deliver.

This is actually a very old draft that just never got published. It was originally written on 12 NOV 2009.

May we suggest you have a gander at these?

1. Move Time! The Ugly Truth I had written about my criticism of most romantic movies a small while ago. Now, I normally didn’t have such a critical eye with romantic movies prior to my realization....
2. Mall cop meets Taxi Driver? No way. New York Times Movie Review — Observe and Report (2009) [PDF] I haven’t seen Observe and Report yet. But just reading that this guy was inspired by Taxi Driver.…oh marone…The...
3. Love interests on the big screen Perhaps my exposure to romantic cinema has been limited in scope, but I have yet to come across a movie that truly captures my heart. I have yet to watch...

Julie & Julia puts the wonderful Meryl Streep into the shoes of Julia Child, the famously warm and down to earth American chef with her own cooking show on television.  The film is the vessel for a great narrative and an excellent performance from Ms. Streep.  But as enjoyable as it was, there were some glaring flaws.

The story is really an amalgam of two stories. We follow Julie Powell (Amy Adams), a government worker stagnating in her cubicle, slowly approaching her thirtieth birthday as she watches her friends swoop past her with their high-powered careers. Her friend's venture into the world of blogging compels her to pursue her own blog. Julie decides that she will cook her way through Julia Child's (Meryl Streep) cookbook of 524 recipes in one year. By the end of her journey, she becomes discovered by the New York Times and publishes her own book.

The movie tries to establish Julie's life as a loose reflection of Julia Child's life. Julia Child climbs her way from government clerk-turned housewife to author of a cookbook. Julie's story starts off with a strong energy and establishes a solid base of emotion that explains what could motivate her to adhere to such a disciplined regimen of cooking. But later, the emotional momentum seems to taper off and we're left with what seems to mostly a straightforward narrative account.

Because Julie and Julia doesn't have any particular cinematographic merits, the attention is focused primarily on the narratives. The two stories are quite hopeful and entertaining. But they fall flat in terms of an emotional payoff. Julie's triumph that comes in the form of her book deal doesn't seem to be all that rewarding. Julia Child's story is far more interesting and holds us in a paradoxical suspense: we already know that she achieves fame, yet we want to see exactly how she got there. Julie on the other hand is not a very interesting character.

It seems as if the screenwriter was more interested in creating a biography delivered in an entertaining format. It doesn't quite achieve any dramatic breakthroughs. I found the attempted allusions to Julie and Julia's lives to be weak and uninteresting. There is nothing profound about the similarities between their lives. It is perhaps serendipitous, but certainly nothing to write home about. I could easily make my life seem rather similar to any number of my personal heroes.

Then there's Eric Powell, Julie's husband. About an hour and twenty minutes into the movie, the seemingly happy couple have a major breakdown out of nowhere. Eric starts ranting about how the blog has turned her into a narcissist and proceeds to storm out of their apartment.At no point did we see any particular stressor to this scene.We never see any of this tension building up. In fact, in the previous scene, the two were laughing heartily at a parody on television. Eric is portrayed as unsupportive, sarcastic, and essentially a prick. It is entirely uncharacteristic and unfounded. How it happened in real life is irrelevant: from a screenwriting perspective, it's sloppy. Another point of sloppiness appears near the end. The movie makes no attempt to explain why Julia Child does not care for Julie's blog. It seemed to be a little extraneous detail. It feels like the screenwriter just decided to throw in bits and pieces of the real account out of whimsy.

I expected to see how Julia Child affected Julie Powell's life in a profound way. Instead, the movie is essentially nothing more than an entertaining and well-structured amalgam of two different lives in two different times. The two stories weren't tightly woven enough to make a compelling whole. This isn't to say that the movie wasn't enjoyable. Meryl Streep's performance is a joy to behold, and seeing her 5'6" frame appear as a significantly taller 6'2" is an enjoyable illusion to entertain. And although the task of weaving two narratives together is no small feat, the movie would have done better if it focused on either story rather than both. I personally left wanting to see Julia Child's ascension to iconic home-stay of the domestic life, but I guess Julie & Julia will suffice.

May we suggest you have a gander at these?

1. Love interests on the big screen Perhaps my exposure to romantic cinema has been limited in scope, but I have yet to come across a movie that truly captures my heart. I have yet to watch...
2. Movie Time! Zombieland disappoints Zombieland isn’t exactly a movie that I feel inclined to wax philosophical about. I’m not going to write up a long winded review or anything. It doesn’t deserve my beautiful...
3. Magnolia is what’s wrong with Hollywood Okay, so I just finished watching Magnolia. I have to be honest. It was a humongous waste of my time. And it was no small chunk of time either: it...

Zombieland isn't exactly a movie that I feel inclined to wax philosophical about. I'm not going to write up a long winded review or anything. It doesn't deserve my beautiful prose. I'm just going to wing it, so here goes.

What do I love about zombie movies? It's that sense that the entire world has collapsed into despair, that the human race must start all over again. I love zombie movies because I have a fantasy of leaving the asinine trappings of modern life. Who wants to punch in at work when you can be out shooting zombies and hacking your way through a supermarket? With 90% of the population dead or a part of the undead, you're basically free to do whatever the fuck you want. See a nice shirt in that store? Just go grab it. Nobody's gonna stop you. What about that awesome hat? Go for it. If you need food, you only have to find it. You don't have to through the laborious process of working eighty hours in order to collect a paycheck, which you then have to deposit into your bank account, waiting another three days before it clears. Only then are you allowed to wait on a long line for a bus or in a stuffy subway station to get to the only Whole Foods near you. Then you get to put little boxes of food and drink into your shopping cart and push it all the way to the point of sale terminal where you get to swipe your debit card and punch in your PIN number, watching your bank account deplete slowly.

In a zombie-infested alternate reality, you just trek your way to the thousands of abandoned delis and grocery stores scattered in your city or state. Every day is a new one, fresh and free, unencumbered by a job or a mortgage. There are no lines to wait on. Nobody'll think less of you if you're unshaven with dirty long hair. Plus, there's the very obvious staple of a zombie movie: zombies. Tons of them. Lots of bloody guts and zombies vomiting their own guts out onto the pavement. Stuff like that. Massive amounts of zombie that flood the streets, filling the entire frame. That sort of thing is exciting and scary.

Zombieland doesn't deliver on anything that's fun about zombies. The plot is paper thin. It seemed to be more of a partial showcase for the list of 32 survival tips. Maybe somebody thought it would be fun to use cool diegetic kinematic type. It was some poor teenage kid's idea of how things would turn out if he America was zombified. It was an excuse to have a hilarious but short lived role for Bill Murray. It was a lot of poorly executed ideas mish-mashed together. And ultimately, it was anything but substantial.

The movie doesn't really engage the audience. As a popcorn flick, there's not nearly enough action. As a serious zombie thriller, it certainly isn't immersive enough. Zombieland is just a string of ideas that weren't really thought out. The beginning was interesting because he had all these rules that was presented to us in a very visually interesting manner. You feel that it has potential: Woody Harrelson as a cowboy? C'mon, that's golden: a modern cowboy kicking zombie ass. By the way, that little Western scene was no Ennio Morricone, I shot a better Western-wannabe in GTA IV, and that's not a brag. Anyway, the surivival rules, the cowboy as a partner, the hunt for Twinkies, it could've been a great story. But then the movie got all confused with a poorly developed romantic story arc and the silly trip to a theme park.

Zombieland's not lighthearted enough or clever enough like Shaun of the Dead, and it's not serious or grim enough like 28 Days Later or the new Dawn of the Dead. There's nothing compelling about Zombieland. Save your money for a copy of either of those aforementioned movies instead, you'll have a much funner time.

May we suggest you have a gander at these?

1. Pipe bombs over here! Left 4 Dead (L4D) has been filling up my free time (which is admittedly a lot). I think it’s an awesome game, but there is something that I find lacking....
2. Mall cop meets Taxi Driver? No way. New York Times Movie Review — Observe and Report (2009) [PDF] I haven’t seen Observe and Report yet. But just reading that this guy was inspired by Taxi Driver.…oh marone…The...
3. Movie Time! The Accidental Husband The Accidental Husband (2008) stars Uma Thurman and some fellow by the name of Jeffrey Dean Morgan in a romantic comedy.  As usual, I’m rather critical of the romance in...

As usual, Wistful Writer will not spoil movies he reflects on. There are no major spoilers here, only one very minor one.

"Observe and Report". As a security professional myself, I immediately recognized the phrase. It is a phrase used to summarize the some of the primary duties of a security officer. It is not the place of a security officer to chase down and apprehend suspects. Neither is it the place of a security officer to enforce the law. Ultimately, a security officer has no right to act in any capacity as a police officer or any other law enforcement officer. He is merely an employee charged with protecting a company's assets, including both persons and property, holding no special rights other than that of a private citizen.

Head of security Ronnie Barnhardt (Seth Rogen) is apparently oblivious to the true function of a security officer. Of course I assume just as much, otherwise it just wouldn't be very funny. In the interest of comedy, I would expect that from Ronnie. Just look at Paul Blart: Mall Cop. However, it seems like this movie was made solely for the purpose of heaping on piles and piles of derision upon the security officer's already thoroughly ridiculed occupation. Observe and Report doesn't really do much more than poke fun at "rent-a-cops", and it's not even all that funny.

As a comedy, this movie doesn't really deliver. Ronnie's insensitivity and excessively gung-ho attitude towards his duties as head of security at the Ridge Field mall has plenty of potential to  be funny. Unfortunately, writer and director Jody Hill doesn't play that angle to its fullest extent. The humor is cheap: it relies more on shock value than genuine humor. Hill invites us to laugh at Ronnie's idiocy, but it's more like when a mentally challenged child urinates in his pants: it could be funny if you put your compassion aside, but just not humorous otherwise.

So if it fails as a comedy, what does Observe and Report achieve?  Perhaps it is more dramatic than it is funny? It certainly doesn't do any good as a drama. It seems that Hill tries to build up dramatic scenes only in order to whisk the carpet away from underneath the audience with something starkly inappropriate. These dramatic moments are wasted on cheap laughs. Aside from a less than stellar story, character development is poor. Ronnie is insensitive, overzealous, and not very good at making sound judgments. As an anti-hero, you would expect him to have some redeeming qualities. But we barely see anything worth saving: only one scene seems to portray his redemptive quality of being protective towards Nell, the girl who serves him his daily cup of free coffee. Hill doesn't give us a reason to root for Ronnie. Instead, Ronnie is very much just a prick. He is portrayed as the epitome of a rent-a-cop: a fanatical security officer with a false sense of empowerment and a foolishly misplaced pride. Is it any surprise that he fails the pre-qualification examination for the police academy? I seriously doubt if anyone expected him to pass. I doubt even more that anyone felt bad for him.

We've established that the movie is neither humorous nor dramatic. I suspect that this is because Hill was unable to make up his mind. Instead of diving in headfirst into either genre, he attempts to add more depth to his movie with more serious and dramatic overtones. Near the end of the movie, Ronnie recites a serious monologue in an attempt to build up the drama of a disturbed mind that is highly focused on a single objective. This monologue was probably inspired by Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver. The tone, choice of words, and delivery are similar to the overall tone of Taxi Driver. The scene comes complete with a reverse jump cut to repeat a particular line, in what I suppose would be a nod to one of Scorsese's masterpieces. It's sort of a cheap way to sidle up to a real legendary film.  At least Observe and Report isn't as long as Taxi Driver.

Finally, because the movie isn't an effective comedy, I cannot forgive the last twenty or so minutes of the film.  The scene where Ronnie's Travis Bickle-inspired speech segues into his last stand is ridiculous: nobody in their right mind would realistically believe that a police department would send  ten police officers to bring out one security officer who doesn't carry a sidearm.  If anything, a tactical unit would be sent to deal with this barricaded suspect.  Not only that, Ronnie's "last stand" didn't feel all that justified: what did he do wrong to deserve such a large police presence?  All he did was do something deserving his termination.  Lastly, the way that Ronnie deals with the naked man in the end is absolutely absurd and entirely outside the realm of even the most loosely held of realities.

I may be more biased towards defending the image of security professionals. I am the type to care too much, but by no means am I overzealous. I have a clear and humble idea of what it means to be a security officer. So believe me when I say that I am not being defensive when I say that Observe and Report is not really worth watching. Jody Hill made it clear that he is not a comedic genius. Nor is he a master of crafting dramatic story arcs. If you like the type of humor that requires you to look down your nose at people and let loose a derisive scoff, this movie might have a chance at satisfying you. Otherwise, I'd recommend watching Paul Blart: Mall Cop or Taxi Driver if you don't want to waste an hour and a half of your life that you'll never get back.

May we suggest you have a gander at these?

1. Mall cop meets Taxi Driver? No way. New York Times Movie Review — Observe and Report (2009) [PDF] I haven’t seen Observe and Report yet. But just reading that this guy was inspired by Taxi Driver.…oh marone…The...
2. Progress on my screenplay I’m glad to say that I’ve just finished the outline to my screenplay. I’m excited that I’ve got the framework. Now I can begin on fleshing it all out. One...
3. Only one mistake and it’s all for naught Mr. Security Guard This article is particularly interesting from a security perspective.  The video highlights only one mistake that the security guard made: he didn’t maintain control of the security verification process.  Otherwise,...

I got sick over the summer, came down with some major flu or something. During that time, I took the chance to watch a couple of long movies I had put off for a while. One of them was Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West. It was this film that turned me into a lover of Western films. This is my own little Western that I filmed using the GTA IV PC Video Editor. Entitled Once Upon a Time in Bohan, it's a little experiment inspired by Leone's Westerns (I recommend watching this in full screen).

Despite the limitations and difficulties of using the video editor (which I feel was designed mostly to capture little clips of something cool that just happened), I was able to piece this together. I failed to pay attention to the in-game sound, so some scenes will be a little off because of the 'sound mixing'. I had to add in Ennio Morricone's score myself because the video editor doesn't support music that isn't licensed. All video editing was done in the game's editor. If I remember correctly, I completed this short in July.

I would've preferred a different ending involving Niko Bellic going down in a hail of gunfire. However, most of the footage was filmed during one (extremely long and painful) sitting. The ending was shot during a different session. Because it was a different session, the lighting and colors were off, and I was unable to shoot the ending I wanted unless I re-shot the entire film, which would've been damn nearly be impossible due to the nature of filming in GTA IV. Keep in mind that the only actor I have control over is Niko Bellic: everyone else's actions and spoken lines (of which are few in this particular short) are not scripted and entirely out of my hands.

I do intend to remake my film with a proper ending and even more attention to the tiny details, shaping it into a more deserving homage to the Westerns I enjoyed so thoroughly.

May we suggest you have a gander at these?

1. Back to the screenplay For the longest time, I ditched my unfinished screenplay in an attempt to write a novel instead. There were 88 pages. Two days ago, I decided I would pick it...
2. The Hobbyist I worked on this short little "art film" for a small while and finally released it on YouTube. Because there is very little control over what you can get the...
3. Desktop computer withdrawal Boy, I can’t wait to transition back to a desktop. I miss my Apple Keyboard. I miss my 19″ widescreen monitor. I miss my iTunes. I miss my Photoshop and...