What I Think Director's Do (or Should Do)

First, I hope your last blog title is an allusion to that hilarious Nutrigrain commercial. Okay, so my thoughts on the three most important things a director does are the following:

1. The director has the "vision" for the film. He (for simplicity sake I will refer to the director as he, but a woman could and should often be in the director's chair) has worked closely with all the major crew positions (director of photography, production designer, etc.) to communicate all the pre-production work he has done. With those crew members' input, he creates the "vision" for the film project, including the themes he wants to emphasize, the look and feel he envisions for the film, etc. For the film to really succeed, the director's vision needs to be consistent in all aspects of the filmmaking, and he needs to help others believe in and capture that vision.  

2. The director deals with the "talent" (i.e. the actors), and the way he interacts with them definitely influences the film's outcome. Some actors are more difficult to work with than others, and that can influence every one else on set negatively. The director needs to know how to work with all kinds of people to ensure that the work continues efficiently and the performances are strong. When a film is successful, and I'm thinking more artistically than commercially, signs usually indicate that the cast and director had a very good working relationship and a strong friendship.  

3. Wow, coming up with a third task is suddenly difficult. The first two came easily. Okay, I got one. This third one is more a reflection my personal philosophies regarding film as art. All art, I believe, serves to help human beings better understand one another. So this third task is actually the motivation underlying all that a director does: he wants to make a film that either reflects something he has learned in his quest to understand people, or it acts as an exploration of human nature in an effort to increase his understanding. I realize this reflects just my personal beliefs, but I think most good directors (those not making terrible commercial films) would admit to using film for similar purposes.

So that's what I think, but I could be way off.

Directors Everywhere

We were talking about this at work and couldn't really come to a consensus. So, I ask you. What do you think the three most important things are that a director does? I know everything is important, but what is the most important? Maybe there isn't an answer and that's why we couldn't agree on one.....

Oh Jolie!

So I pose this question to you Chris, and everybody or anybody else that reads this. Why do people hate Angelina Jolie so much? You can always find somebody out there that hates a certain celebrity with a passion, but an eery amount of people absolutely wish this woman would die. It's quite astounding. She has to be the most hated person in hollywood.....and I don't know why. She does a lot for the world and for her fellow earth inhabitants. People say it's fake and just for publicity, well I say even if it is fake she is still doing it and people are still getting help. I have been told that reason, and the fact that she is a home wrecker (that whole brad pitt, jennifer aniston thing.) But if that's the case, why isn't there the same hatred for Brad? The only people that hate him are guys, and not just guys, but guys that are jealous of how sexy he is. And boy is he sexy.

Post-Ceremony Oscar Thoughts

The biggest snub of the night was Mickey Rourke not winning Best Actor.  My fear of the Academy overlooking Rourke for Sean Penn's political performance was justified.  With each passing day, I am more and more amazed with Rourke's performance, and I really, really want to see The Wrestler again.  Rourke speaks some of the greatest, most heartfelt lines in a conversation with his daughter, and I am not satisfied having seen the scene only once.

Also, I guess I should have stuck with Slumdog for more categories.  I'm pretty sure most Academy members don't really know the difference between sound editing and sound mixing, and it seems kind of foolish to have two technical sound categories that people can't differentiate.  Also, I don't get why Penelope Cruz won for Vicky Cristina Barcelona.  I watched the movie and can't tell you why her performance was so special.  I think all the other nominees were more deserving.  Amy Adams will win something eventually.  Who knows about Marisa Tomei.  Hopefully the exposure generated by her nomination will help her land some more excellent roles in the near future.

I know you were upset with Kate Winslet winning Best Actress, Justin, and I can sympathize with you on it, though perhaps for different reasons.  First off, I'm not even sure why she was nominated in the Best Actress category for The Reader, especially considering the fact that she was nominated for the Best Supporting Actress Golden Globe (which she won, along with Best Actress for Revolutionary Road).  I don't feel like hers was a leading role, but oh well.  Even if it was a leading role, it wasn't the best performance of those nominated.  I really liked Anne Hathaway in Rachel Getting Married.  I hate that the Academy tends to overlook amazing performances by young actors because they figure they'll eventually win sometime in the future.  This is why Kate Winslet won this year; she'd been nominated so many times in the past that she was due, according to unwritten Academy standards.  Hathaway, Angelina Jolie, and Sally Hawkins (completely snubbed) all gave stronger performances than Winslet.  Mind you, I am a big Kate Winslet fan.  Her performance as Clementine in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is one of my favorite female performances ever.

Question:  will next year's Best Supporting Actor winner be another frightening depiction of evil?  Last year it was Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men, and this year it was Heath Ledger as the Joker.  Both actors completely deserved their awards.  I just find it interesting that their roles were, though quite unique, similar in many regards.

I look forward to seeing what films will be up for consideration next year.  I am hoping for The Road, and I really think Viggo can pull in a Best Actor nomination and win, if the film turns out the way I hope.

We're deep in the abyss of the winter void of good films, though Watchmen is coming soon, and I am very excited for it.  Justin, I recommend that you grab the graphic novel (or just read it in chapters at a local bookstore) because it is sweet.  I'm amazed every time I see footage of the film.  Can you think of any other good films coming out soon?  I need something to look forward to, though I am excited to re-watch some of my all-time favorites.  Maybe I'll even get some more reading done.  

Lemon out!

Your oscar thoughts

I really enjoyed reading your oscar thought. Very insightful and very entertaining. I agree with a lot of what you said, however, i have come to the conclusion that i do respectfully disagree with one thing. I have been thinking about this for a long time and i have concluded that i don't think animated films should be able to be considered for best picture. I have come to this conclusion because i believe they are two totally different art forms that require two totally different processes. But mainly because with live action there are limitations, and there are degrees of difficulties with getting certain shots or certain angles, or getting certain things to do certain things. But with animation you can just draw or animate it. You can basically do whatever you want. Take Sunset Boulevard for example. In the opening scene where he is filmed in the pool from the bottom of the pool. That shot is amazing because they didn't have underwater camera's back then so they had to position mirrors and film the mirrors. Whereas with animation they just draw it. Not the same challenges and not the same thing in my opinion. Does that make sense? Anyway, my point is basically that i just don't think they are comparable so they can't really be put in the same category. But that is just my opinion.

My Oscar Thoughts

I completed my quest to see each of the five Best Picture nominees in the theater this past Thursday when I caught a showing of Milk as the second half of a double feature.  This is the third year in a row that I have seen every Best Picture nominee in the theater, and I suppose I will keep the quest going as long as I can.

I've been busy this week editing a random film some friends and I decided to make on President's Day.  Like I tend to do, I found plenty of ways to make the project more complicated (and hopefully more fun and interesting) than I had originally planned.  Thus, most of my free time this week has been spent on this project, and that explains why I am writing about the Oscars only hours before the winners will be announced.  Anyway, let's get to it.  

(In hindsight, I feel like what I've listed as a prediction isn't so much a prediction as it is my own personal choice).

Best Picture:

This has been a tough one for me to figure out.  There hasn't been a film to truly stand out above the others, no clear winner like last year's No Country for Old Men.  I'll just list my thoughts on each of the nominees.

• The Reader - of all the nominees this year, this is the weakest.  I still enjoyed the film, but I think a large part of my enjoyment and comprehension of the film was the result of having read the book before seeing the film.  The book and film go together very well, but without reading the book, I think I wouldn't have understood the characters' motives very well.  There are some interesting symbols in the narrative, and the film is shot well and the acting is pretty good, but overall, I don't think it should have been nominated.  There are at least three films I can think of that deserve the nomination more.

• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - I wrote a rather large blog on my reaction to this movie, and my initial feelings still remain.  I really liked this movie in so many ways, but then some other things just didn't work for me.  Since watching it, I can't say that I have felt the desire to watch it again nor have I returned to it much in my thoughts.  Maybe that's not necessarily the best criteria for determining the best film of the year, but I happen to regard a film's success, so to speak, by the way it affects me, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually.  This film did affect me on many levels, but mostly in a way I didn't wish to be affected, I suppose.  The film is deserving of its nomination though, and I'm glad its director, David Fincher, is getting some of the attention he deserves.
• Milk - I enjoyed this movie a lot.  Much of that is due to Sean Penn's performance as Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official in the United States.  Penn creates a very likable, compelling character and carries the movie on his back.  It helped that I didn't know much about the story beforehand, so the history behind the narrative was intriguing and captured my attention.  The film could be favored by its political nature, but I'm not sure if the Academy will choose it because of the timely nature of its politics or not.  I don't feel like Milk was the Best Picture, but I do understand it being nominated.  There is nothing wrong with a filmmaker trying to convey a message, even a political one, through the medium of film.  I can support and applaud the effort.
• Frost/Nixon - Of this year's nominees, this film probably took me most by surprise.  I figured it would be entertaining enough, but I wasn't prepared for it to be so compelling.  The acting is superb all-around, with a couple powerhouse performances by Frank Langella and Michael Sheen - Langella is up for Best Actor but Sheen got completely snubbed and should have received a Best Supporting Actor nomination.  What surprised me most is how the film was able to use the character of Richard Nixon, make him frightening and cunning and aggressive, but then, in a matter of seconds, with just a few facial expressions, completely humanize the man.  Instead of vilifying him, the film made me feel genuinely sorry for the man.  He appeared as a broken man, tortured by his mistakes and resigned to the exile that awaited him.  I didn't see that one coming.
• Slumdog Millionaire - I remember first hearing about this film after it won some kind of award at the Toronto Film Festival, and I was immediately intrigued.  I have enjoyed all of Danny Boyle's various films, and I figured I would like this one.  Like it I did.  I really like the film's style, the way it looks (some interesting camera work), the way it uses music (great soundtrack), the acting (inspired casting of those kids), the narrative structure, and the happiness it left with me.  Of all the films nominated for Best Picture, Slumdog is the only one that could possibly be deemed a happy film.  It's a sort of modern fairy tale, quite Dickensian, and though it does show many terrible realities of life in the slums of India, it ends with hope.  And I liked that a lot.

My prediction for Best Picture:  Slumdog Millionaire.

Movies that should have been nominated:  WALL-E and The Wrestler.  WALL-E is still my favorite film of 2008.  I think it's time the whole animated film can't be nominated or considered for Best Picture prejudice goes away.  Seriously, it was such a stunning work of art.  And The Wrestler was pretty amazing as well.  I'll talk more about it when I get to Best Actor, but Mickey Rourke was amazing.  I know a lot of people think The Dark Knight should have been nominated for Best Picture, but I can't really say I feel the same way.  My nominations would probably include the following:  WALL-E, Slumdog Millionaire, Frost/Nixon, The Wrestler, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

Best Director:

This usually seems to go to the director of the Best Picture, but I'm not sure if things will play out that way this year.  Each of the five Best Picture nominated films' directors were nominated, so I guess it will likely go to the winner of that award.  I have to say that the directing of The Reader and Frost/Nixon really wasn't spectacular by any means.  Gus Van Sant did a good job with Milk, but I don't think it was spectacular.  I'd have to say that it is going to come down to David Fincher for Benjamin Button and Danny Boyle for Slumdog.  Of those two, I'd say that I would go with Danny Boyle.  I feel like his direction was more integral to the overall success of his film.  That isn't to say that a director's hand has to be seen at every turn because I thought Fincher's direction was very understated but very efficient.  

My prediction for Best Director:  Danny Boyle.

Directors who should have been nominated:  Darren Aronofsky is an incredibly talented director, as each of his films attests.  The Wrestler was so different from his other highly-stylized films that I think he may have disappeared from people's minds, which is a tragedy.  He should have been nominated over Stephen Daldry and/or Ron Howard.  Once again, I know people think Christopher Nolan should have been nominated, and I would agree if it weren't for Christian Bale's Batman voice.  Seems like a stupid holdup, I know, but that was such a terrible decision as an actor and as a director.  Nolan, like Aronofsky, is too talented to keep getting snubbed.  He'll get a golden statue eventually, right Scorsese?  I know people (the Academy) don't want to think that the director of an animated film does the same job as the director of a live-action film, and to an extent that is true, but they are also very much responsible for every aspect of their film.  With that in mind, I think Andrew Stanton of Pixar is as worthy of a nomination as anyone. 

Best Cinematographer:

This is going to be a tough one for this year.  I am of the opinion that the Academy isn't a very credible group when it comes to this award, and I base that opinion solely on the fact that Children of Men didn't win the award when it was nominated.  I'm not sure enough of the Academy has a sufficient technical knowledge to vote correctly, not that I am saying I do, but I'll offer my prediction anyway.  

My prediction for Best Cinematography: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

Best Actor:

This might be the toughest ballot of the entire evening.  I haven't seen The Visitor and can't comment on Richard Jenkins's performance, but the other four nominees are very deserving.  In my mind, it comes down to Sean Penn and Mickey Rourke.  Frank Langella was incredible as Richard Nixon, but other two completely dominated, in my opinion.  Sean Penn is a tremendous actor and somehow manages to completely lose himself in his role.  A small clip of the real Harvey Milk was shown in the credits of the film, and I could instantly see the mannerisms, gestures, etc. that Penn captured in his performance.  Just from that small clip I could tell that he really nailed the essence of that character.  Pretty incredible.  Mickey Rourke's performance in The Wrestler was just as incredible.  There is an incredible parallel between Rourke's personal history and the story of the film.  The more I think of his performance and that film, the more amazed I am.  During the film, I forgot that I was watching an incredible performance.  Rourke was that character, and it was remarkable, looking back now, at how completely his performance enraptured and moved me.  Rourke did upset a lot of the Hollywood establishment in his younger years, so who knows if they exercise a personal vendetta on him and go with the well-beloved Penn.

My prediction for Best Actor:  Mickey Rourke.

Best Supporting Actor:

This one isn't much of a contest, in my mind.  The award should go to Heath Ledger.  He owned the screen in every single scene he was in The Dark Knight.  I almost think he was too good, that his performance overshadowed everything else about the film.  I think the other nominees are deserving, but Michael Sheen should have been nominated for his role as David Frost in Frost/Nixon.  How he didn't get nominated is beyond me.  He was better than Josh Brolin in Milk and Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder.  But yeah, I think this one is a no brainer.

My prediction for Best Supporting Actor:  Heath Ledger.

Best Actress:

(This is taking longer than I thought so I'll condense my remarks from this point forward).  The Academy dropped the ball by snubbing Sally Hawkins in Happy-Go-Lucky.  I thought her performance was really amazing.  That being said, I think the most impressive performance of the nominees was Anne Hathaway's in Rachel Getting Married.  I hope they don't give the award to Merryl Streep.  She was good in Doubt, but does anyone think it's hard for her to play the angry old lady anymore?  Hathaway's performance was revelatory - the girl really can act.  I fear the Academy might give the award to Kate Winslet, a remarkable actress, but her performance in The Reader was not even close to Hathaway's.

My prediction for Best Actress:  Anne Hathaway

Best Supporting Actress:

My guess is that the Academy will reward Penelope Cruz, though I'm not sure why.  I think the other nominees are all very good, but I would give the award to Marisa Tomei for her role in The Wrestler.  I thought she was fantastic.

My prediction for Best Actress: Marisa Tomei.

From here on out, I'm just going to list the category and my choice for winner.

Best Animated Feature:  WALL-E, no contest.

Best Art Direction:  Changeling

Best Costume Design: The Duchess, those 17th or 18th century costume dramas always win.

Best Documentary Feature: Man on Wire

Best Documentary Short: I really have no idea...Smile Pinki

Best Film Editing: The Dark Knight

Best Foreign Language Film: The Class

Best Makeup: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Best Score: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Best Music (Song): "Down to Earth" (WALL-E)

Best Short Film (Animated): "Presto"

Best Short Films (Live Action): "New Boy"

Best Sound Editing: The Dark Knight

Best Sound Mixing: The Dark Knight

Best Visual Effects: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay): Slumdog Millionaire

Best Writing (Original Screenplay)Milk

Well, I think that is everything.  I hate trying to reconcile what I think is the best and what I think the Academy will choose because to do well at guessing you have to think like the Academy and not like yourself.  Anyway, I've mostly stayed true to what I think should win.  It will be interesting to see how things turn out.  This is all.

May

Oh man mogwai would be awesome. that is a band that i have never seen that i would really really like too. Awesome. May is a good month.

Must see concert!

Mogwai will be playing at Salt Lake's In The Venue on May 13, 2009.  I will be there.

I Heart Double Features

Chris, i do not know if you are home yet from your spectacular double feature but i have to know what you thought of both of those films. I can't wait to find out and i am so stoked for sunday. I love the academy awards!!

Sasquatch is calling my name.

No, the hairy mythical beast is not calling my name; the Sasquatch Music Festival, held at the Gorge in Washington state, is beckoning me, and I must heed its call.  Music festivals are a music lover's Mecca, a pilgrimage that needs to be made at least once in a lifetime.  I have been to two festivals in the last two years, Coachella near Palm Springs in late-April 2007 and Lollapalooza in Chicago in August 2008.  It's difficult to adequately describe a three-day music festival.  There are so many bands in such a short amount of time that scheduling conflicts often force you to miss a band you'd like to see in order to catch another, seemingly endless walking from one stage to the next, overpriced food and beverages that you have to purchase in order to survive, hordes of people everywhere, often intense heat and/or humidity, very little shade for refuge, and yet, it is a glorious experience.  Nowhere else can you get so much quality live music at one time, and for me that trumped all the discomfort and expenses of the experience.  Though at the end of both three-day festivals I've attended, I have been absolutely exhausted.  Happy but exhausted.

Earlier this year I had spoken with my brother, Mike, and my friend, Devin, both of whom have joined me in the music festival pilgrimage, and we all expressed desire to attend a festival this year.  Coachella announced its lineup, and it was decent, nothing too special.  Then Bonnaroo, held in Tennessee, announced its lineup, and it also failed to impress.  We then hoped that Sasquatch, held in late May, would field a decent lineup.  It seemed like our best bet because it's not too far away, the weather will actually be quite bearable, and it's in a beautiful location we all want to see.  

Well, Sasquatch announced its lineup earlier this week.  I was looking through the bands, making note of the bands I would want to see, when I came upon the trump band, so to speak:  The Wrens.  The Wrens are pretty much my favorite band.  Justin and I once drove to Seattle in late-December to see The Wrens play a benefit show, and then we slept a few hours and returned to Utah.  It was an unforgettable trip, and The Wrens's show was remarkable and intense and everything we had hoped it would be.  Seeing them play again has always been a dream of ours, but due to the band's circumstances, they very rarely play anywhere near Utah.  But once I saw that they were scheduled to play Sasquatch, I knew I had to be there.

Thus, I announce my intention to attend the 2009 Sasquatch Music Festival.  Here are a list of the bands that I am excited to see perform: The Wrens, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, The Decemberists, Animal Collective, Bon Iver, Doves, Shearwater, TV on the Radio, Of Montreal, Calexico, The Walkmen, The Dodos, John Vanderslice, Fleet Foxes, Grizzly Bear, Explosions in the Sky, Girl Talk, Blitzen Trapper, and some others I'm not too familiar with at this point but will be before the festival rolls around.  There are apparently more bands to be announced in the future, and I'm hoping some more big name (big by indie standards) groups will be announced.  I'd be ecstatic to see The Arcade Fire or the National again, but the already-announced lineup still makes me happy.  The Wrens are really enough for me, but I'll take those other acts as well.

Justin, we really need to make this happy.  I think that Mike will be down with it, but I still need to talk to him.  Anyone reading this who might be interested in attending an awesome music festival, let me know.  The 3-day pass is selling for $154 until the beginning of March, then the price will go up.  This will likely be my big road trip of the year, and I am already very excited for it.  I'll work on getting some music from the Sasquatch lineup on my playlist soon.  Anyway, I just had to say a few things about this festival.

That's all.

Welcome to the rest of your life.

Welcome to the new collaborative blog of Chris John and Justin Betts.  Though we hope you (whoever you are) enjoy this blog, we need to be upfront with you: we're not writing this for anyone besides ourselves.  This blog's purpose is to provide us with an informal forum to communicate our thoughts and feelings on art, be it literature, movies, or music.  Normally this type of informal communication would best take place face-to-face, but that is just not feasible within the circumstances of our lives at this point.  We both feel a need to communicate more frequently about these topics like we used to in our younger days, and we are optimistic this blog will be a success.

All this isn't to say that we don't want others to read this.  We hope that what we blog about will help you in your pursuit of excellent art, if you want to pursue what we deem excellent art, and in the least we hope you'll be entertained.  But that is not the primary reason for the creation of this blog, and both of our original blogs will still be updated as actively as before.

I feel the need to explain the origin of this blog's name, I Take It With Jello.  In the spring of 2006 Justin and I were in Moab, Utah, sitting in a car outside a school, waiting for a volleyball tournament to begin.  We were listening to music to pump ourselves up, and we decided to listen to At The Drive-In, fantastic pump-up music.  There is a song on the band's final album, Relationship of Command, that has a lyric we couldn't quite make out.  Justin said he thought it sounded like "I take it with jello."  We listened more intently, and I thought it sounded like, "I take it with trouble."  We agreed that my conclusion seemed more plausible with the band's general lyrical themes, though ATDI's lyrics are incredibly varied and often seem quite random and/or nonsensical.  Though we both thought it was probably "I take it with trouble," we agreed that "I take it with jello" was more awesome and definitely funnier.  The whole conversation generated a lot of laughter and caused that line to stick around in my brain long enough for me to remember it when trying to come up with a name for this blog.  Justin and I both agreed that it was a natural fit for our collaborative blog, and that brings us to the present.

Anyway, it will take awhile before we have the blog completely set up and running at full steam, but we hope it won't be long before we're rocking the internet and taking it with jello.