Return, reboot, rebirth, reawakening, re-blah blah blah...

This blog was too cool once upon a time, and I can't just let it go out with a whimper into that good night (if I may butcher a couple literary classics).

This blog will rise again!

Anyway, on the music side of things, there have been some great albums released this year. I have been hooked on the Liars' new album Sisterworld. I've always appreciated the Liars more than I've enjoyed their music, mostly because I haven't listened to them as much as I should have. Well, a couple songs from this album hooked me right off the bat, but I didn't really go through the entire album...until this week. This is a very good album, a very good album indeed.

Liars isn't a band for everyone. I'd be a fool to believe they have mass commercial appeal. Over the course of their career, they've created a distinct sound, and this album furthers that sound. A lot of these songs have a dark, tense undercurrent to them, and a lot of them rock my socks off.

Recommended tracks for any interested parties: "Scissor", "Goodnight Everything", "No Barrier Fun", "Scarecrows on a Killer Slant", and "Proud Evolution".

On a totally unrelated musical note, I also really like the new Joanna Newsom album. Unfortunately (and fortunately), it's a massive album, a triple LP, and that is a lot of music. I have yet to really dedicate enough time to the music. The first few songs are awesome, especially "Good Intentions Paving Company" (my current favorite track on the album). I'm gonna need a lot of time to really take in everything on the album, but I have a premonition that this may be one of my favorite albums of the year. The final track, "Does Not Suffice," has become another favorite of mine. For the last week I've been listening to that track right before going to sleep. It's a perfect closing track, and I am a huge fan of the song.

This has been enough for now. I Take It With Jello is back.

Weekly Film Symposium #3: 1st Response

Rating: 2/5

That was a very well articulated post, unfortunately I am going to be a huge disppointment. Please remember that everything that I say in the post is excluding you. You explained your view's very well and I don't argue with them. So if I generalize, remember, I am not aiming those generalizations at you.

With that being said, this film for me was a complete failure. When people out in the movie world accuse people like us (self-admitted film snobs) of being pretentious this is the kind of movie they use to prove their point. For me, this movie is completely pretentious and it seems like the only reason it was made was for pretentious people to pat each other on the back. Sure the style is very unique and unconventional, I will give it that, but being unconventional doesn't automatically make your film good.

I must say that I was hugely disappointed because the premise and the style are both very intriguing. However, the plot is ridiculously dull and the style becomes very old after staring at nothing for long periods of time. Yes, I realize what the director was trying to accomplish, but for me, he wasn't even close. I do applaud him for being original, because we certainly don't have enough of that these days, but if I wanted to, I could go outside and stare at my neighbors house for two hours and get the same effect.

I also applaud the acting. Juliette Binoche was good like she always is, and Daniel Auteuil was also very solid. I understand that this movie is very technically sharp but that, to me, doesn't make a movie. For me, it's combining great technical work with an engaging and entertaining story. I, like you, watch and view film as art. But at the same time, I can't appreciate art when it's dull and offers me nothing. This film was insanely dull and uneventful for me and I found myself not caring about any of the characters. I understand the ambiguity and that's not where the film loses me. I love ambiguity, it's one of my favorite elements in film and I wish it was more prevelant in film. This film lost me when halfway through I thought to myself, " I don't care." And I didn't. I believe it's the film's job to make me care and it couldn't do that for me.

I don't mean to be insulting toward you at all, and if I have been in any way I sincerely apologize. But that's why I wanted to do this with you, because we are both film snobs (proudly) and we are both mature people with strong view points. And if I were to say any of this on an IMDB board, they would just throw the whole "You just didn't understand it" thing out there. And that bothers me. Because I did understand it, I just didn't like it.

Weekly Film Symposium #3: Cache

Cache - 2005 - written and directed by Michael Haneke

My rating: 3 1/2 stars

I chose this film because of the critical acclaim it had received (Sight & Sound's top film of 2006, nominated  for the Palme d'Or at Cannes, etc.).  While that may not be the best reason to choose a film, it was the reason behind this choice.

Cache is about a French couple, Georges and Anne Laurent (played by Daniel Auteuil and Juliette Binoche), who begin receiving mysterious videotapes on their doorstep.  These tapes usually contain nothing but hours of a camera pointed at their front door, but the characters begin to feel more and more oppressed and paranoid about the nature of these tapes, fearing someone dangerous is stalking them and their son.  The police can do nothing until an actual attempt at violence is made so Georges takes it upon himself to resolve the situation.  Majid, the son of an Algerian couple who used to work for Georges' parents, becomes the prime suspect.  Gradually, a past conflict between Georges and Majid is brought to light, and Georges' suspicion of Majid ultimately leads to tragic consequences.

First off, Cache is a very interesting, if not entirely successful film.  It is very ambitious in terms of straying from traditional narrative forms, and it possesses a high degree of ambiguity, forcing the viewer to actively engage with the film or fall by the wayside and lose interest.  There are almost no explicit conclusions made in the film; nearly everything is left for the viewer to decide for his or herself.  Of course, this ambiguity can be disorienting, and even after the film had finished, I wasn't sure what had just happened.  In the case of this film, I wasn't put off by that ambiguity; it forced me to rethink things in order to better understand the film.

One of the most obvious ways the film differs from traditional cinema is in the cinematography.  Haneke, the director, makes some very interesting stylistic choices.  Because the film often incorporates the mysterious tapes the Laurents receive into the actual film itself, there are a good number of very long takes from a fixed camera.  I can see how this could become boring for viewers, but I experienced a certain tension.  The longer the shot lasted the more I expected something to happen.  As that expectation and tension grew when nothing happened, I began to understand, to a degree, what Georges and Anne must have felt.  Another thing I liked about the long takes is that a lot of dialogue takes place off screen during those takes.  There's a disconcerting juxtaposition as the dialogue takes place in the more immediate present, yet we're stuck looking at a mysterious recording of the past.  Most films place the viewer in a heightened state, where the camera helps direct the eye and sounds come through loud and clear, and the viewer is more present than is otherwise possible in real life.  Cache does away with the viewer's omniscience.  This makes for fascinating theoretical discussion, though perhaps not a terribly entertaining film.

Cache, French for "hidden," has a tremendous amount of significance as the title of the film.  I want to discuss a few of the significant aspects of the title in relation to the film.

• The most superficial and immediate aspect of the title's significance is the hidden camera filming the Laurents.  It provides the impetus for the story and the central conflict.
• The hidden past factors significantly into the film, primarily the childhood relationship between Georges and Majid.  Gradually that past returns to the present, but it is hidden for most of the film, coming out only in brief moments like Georges' disturbing dreams and the small portions of his past he shares with Anne.  Though apparently hidden, the past yields an incredible amount of influence on all involved, and it is the past that fuels Georges' unyielding conviction that Majid is responsible for the tapes.  Ultimately, the hidden tragedy of the past results in the tragedy of the present.
• While the hidden past is perhaps the most significant force behind the characters' behavior, there is much about the present that is also hidden.  What remains hidden in the present affects many things but perhaps more than anything the marital relationship between Georges and Anne.  The tapes terrify both of them and cause them to fear for the safety of their family, but neither is truly able to include the other in their suffering.  Their inability to come together in a time of crisis drives a wedge between them.  When Anne opens up to Georges and confronts him about keeping things from her, he fails to bridge the distance between them.  He appears cold and aloof, yet in another scene he breaks down alone in the kitchen and shows that he is not unfeeling and unaffected by everything.  Despite having someone to share his pain with, Georges chooses to keep both his knowledge of the past and his present feelings hidden, and he tries to resolve everything on his own rather than bring those hidden things to light.
• Another aspect of the hidden present regards Anne and her relationship with the family friend Pierre.  Anne's son, Pierrot, accuses her of having an affair with him.  This is never explicitly confirmed nor denied in the film, but one thing is for certain:  Anne cannot find any comfort or reassurance from Georges.  There is a startling lack of emotional and physical intimacy in their marriage.  There is very clearly a distance between the two of them, one that had surely existed for some time before the arrival of the tapes.  Did Anne turn elsewhere for the connection that was missing with her husband?  I cannot say either way.  
• Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the hidden present is Georges' and Anne's son Pierrot.  The final shot of the film shows Pierrot speaking to Majid's son.  We're not sure if it takes place in the past or in the present timeline of the film, and we're kept far enough away in the shot that there is no way to know what passed between the two of them.  Did Pierrot know Majid's son?  Did Majid's son tell Pierrot that Anne was having an affair?  This is one of the hidden things I wish were revealed.  Alas.

Overall, I found Cache to be an interesting film, both in terms of form and content.  I read some message board posts about how the entire film is allegorical about the relationship between the French and Algerian immigrants, but I'll let others talk about that elsewhere.  The film never really struck an emotional connection with me, but I still enjoyed it.  There are a couple scenes that were really amazing:  one incredibly effective and shocking scene of violence (I was taken aback by it, and the sound design, i.e. the gurgling, was gross and awesome at the same time) and an awesome shot of Majid's son and Georges in the elevator.  While I cannot recommend this film to everyone, especially not casual moviegoers, I will recommend it to anyone willing to watch an ambitious and nontraditional film.

Was this long enough to make up for my sloth in writing it?

Just a few things...

1. A couple days ago I found There Will Be Blood in the $5 movie bin at Wal-Mart.  I immediately figured that someone had misplaced it.  When I saw another copy of the film, I started to wonder.  I found one of those price scanner things and quickly scanned it.  Price:  $3.00.  I was shocked but decided to not question Wal-Mart's generosity.  I purchased the film.
2. Other $5 films I found at Borders:  12 Angry Men (such an incredible film) and Much Ado About Nothing (just for Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson's performances).
3. 500 Days of Summer passed the second viewing test.  The second viewing test - I just named it - is the test given to a film that I really enjoyed the first time I saw it to see if it holds up just as well or better upon a second viewing.  Some of my favorite films like Eternal Sunshine and Children of Men aced the second viewing test.  It is during the second viewing that the film undergoes the increased scrutiny that comes once the initial experience of discovering a film's plot, characters, and themes has passed.  In the case of 500 Days of Summer I was a little worried that the second viewing wouldn't be as good as the first.  I really liked it the first time, and the film had been on my mind ever since I saw it.  I couldn't shake myself of certain images or lines or even the songs on the soundtrack.  When I saw that it would be opening in Provo, I knew immediately that I would have to see it again.  I rounded up some friends and made it happen.  And I'm glad I did.  I have to say that my second viewing was just as good as the first, maybe even a little better.  I realize the film is not perfect and would probably change a few things, but I cannot help but love the characters.  Tom and Summer are such well-crafted characters, kudos to the writing but especially the acting, and I took advantage of the second viewing to try and really understand them and why they did what they did, said what they did, and felt what they did.  This allowed me to experience an even greater empathetic connection with them, more so than what I think is the more superficial "girl done me wrong" connection that really came across after the first viewing.  I really wish I had this film on DVD and could watch it again because I feel like there is still a lot to be gleaned from it.  Fantastic film.

Weekly Film Symposium #2: Third Response

Wow, I suck.  This is a very belated response, and I apologize for my slothfulness.  I have been meaning to compose this entry for some time, but only now am I actually getting around to it.  Since I posted my first response, I have been able to read the book and gleam a few insights from it.  That being said, I'll get on to my response.

Book vs. Film

I really enjoyed the book.  The movie created a strong desire to know more about the characters, especially Eli and her background, and the book helps fill in some of the back story.  The book also contains more of your conventional horror elements.  It has more dark scenes, more disturbing elements to the story than the film, and as such, is quite separate from the film.  What director Tomas Alfredson and novelist and screenwriter John Ajvide Lindqvist were able to do was extract the most important elements of the novel, primarily the relationship between Oskar and Eli,  and create a focused and artistic film that stands entirely on its own.  In fact, I would recommend that anyone interested in seeing the film and reading the novel go about it the same way I did:  backwards -- film first, novel second.  I feel the film achieves a greater artistic unity than the novel.  There is really nothing I would change about the film if I could somehow go back and alter it during production.

The Title

Personally, I love the title Let the Right One In.  It has thematic importance and alludes to vampire mythology and the requirement that vampires be invited into a room before they can enter.  Several times Eli asks Oskar if she can come in, and the scene where Oskar taunts her and forces her to show him what happens if she enters uninvited is pretty astounding.  The title factors significantly into the relationships of the film.  Both Oskar and Eli are very lonely, and both need to "let the right one in" to their lives, to move beyond their solitude and enter a better, healthier way of life.  There is a section in the novel that further explains the significance of the title.  It comes after Lacke, despondent upon learning of Jocke's fate, tells Virginia, the woman he loves, that he has no one now that Jocke is gone.  Virginia storms away, hurt and angry, and has a nasty surprise in store for her.  Before she receives that surprise, the novel gives us insight into her thoughts:

Let a person in and he hurts you.  There was a reason why she kept her relationships brief.  Don't let them in.  Once they're inside they have more potential to hurt you. Comfort yourself.  You can live with the anguish as long as it only involves yourself. As long as there is no hope.

While that explanation comes from Virginia, it's most applicable to the relationship of Oskar and Eli, which I will further analyze in the next section.

Oskar and Eli

I feel like posting a few more thoughts, some informed by the novel, about the story's central relationship.  The actors cast in the roles of Oskar and Eli were phenomenal, though I learned that they dubbed a less feminine voice over the actual actress who portrays Eli.  Apparently she sounded too much like a girl.  Anyway, one of the aspects of the story that has most intrigued me and remained in my thoughts is the co-dependence that develops between Oskar and Eli.

Oskar, more than anything, needs a friend in his life.  The movie portrays him as completely friendless; he is picked on by bullies at school and plays alone in the courtyard outside his apartment building after school.  Only the gym teacher shows Oskar a little sympathy, but that is not enough for a twelve year old child.  Because of his alienation from his classmates, Oskar develops unnatural and violent tendencies, and this only alienates him more.  He has a few nice moments with his parents -- I love the scene where he and his mom are brushing their teeth, and I was pretty moved by the joy he felt at times when he was visiting his father -- but those moments don't last.  Oskar's family is broken, and his parents cannot understand him.  He is in desperate need of someone, anyone to offer a sympathetic smile and an understanding heart.  Eli fills that void in his life, and for the first time in Oskar's life, he has a friend.  (The novel gives Oskar a few friends, but they are not around when he needs them and cannot be the type of genuine friend he needs in his life).  Oskar comes to depend on Eli's presence in his life.  An image from the film really drives that point home for me.  The morning after Eli leaves town in the taxi, Oskar looks out his bedroom window at the empty courtyard.  The shot is framed with the camera outside the window, looking in at Oskar.  He has clearly been crying for some time, the pain caused by Eli's absence being too much for him to bear.  

What strikes me, and this might just be me once again reading too much into things, is that Oskar looks like Eli when she needs blood.  He has a similar paleness and red, sunken eyes.  Like Eli needs blood to survive physically, Oskar needs Eli to survive emotionally.  He is dependent on her.

The film portrays Eli in a slightly different light than the book, and I think the differences are noteworthy, especially when looking at her relationship with Oskar and whether it is genuine and sincere or merely masterful manipulation to ensure her continued survival.  In the book, Eli is a clumsy and ineffectual killer.  She has a number of blunders and is clearly in need of a helper.  Enter Hakan and later Oskar.  In the film, however, she is portrayed as a better killer.  What sets the film portrayal apart is that Eli seeks assistance, not because she is a blundering vampire, but because she doesn't enjoy killing.  After Hakan messes up in the beginning of the film, Eli angrily asks, "Do I really have to take care of this myself?"  An ineffectual killer would act more frightened than angry in this situation, but the film shows Eli very angry in this scene. 

  

The film leads me to believe that Eli seeks Oskar's companionship out of a genuine need for friendship, not because she needs another assistant to fill Hakan's position.  The book clarifies the relationship between Eli and Hakan, and while I don't want to go into particulars, I will say that it is very, very different from the relationship between Eli and Oskar.  Though, like you pointed out, Justin, Oskar will very likely end up in Hakan's position later in life.  Another element of the story, this one from the novel, that leads me to view their relationship as genuine, especially on Eli's end, occurs as she is able to help Oskar literally see things from her perspective:

For a few seconds Oskar saw through Eli's eyes.  And what he saw was...himself. Only much better, more handsome, stronger than what he thought of himself.  Seen with love.

I love that passage and think it really clarifies a lot of the uncertainty regarding their relationship.  The film never gives such an explicit defense of the genuineness of their relationship, but I think it can be inferred from the way Oskar and Eli look at each Other.  Eli depends on Oskar's friendship more than she will depend on his assistance to acquire blood.  She is more than willing to leave in the dead of night and start over somewhere, and that willingness tells me that she is capable of living on her own and probably has at some point during her very long existence as a vampire.  She chooses Oskar's companionship, not to avoid killing for herself, but to have love and friendship in her life, for however long it might last.

Anyway, I have written more than enough for now, though I'm sure there is a near endless amount of things to talk about regarding this film.  It is definitely one of the best films of 2008, and I'm doing my best to share it with other people.  

(500) Days of Summer Initial Response

I just got back from watching a free promotional screening of (500) Days of Summer in Salt Lake City.  First off, how cool is it that I got to catch a promo screening a week and a half before the film officially opens in SLC?  I think it's pretty dang cool, and I'm grateful that I was able to make the screening.  Along with a lot of other people.  We got there half an hour before the scheduled 7:30 showtime, and the theater was nearly full.  We ended up sitting 4 rows from the front on the right side of the theater; the view wasn't optimal as I would normally prefer, but it wasn't detrimental to my enjoyment of the film or anything.  Quite frankly, I was surprised (and in a way pleased) by the early turnout.  

Alright, so I'll talk a little about the actual film.  I enjoyed the movie a lot.  I feel like it is one of the few romantic comedies that is honest and genuine.  It looks at both the good and the bad of the central relationship between Tom (played by the ever-awesome Joseph Gordon Levitt) and Summer (played by my celeb crush, the stunning Zooey Deschanel).  I couldn't imagine this film with anyone else cast in the lead roles; Zooey and Joseph are perfect.  They have excellent on-screen chemistry and nothing feels amiss in their performances.  I don't feel like the film reaches the emotional catharsis of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but it's unfair to expect that of any film.  

(500) Days of Summer reminds me of Eternal Sunshine in a couple ways.  Both look at relationships differently than most conventional films, they use nonlinear storytelling to portray the ups and downs of the relationship, and they are both quite creative in their visual approach.  Eternal Sunshine is hands down the better film, but it is one of my all-time favorites so it's not surprising I feel that way.  One of the reasons I feel Eternal Sunshine is better is that the female character, Clementine (played by Kate Winslet), is one of the best female characters in cinema.  She is complex and unique and never easily reduced to any one thing; she is simply Clementine.  In (500) Days of Summer the story is told completely from Tom's perspective, and because of that, Summer remains a mystery.  We're given little glimpse into why she is the way she is; as the viewer, we understand even less than Tom, even though Summer is still a mystery to him at all times.  I understand the filmmaker's intent in leaving Summer as an enigma, and I can accept that choice and how it impacts the film.  I think, however, that the choice to not really delve into her motivation limits the film and prevents it from being as poignant or affecting as it could otherwise have been.  Tom is a sympathetic character and Summer is intriguing and enchanting, but I could only ever relate to Tom, no matter how much I wanted to understand Summer.  That's not to say that I didn't like Summer because I did like her a lot; I just couldn't understand her in the end, and, like many females in real life, she just left me frustrated and confused.  And yet, one more shot of her blue eyes and all that confusion and frustration would vanish --- let's be serious, Zooey has amazing eyes, does she not?  I suppose that conflict of being simultaneously enraptured and frustrated by Summer is what the filmmakers intended to happen.

I really want to see this film again, and I hope it continues to perform really well in its limited release so that it can receive a wide release and play in some theater in Provo/Orem.  There are a lot of very funny moments in the film, and it has a really good soundtrack as well.  If you have any chance at all to see, I think it is definitely worth it.  

This was one of the best movies I've seen this summer.    

Weekly Film Symposium #2: Second Response.

Dude, I never even saw your response get posted. So sorry it took me so long to respond again. I hate it when that happens. Anyway...

I agree with you that I feel like the relationship between Eli and Oskar is completely genuine and sincere. I believe that it started out as manipulation by Eli but very quickly turned into something else. She said that the first thing she heard him say was "squeal like a pig," or something to that effect, and she had been observing him. I believe that she knew that he was perfect to be her next care taker. I believe in the context of the film, that was her intention but she quickly and genuinely fell in love with Oskar. I love their relationship, even though it is pretty messed up. However, I don't see it ending well for Oskar.

Jesse and I were talking about this movie and she mentioned that Oskar was just going to fall into the same role that her current care taker was in, and that broke my little heart a tiny bit. I don't know why I didn't think of their future at all, except for the fact that they were going to be happy together. Now, I truthfully believe that Oskar is just going to end up like the guy she has now. He will take care of her and kill for her and move her around, but he will grow up, and she won't. At some point he is goint to be a middle aged man and she will still be twelve. Does this turn their relationship from one of requited love to a father and daughter relationship? Then she is going to have to eventually find a new care taker, and that just sucks for everybody. Oskar will fade away and Eli will continue on. I guess she could make him a vampire as well, but we don't want Oskar to burst into flames like the other lady (how awesome was that?!) I am also very glad that he didn't go for the cheap thrills like american "horror" movies do. I truly can't say enough about the director and the choices he made. Not like he needs me to tell him that he did a great job but he really did. I am glad we watched this and both loved it.