Capture the Flag (A Canadian's Take on Americanism in Film)

As a Canadian, there are times when overtly American moments in film rub me the wrong way.

Such moments happen through other channels as well (TV, media, and the like), but for the sake of this conversation, I want to focus on film. This is not a new feeling; conversely, it's a feeling that has come and gone for as long as I can remember. It's a feeling that won't be easy to explain, but my thought is, by opening a dialogue I might be able to better understand it and perhaps bring it to light for those who didn't even know these feelings existed.

The direct culprit that rekindled this position is SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. Remember? The film I love that I was praising just seven days ago? In that post I left one thing out, the detail of the film that has always bugged me: the core story of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN - one of heroism, sacrifice, duty, and honour - is a universal story. It speaks to all of us in the west who live with the freedoms that we do. However for Spielberg, the core story needed to be more direct...it had to be specifically American. Thus the film begins and ends with that faded shot of the flag, and we pause after the opening act to take the whole story back to the homefront.

While the European front of World War II was an allied operation (one that Canada was heavily involved in, including the D-Day invasion), SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is only interested in it from an American perspective. No other nations are mentioned, no other accents are heard. The efforts that Canadians put into missions like these are nowhere to be seen, and the sacrifices made are not mentioned at all. No matter how proud I am of what my country contributed to WWII, Spielberg has said to me "Sorry there hoser, but this is our story".
Fair enough - if an American like Spielberg wants to tell an American story, why should he worry about the Canadian perspective? But here's what's weird; the film most often compared to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is THE THIN RED LINE. Wanna guess how many glimpses we get of Old Glory in that film? Care to guess how many times America is mentioned?? What makes this particularly ironic is that the Pacific Theater of WWII was very much America's war. But by withholding the nationalism from the film, Terrance Malick took specific conflict and made it more universal.

It's just that simple. By and large, overt Americanism is unnecessary. I'm not talking about the way it plays into particularly American stories like APOLLO 13, FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS, or THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT. I'm talking about the way it dots a film like MUNICH.

As a Canadian viewer, it shakes me out of the story. When I hear terms like "The American Way" and "How America Does It", I know without question they're not speaking to me, or even about me. However when such moments are skipped, it becomes a human story...one that does speak to me. Every now and then, a story even takes strides to stay neutral and speak to us all. Think about BLINDNESS and the way no cities or countries are named. Take the accents away from NEVER LET ME GO and it could be set anywhere. In ALIEN, the crew of The Nostromo have no allegiance, and the ship itself has no markings.

While trace amounts of Americanism might chide me, it is of course no match for unabashed flag-waving. (Sidenote: This is not to be confused with post-9/11 rah-rah, since such moments have been happening since well before 2001). I'm talking about lines, shots, and scenes that one would find in ARMAGEDDON, INDEPENDENCE DAY, or ROCKY IV. Moments that pretty much echo the sentiment of a certain film starring marionettes..."America: Fuck Yeah!". These pieces go far beyond the exclusion that Spielberg instilled in me, and I won't harp on them very much since I'd wager that even many Americans find them unnecessary.

That's the "what". Hopefully you're still reading and I can now explain the "why".Canada has always had an odd relationship with our American neighbours. Our culture is very much influenced by America's, and yet there is often an unrest that our yankee brothers are becoming too influential. So in some respects, feelings like mine come from an odd place of inadequacy...like a younger sibling who is tired of hearing Kid Rock echo out from the next bedroom for hours on end.

What's more, is that Canadians are often apprehensive about the fact that America has so much effect on us, though we barely seem to be a blip on their radar. American films fill our multiplexes, and line our dvd shelves...but our biggest contribution to the American film scene is when our cities stand in for theirs for budgetary reasons. Oh sure we've given America James Cameron, Jason Reitman, and Paul Haggis...but given that they're working within the Hollywood system, and not the Canadian film system, they don't really count.

So one side of this relationship can't be avoided, the other side can't be heard, thus what we're left with is a slight unease. When you get unease, it just takes a dab of red, white, and blue at the wrong moment and suddenly something is "So American". What's odd, is that I don't dislike America. I think America needs to seriously find ways to come together, but that isn't the same as disliking them. So this feeling I get watching these films isn't Anti-American. If anything, it's feeling like a Jilted Canadian.

Perhaps the weirdest thing is, this feeling isn't fueled by the films of any other country. Hell, THE KING'S SPEECH might as well have been gift-wrapped in a Union Jack, but that causes nary a flinch. Ditto the films of France, Mexico, Italy, Japan, and any other nation you can name. It's only when American films start getting brash and forgetting about their neighbours that this unease sets in. It leaves me feeling like a good friend has invited me over for a barbecue, but forgotten I don't eat pork. Even though i've told them so. Six times.

Admittedly, much of this is on me as a Canadian. I'm a citizen of a young country, descended from a larger empire, without revolution being fought to become independent. Our identity is unclear because of our old ties to England and our proximity to The United States. I dare say that The Canadian Identity is still being forged, and that is what feels jilted in the face of such Americanism.

So that's my take, and a take that's been with me ever since I was seven years old playing G.I. Joe ("A Real American Hero"). There are other Canadians who don't feel these things as strongly as I do, and there are Canadians who feel them with far more vigour. Will the American slant in film go away anytime soon? No. Is that OK? No. My hope though, is that maybe as time goes on, and people like us continue to talk and express ourselves across cultures and borders, then future generations of filmmakers and filmgoers will see these unnecessary elements of nationalism too...and perhaps make them far less common.

Note: This post was created to foster discussion: Any and all feedback is welcome. However, given the subject matter I ask that commenters please be thoughtful in their remarks and respectful of the author and of one-another. - 10/6

Sell, Sell Sell (THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER SOLD Trailer)

As mentioned about this time last week, this space will slowly but surely begin to lean itself towards the nonfictional brand of movies as we get closer to the Hot Docs Festival. With that in mind, what better place to start than with the opening night gala?

Morgan Spurlock is a director who seems to always be able to tap into the audience psyche and tackle issues that affect a broad populace. As a filmgoer, I can think of no better subject for him to tackle than commercialism, given that I spend many weeks watching films in a theatre named after a bank, while being offered to upsize my name brand soft drink, and be force-fed ads for wireless providers and cars before a film that will include numerous bits of product placement.

Back in Time (The DeLorean visits Toronto)

Saturday afternoon, Lady hatter, myself and The Turnbull Clan all headed down to King Street West to catch a screening of BACK TO THE FUTURE. Happily I brought my camera with me, because when we arrived at the corner of King & John...a certain suped up car was waiting in all its splendour. Check out my photos after the jump.

Wait a minute Doc, are you telling me you built a time machine...out of a DeLorean??

The way I see it, if you're gonna build a time machine into a car, why not do it with some style?

If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits eighty-eigh miles per hour...you're gonna see some serious shit.

Say you wanted to see the signing of the Declaration of Independence...

What the hell is a gigwatt???

I'm sure that in 1985 plutonium is available in every corner drugstore, but in 1955 it's a little hard to come by.

I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet.....but your kids are gonna love it.

That reminds me Marty: You better not hook up to the amplifier. There's a slight possibility of overload.

Good night future boy!

Roads? Where we're going we don't need...roads.

Lady Hatter was last seen headed to 2015. If anybody happens to hit 88 and jump four years on, tell her that I'm sorta starting to miss her.

MIdnight Radio: The Matineecast Episode 31

Time to leave the diner behind and head back home.

Y'know it's funny...I've heard that it's fun to talk about films you dislike because you can get enjoyment out of tearing them apart. Not sure where that notion came from because Megan and I really didn't want to talk about SUCKER PUNCH for as long as we did. But we weathered though...for you...my listeners.

It all goes on a smidgen long, but hopefully you'll find the extra content amusing.

Here's the Mike Piazza episode...



(Go here or to iTunes if the embedded player doesn't start)

Here's what's in store in episode thirty-one...

Runtime
69 minutes, 09 seconds

Up for Discussion

1. Introduction
2. KNOW YOUR ENEMY - Q& A with this week's return guest Megan Carr from The Rest is Cream Cheese (1:43)
3. COME TALK TO ME - Listener messages about films shot and set near their homes (7:05)
4. THE KING OF PAIN - Quick updae for the upcoming Blog-a-Thon (12:52)
5. THE NEW SLANG - Review and reaction of SUCKER PUNCH (15:40)
6. THE BEST OF YOU - The top five returns as we discuss our favorite film heroines (32:26)

Comments and feedback are welcome, and thank-you very much for listening.

Enjoy!

Review: SUCKER PUNCH (Zero Stars)

If you don't want to be clever; be fun
If you don't want to be fun; be intelligent.

If you don't want to be fun or intelligent; get the hell off the screen

SUCKER PUNCH is the story of Baby Doll (EMily Browning). After her mother dies, her step-father has her wrongfully committed to a mental institution. It's there that she is put under the care of Dr. Vera Gorski (Carla Gugino) who treats her patients in "The Theater". How exactky The Theater is supposed to benefit the girls is unclear, but the film presses forward and lobs Baby Doll onto the theatre stage.

There she envisions the asylum as some sort of orphanage, but one where the orphans sing for their supper by way of a soft-core burlesque (which we never see). In this orphanage she is capable of working her goods in a way that momentarily shakes everyone from reality, thus giving her an existence within an existence within an existence. (Get all that?)

On this sub-sub-basement, she aligns herself with four other orphans: Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jena Malone), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens) and Amber (Jamie Chung). Assisted by the rather non-specific help of a Mist Miyagi-like wiseman played by Scott Glenn, the girls band together to rebel against the institution that has them locked up.

SUCKER PUNCH creates a paradox that lowers it to an unexpected level of useless. On the one hand, every fantastical thing happening in Baby Doll's head comes without stakes. Early on we understand that while the scenes are metaphors for their escape plans, there is no peril they cannot fight their way out of. Meanwhile back in the world of The Theater, the characters have no personality, no texture, and no depth. What that leaves us with is two entire planes of existence where no attention is being paid to the girls as people.

Granted in the sort of action film that SUCKER PUNCH wants to be, three dimensional characters aren't a necessity (certainly hasn't held James Bond back all these years). But because SUCKER PUNCH frames itself as an act of young female rebellion, plot and character depth are a must. It's not enough to say "You have all the weapons you need", it has to come through in the character's actions...her fortitude...hell, even her facial expression. You can't dress up a bunch of riot grrrls in come-hither outfits and load them up with guns: it completely undercuts what the film is trying to sell.

What is the moral of The Ballad of Baby Doll? That if you close your eyes you can block out the pain? That when all else fails, resort to your sexuality?? That imagining you are invincible will make it so in reality??? What are we to take away from the execution of SUCKER PUNCH? That so much violence is fine as long as it's bloodless? That young heroines must always be presented with an expression of bedroom eyes ?? And that genuine dialogue doesn't matter when you can stack the script with cliche???

If it seems like I'm being hard on SUCKER PUNCH, I'll admit I am. The whole film didn't just strike me as a bore, but also as an opportunity wasted. Here was a chance to create a stylish original property filled with potential role models. I was reminded of a recent episode of Some Cast it Hot where the topic at hand was the Bechdel Test, and here seemed to be a film that could pass it with flying colours. And while it probably eeks by, it certainly doesn't make the statement it should.

What we've been given is a film too earnest to be amusing, and too slight to be bold. It finds a rare spot on the map that will appeal to absolutely no one, and what's worse will take down with it the chances of a better story of this ilk being made anytime soon.

What did you think? Please leave comments with your thoughts and reactions to SUCKER PUNCH.

Days of The Week (Films Watched 3/19 - 3/25)

And with that I've passed 100 films on the year, which begs the question - who had 84 Days in the pool?

I submitted my wishlist for dvd screeners to Hot Docs this week, so expect this feature to start getting dotted with a lot of non-fiction over the next six weeks or so. This week though, there was a heavy emphasis on an old favorite.

As for my new release screening this week, you might want to check in tomorrow to get my reaction in both written and audio form.

Here's what was on tap...

Screenings
GREMLINS - Pure joy, and a gorgeous print to boot!
SUCKER PUNCH - Less than pure joy.

Blu-Rays/DVD's I've Never Seen
NETWORK - Why I'd never seen this until now is beyond me.
STARSHIP TROOPERS - It helped that I knew what to expect going into this.
THE SUGARLAND EXPRESS - Decided to dig into one of the few remaining Spielbergs I'd never seen...

Blu-Rays/DVD's I've Watched Before
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN - ...That set off...
E.T. - ...a bit of a bender...
RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK - ...which doesn't seem to want to end anytime soon.


Boxscore for The Year
56 First-Timers, 45 Re-Watched
101 Movies in Total

How's about you - seen anything good?

Show Stopper

Today, I Feel Like This...

Everybody's Talkin' 3 - 25 (Chatter From Other Bloggers)

Cripes, and I thought last week was rough.

To quote BRINGING OUT THE DEAD "It can always get worse".

Here's hoping that BACK TO THE FUTURE, Tim Burton, and podcasting will be good for what ails me.


King of Pain Voting Update!!
WHAT A GIRL WANTS still holds the belt, albeit with a slight dip in the poll to 15%. Looks like somebody has been campaigning for the especially craptastic as AIRBORNE, SHE'S OUT OF CONTROL, and CAMP CUCAMONGA would all make the cut if the poll closed today. (Sweet lord no). Still time left to vote so if you wanna make sure one of these turds becomes required viewing for me, get out there and vote, vote, vote!


For your listening and reading fulfillment, I give you...

I listen to podcasts at the office via my big doofy headphones. Once in a while, a podcaster will say something that makes me have to put my head down from trying not to look like I'm randomly laughing at nothing (because looking like I'm napping at my desk - that's way better!). This week Row Three managed to get me stifling my laughter twice in one episode.

Emma the Film Geek links to me weekly in her version of E-T...it's actually rather humbling! So who am I not to return the favour as often as I can? Take a look at this post where she creates a laundry list of what she loves most about film.

I don't have any sort of "Post of The Week" award, but if I did this would have to take it. Bob has put his editing skills to work and created one delightfully chipper dance montage.

Castor & Co at Anomolous Materials wanna know about your favorite scenes.

Feel like watching a classic this weekend? CS suggests Fritz Lang's M.

James just worked his way through the IMDb Top 250 and has some final thoughts to share. Sorta like Jerry Springer.....but smarter.

Another Day: SAVING PRIVATE RYAN

On July 24th, 1998, I walked out of a movie theatre with my younger brother in tow. Neither one of us were speaking - likely because we just didn't know what to say after the three hours we'd just experienced. Minute after minute passed, and we just couldn't begin to talk about the film we'd watched...we weren't even trying. We were looking out opposite windows of the car on the drive home, sad, stunned, and silent.

In the years since that unforgettable afternoon, I have watched the film a few dozen more times (as many of you know, it has become a personal favorite). These subsequent viewings have helped allow perspective and context to seep in, and made me consider things I didn't at first. Specifically, I have begun to look at much of what happens beyond those intense opening twenty-five minutes, and as such I might have even found the real core of the film...and it rests on two characters. But first some set-up.

As the tagline says, "The mission is a man", and much of the rest of the film's runtime will be spent with soldiers trying to come to understand that counter-intuitive order. For me, the decision to make the order feels short-changed. Between the discovery of the Ryan brothers' fate, and Gen. George Marshall reading the words of Abraham Lincoln, it feels like there's a step missing. A conversation should have been had, pros and cons weighed, even a few lines about what this decision would ultimately cost. The decision would ultimately have been the same, but it might have given just a bit more nuance to the decision between the mission and the man.

Because this conversation never happens, we have to take the mission as "the human thing to do". It makes it a little difficult for us to completely accept this deployment of shepherds looking for one missing sheep. As the platoon sets out across the French countryside, the first of the two core characters pipes up.


Private Rieben speaks for us and asks "Someone wanna explain the math of this to me?". Remarks are made about Ryan's mother, not "questioning why", and the duty of soldiers...but ultimately, the question goes unanswered. Captain John Miller is able to quell Rieben's unrest momentarily, but the fact that the mission makes no sense will continue to drift in and out of the story - and our consciousness.

War stories are built on sacrifice; on the notion that men and women have died so that we might live. It has happened through all of recorded history, and will continue to happen until we ultimately destroy ourselves. But the sort of sacrifice SAVING PRIVATE RYAN demands feels like a sacrifice that will never be outweighed. It comes off as a decision made by the men ordering the deployment, and not the ones being deployed themselves. It comes from the men drinking hot coffee and shaving with steaming water as a weary Captain Miller looks on hungry and scruffy.

Miller will provide the very logic that's being torn up. He can tell you precisely how many men have died under his command. What helps him remain a good leader and a great officer is the fact that he knows every life is offset by lives saved - two, sometimes ten, perhaps twenty to one. It's cold hard math. But with Ryan, he's staking eight lives for Ryan's one, leading him to mutter that Ryan had "better be worth it". And that's the tragedy: He's not. Nobody is. Who could possibly justify the notion that six people died so that they alone could live?

Jackass that he might be, Rieben sees this illogicality early on. It will gnaw at him the entire mission, just as it would with many of us. He stands in for any of us who have been asked to do something that seems backwards and contradictory at work...except in his line of work, lives are at stake. And just like anyone continually pushed to do something that doesn't make sense, he eventually has to let it out.

But then one has to consider the fate of Technician Tim Upham - often considered the stand-out character of the film. Upham is not a grunt nor a warrior. He's an educated kid who is grabbed by the collar and folded into the mission out of complete necessity. Not like many of these men would be completely equipped to handle what they experienced anyway, but Upham comes in especially ill-equipped.

What's fascinating is the way he stands in for a different part of us than Rieben. Upham is the part of us that would try to reach out in kindness, only to get our hand slapped away. He tries to verbally re enforce the mission, even if he doesn't completely understand it himself. Eventually, it will be him that will beg for humanity when it seems to be all but lost.

Upham's first test comes when the Nazi soldier is captured after the firefight that costs the platoon their medic Technician Wade. With the rest of the unit (not co-incidentally including Pvt. Rieben) calling for a blood execution, it's Upham's pleading that convinces Cpt. Miller that the rules of engagement should be respected. He is a soldier who does not really believe in killing, and embodies our sense of clemency by arguing for the Nazi's life.

Once you've reminded yourself that there are actual rules for warfare - guideline by which this madness and violence is supposed to uphold to - ask yourself if you'd have the fortitude to stand up to armed men twice your size and speak up for the enemy? In this instance, a twerp like Upham becomes a bigger man than most of us, and he seems to be doing the humane thing.

The tragedy of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is that "the humane thing" costs the mission dearly. Since he can't muster up the courage to engage his enemies, Upham then has to watch as the very man he sets free kills two men of his own unit (including his commanding officer), along with potentially countless other men from the unit they joined up with in Ramelle. In short, doing the "human thing" - the very backbone of the rescue mission - cost more lives in the long run.

While all of that is happening, Rieben finally gets his answer. After walking for miles and loathing the very idea of "Private-James-Francis-Ryan-from-Iowa", he finally meets the man, and is surprised and perhaps even impressed that Ryan thinks the mission is bullshit too. The part of us that believed, as Rieben did, that one man's life is not worth eight suddenly has to shut up when that man doesn't think so either (he even shoots down the angle of considering his mother's feelings). It stops Rieben's resentment dead in its tracks, and in one of the film's most beautifully subtle moments, he is able to let his animosity to all things Ryan go...give him a nod, and fight right next to him.

Upham sadly isn't given this sort of solace. He has watched his humanity be spit upon. At first his open hand wasn't accepted by his own unit, but his open hand being slapped away by his enemy destroys any sense of human mercy he had left. He has been reduced to the sort of soldier we met at the end of the D-Day sequence...the sort who will execute a man who has surrendered. He represents the part of us that might decide to momentarily forget about quarter, and his shell shocked expression as we leave Ramelle is a sign of the guilt he will carry the rest of his life.

The sacrifices of war come hand in hand with Upham's calls for empathy, and Rieben's questions of judgement, and that is the core of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. It's not just to tell us that war is hell (though it is), or that our ancestors sacrificed much (though they did). It wants to tell us that in trying to do "the right thing", the method is never entirely simple...and we might very well have to walk a long road before the method can make any sense. If it ever does.

Rating: * * * *

Life (Hot Docs 2011 Kicks Off)

The truth is out there.

If you're in or around Toronto, you'd be well-served to check out the offerings of The 2011 Hot Docs Festival, North America's largest documentary film fest which is now eighteen years old. And if you think that the films being offered up are tiny passion projects that will never become available to you, I offer you the following names.

Conan O'Brien
Ron Sexsmith
A Tribe Called Quest
Ayrton Senna
Carol Channing
Morgan Spurlock
and Elmo.

That's right - Elmo.

Stories by these people, and stories about these people are but a few of more than 200 films making up this year's festival which runs from April 28th to May 8th here in Toronto. The subject matters can of course cover the political and the religious, but also the amusing, the inspiring, and unforgettable facets of the world we live in. Two of the films I saw during last year's festival - GASLAND and WASTE LAND - actually went on to be nominated for Best Documentary Oscars.

Like last year, you can expect quite a bit of coverage here at the matinee. Expect opinions, recommendations, reactions and reviews. I'll be doing previews in the days leading up to the festival with coverage going full-tilt on the 28th, including special editions of The Matineecast on-the scene.

The Festival's website has gone live and can be found here. If you're in or around the city, I can't recommend this chance to soak up some outspoken and outstanding films highly enough.

I Get Around: GREMLINS @ The Lightbox

It was time to revisit my childhood this past weekend with a screening of GREMLINS at The Lightbox. The screening was part of TIFF's 'Back to The 80's' series, which has given me great joy in the way that it has been a rousing success. On the one hand, it's been fun to see a lot of these movies on the big screen for the first time - even when I was coerced into MONSTER SQUAD. On the other hand, what has elevated the joy of attending these shows has been the amount of kids in the audience.

This week was another outing where I was surrounded by friends - Lady Hatter of course, Courtney from Big Thoughts and his lovely wife on our right, and Kurt from Row Three and his two whip-smart kids on our left.

The kids - Miranda and Willem, ages 6 and 7 - really represent for me what going to the movies is supposed to be about. I almost like 'em enough to offer babysitting services, if it means that I get to bring 'em out to the movies. Almost.

Willem was on the far side from me, so during the course of the screening, I couldn't quite gauge his reactions. He might have been laughing at all the right moments, but it would have been hard to hear since the whole crowd was totally into it - The Gremlins singing along with Snow White got especially big laughs in the theatre.

While I couldn't get a fix on how Willem was diggin' it, it was easy to see that Miranda was...I'm gonna go with "insecure". She certainly wasn't afraid, even if she was curled up on her dad's lap from the moment Gizmo multiplies...but she was curious and a little bit timid. That said, she's a trooper because never once did she call out to leave. Kurt might well weigh in to verify this, but I did notice a slightly strategic bathroom break to help the kids reset.

Y'know, it's a funny thing. When I go to most movies, a talking child can sometimes make me grumpy. It's part of why I tend to see the very late show of most kid-friendly films. But every one of Miranda's quiet notations ("Oh no! He's feeding them - and it's after midnight!!") only helped me remember that I was her age when I first saw this film...and odds are that I asked my folks the very same questions, and made the very same exclamations.

I'm not saying this just because I know the kids parents (and at least one of them reads this blog), but having children like Willem and Miranda around when watching films like TIME BANDITS or GREMLINS really helps to encapsulate the reason why I'm going to these screenings as opposed to popping on the dvd's. it's about surrounding yourself with the sort of energy that takes pure joy in seeing something terrifying, fantastical, or fantastically terrifying dwarf them in the dark for an hour or two.

Like watching them blow out birthday candles or open a Christmas gift, watching a movie in a theatre with kids can really put you back in touch with just how much excitement one should get from life's simple joys.

Edit: If you're curious to know what the kids thought of the film - behold.

Watching the Detectives (Groovers & Mobsters Noir Blog-a-Thon)

There isn't a whole lot of modern film noir, but sometimes you can find noir in the darndest of places. For instance, my interest in WINTER’S BONE was sparked the first time I heard a fellow blogger discuss the film in the early summer of 2010. It was the term he used to describe it that caught my attention – he called it “Hillbilly Noir”.

On the surface, Debra Granik’s film might not seem to have much in common with tales like CHINATOWN or THE MALTESE FALCON. But even without the fedoras or femme fatales, one can’t help but notice a lot of elements of noir in The Ballad of Ree Dolly.

The biggest difference where the film is concerned is the motive. Ree sets off on her investigation into Jessup’s disappearance out of self-preservation. Usually in noir, the quest begins because the protagonist is hired to solve the story, or has the mystery fall in their lap. In this instance, the puzzle must be solved by Ree because even if she could find someone to put the pieces together, she sure-as-shit can’t afford that person.

Thus Ree turns into an Ozark Nancy Drew and goes in search of answers by herself. Where the story goes noir, is with the surprising amount of resistance she gets. She lives in a tiny community, and the doors she’s knocking on aren’t just her neighbors – they’re often those of her relatives. But the family ties may as well be bound with twine, and the way of life is far too valuable. So over and over, she’s told to stop nosing.

Just like any great noir, there’s a morally compromised character to help our protagonist along, and in this case it’s Teardrop – a violent man who just so happens to be Ree’s uncle. He can see the trouble coming, and doesn’t feel like he owes Ree a thing, so even though she and her siblings have next to nothing, he begins the tale not wanting to help our hero solve the mystery. But in a noir, no character is completely black or white…thus Teardrop steps in a Guy Friday for Ree.

WINTER’S BONE sends Ree down a very dark and dangerous path, the sort of path where question after question is answered with a cold “Don’t ask”. She puts her own life in jeopardy, needs to work outside of the law, and has to decide for herself which unsavory people can be trusted long enough to uncover the truth.

The only thing that would make it more noir is if Jennifer Lawrence’s weary voice narrated the whole grizzly tale.

Check out more noir posts by the dream team of Kai, Meredith, Fandango and Heather Roddy by clicking on the banner below...

I Get Around: Frankenstein @ Silvercity

I've been hearing about events like these for years...I just never had any true desire to get off my duff and go. Here in Toronto, as happens in many other major film markets, certain theatres set aside a screen once or twice a month to broadcast a feed of a live event. It's usually ballet or opera, but it has also stemmed over to wrestling, UFC, concerts, and one memorable hockey game.

But this week, the event being broadcast was one that finally piqued my curiosity - The National Theatre's production of Frankenstein directed by Danny Boyle. Check out my full thoughts after the jump.

Right off the draw, I was excited since we got our tickets for free. While this seems cool as it is, I should point out that tickets to the live events generally run more expensive - about 50% more expensive actually. Nothing like a live broadcast to make you think of a 3-D IMAX ticket as a bargain! But ticket in hand I made my way into the cinema to meet up with Lady Hatter who'd gone and got our seats. I couldn't help but crack a grin walking down the corridor, as every poster in the bank of "coming soon" boxes that dots the hallway of our theatre had been replaced with a poster for this event.

I got to the cinema twenty minutes ahead of showtime and got my first mild surprise - the place was packed. I'm talking front-to-back, both wings, people starting to sit in the neck-killing lower bank packed. On the one hand I shouldn't be that stunned since Toronto has a very big theatre-going community, and this is a one-night-only event...but it still caught me a bit off guard to see so many patrons of the arts stuffed into the theatre as early as your average Twi-Hard.

As I made my way to our seats, I also couldn't help but notice a demographic...namely "older". Walking up the aisle with my drink in hand, I realized that Lady hatter and I in our early thirties were easily two of the youngest people in the room. I had to wonder what effect this might play.

As the show began (no ads, no trailers, just some small propaganda for seeing more events like this) I got my first surprise - when they toted this as a "Live Broadcast" they weren't kidding. I had envisioned that we would be watching a specially filmed feed, shot when the production was run without an audience in the house to annoy with cameras. Not so - what we saw was filmed in the theatre with a full house in attendance. Doesn't make any difference to me, just makes me feel sorry for the poor sap who went to the show in London only to have cameras annoy him all night.

Surprise number two came courtesy of the audience in the cinema with me. With Lady Hatter being a theatre brat, I've gone to a boatload of ballets, musicals, and stage plays in the years we've been together. In doing so - and in going to my own fair share growing up - I've noticed a decline in audience behaviour. The home theatre experience has led to people's respect for the production and their fellow audience members to slip. Audiences - while still just well-behaved enough - are shifty, whispering, snack bag-rustling lot for the most part.

SO the surprise was that my audience was dead. fucking. silent. I seriously wish I could get all their names and only see shows, and hell even movies, with only them.

The final surprise was in the way the show was shot. While I didn't expect the camera to be locked off on a tripod for two hours, I didn't expect some of the shots and camerawork we were shown...and if anything, it was my only letdown of the night. When I go to a show, I'm obviously sitting in one spot with my eyes free to go where they want to go. I can soak up the changing colours of the lights behind the actors if I want...or ignore the actor speaking and fixate on the reaction of the actor they are speaking to. Not so on this night.

Along with the camera often fixating on one detail at a time, it also moved around the stage as scenes played out. Perhaps most jarringly, it would sweep up above and shoot certain moments from above the fray. This really shook me out of things as it made me hyper aware that I was seeing things at an angle that I really shouldn't see. I appreciate the effort, but part of the fun of going to a live show is letting it wash over you...and the photography of this event denied me that fun.

That said, the production was extraordinary. The look of it was splendid in a rather minimalist way, and the staging came with an unexpected elegance - especially if one sat down with visions of Boris Karloff in their head. For this production, Boyle has cast Johnny Lee Miller and Benedict Cumberbatch in the leads - with a twist. One plays Dr. Frankenstein and the other plays The Creature...and then the following night, they alternate roles. Guess it must heighten the demand for tickets - one could see it twice and essentially see two different shows! For my particular performance Cumberbatch played The Creature, and Miller The Doctor.

While I will say that the show was splendid and that I had a great time, I'm not going to get into an actual review - instead I'll refer you back to the final episode of The Simon & Jo Film Show since they went and saw it live and recorded quite a splendid review themselves.

What I will say is that I dug seeing this sort of thing in a movie theatre, and count myself wickedly lucky that opportunities like this are there for the taking for me...especially when they're a ten minute walk from my apartment.

Days of The Week (Films Watched 3/6 - 3/18)

My dvd renting tendencies found a wonderful new source this week. After multiple suggestions by Bob Turnbull and matthew Price, I finally decided to hit Filmfest DVD's just one block past my regular subway station. To quote Homer Simpson, "I felt like a kid in some kind of store".

They've got an awesome supply of all the catalogue titles, indies, foreigns, and such that a geek like me to keep on going...all within walking distance of Casa del Hatter! I ask you - am I in heaven?

No screenings this week. I was at a theatre on Thursday night, but for something a bit different that you can read about tomorrow. For now, let's stick to my TV.

Here's what was on tap...

Blu-Rays/DVD's I've Never Seen
SEVEN UP! - Lady Hatter has been meaning to watch this series for a while...
SEVEN PLUS 7 - ...and a weekend in proved a great place to start...
21 UP! - ...to see just how amazingly this project begins.
CAREER OPPORTUNITIES - So this is what watered down Hughes tastes like!
BRONSON - This film is insane, and cripes did it ever ramp me up for THE DARK KNIGHT RISES
LOLITA - The only Kubrick film I'd never seen, and it very well could be one of my favorites.
DARK CITY - Suggested by The Film Forager, and I'm still somewhat ruminating on what I thought of it.


Blu-Rays/DVD's I've Watched Before
127 HOURS - Making Lady hatter watch this is what cost me having to sit through CAREER OPPORTUNITIES
300 - Was Fassbender always in this?


Boxscore for The Year
52 First-Timers, 41 Re-Watched
93 Movies in Total

How's about you - seen anything good?

Songs We Sing (The Desert Island CD Blog-a-Thon)

Three posts in a day coming up!

Seems as though the incomparable Castor Troy wants to put my playlist skills to the test, and ask which dozen songs would be on that magical indestructible iPod that would survive a crash on a desert island.

Course, this sort of question could keep me shuffling through tracks for days...I mean twelve songs??!! But rules are rules and if I had to slog it out through day after day on this island with only my doofy headphones and a dozen songs to make it through, these would be my choices.

Oh - I should stipulate, I had one rule...I wanted to stay away from songs that only play under title sequences or end credits. Thus no Simple Minds or Pixies to be found here. Pardon me as I begin with my favorite karaoke number...

"Everybody Needs Somebody to Love" by The Blues Bros (THE BLUES BROTHERS)
We're on a mission from God



"You Make My Dreams Come True" by Hall & Oates (500 DAYS OF SUMMER)
It's love, not Santa Claus



"Everybody Knows" by Leonard Cohen (PUMP UP THE VOLUME)
Talk hard!



"Shipping Up to Boston" by The Dropkick Murphys (THE DEPARTED)
I don't want to be a product of my environment; I want my environment to be a product of me



"Big Bottom" by Spinal Tap (SPINAL TAP)
There's a fine line between clever and stupid



"Belleville Rendez-Vous" by Benoit Charest (THE TRIPLETTES DE BELLEVILLE)
Is it over do you think?



"The Only Living Boy in New York" by Simon & Garfunkel (GARDEN STATE)
Good luck exploring the infinite abyss.



"The Origin of Love" by Hedwig and The Angry Inch (HEDWIG AND THE ANGRY INCH)
From this milkless tit, you have sucked the very business we call "show"



"Falling Slowly" by Glen Hansard & Marketa Irglova (ONCE)
Do you love him?



"In the Midnight Hour" by The Commitments (THE COMMITMENTS)
Say it once, and say it loud - I'm black, and I'm proud



"Try a Little Tenderness" by Otis Redding (PRETTY IN PINK)
May I admire you again today?



"As Time Goes By" by Dooley Wilson (CASABLANCA)
You played it for her, you can play it for me



The playlists of other survivors can be found here - what would be on yours?

Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace

Today, I Feel Like This...

Everybody's Talkin' 3 - 18 (Chatter From Other Bloggers)

It feels like it's been a long week. It's hard to say precisely why, except to say that it's had it's share of unexpected surprises for a lot of people around me. I'd like to think that I could take the weekend to recoup, but as it happens, the weekend is gonna be hellish too.

Well, not entirely hellish...

Tomorrow will be all about seeing GREMLINS on a big screen at The Lightbox, and if the chips fall just so I'll be joined by Lady Hatter, Steve the Film Cynic, CS, and Kurt from Row Three! I do believe with that sort of all-star lineup, an epic afternoon is guaranteed.

King of Pain Voting Update!!
WHAT A GIRL WANTS continues to lead, extending its margin to 16%. There's no way when I started this poll that I'd have guessed that as the early favorite...figured someone out there would have wanted to assure something like CAMP CUCAMONGA the craptastic crown. After the Bynes & firth show is SIMPLY IRRESISTIBLE which has ascended the charts in a hurry and now sits in the two-spot with 10%. NEW MOON has dipped a bit to 8% (can't say that bothers me). After that is SPACE CAMP and AIRBORNE with 7% each, joined by POPEYE which has jumped in the polls to a top six spot as well.

We're halfway home, so if you want some of the other crappiness to join these titles (and believe me - there's a lot of crappiness in the other contenders) keep on voting.

But enough about me.


For your listening and reading enjoyment, I give you...

The Franklies had me in stitches this week with their latest You Choose episode.

I have a thing for black & white...and so, it would seem, does Univarn.

The Droid You're Looking For turned one year old this week. Huzzah!!

While it has an undeniable soft-spot in my heart, I continue to believe that TOP GUN sucks. This week, The Film Forager found out the hard way.

In other back catalogue news, Jake put together one amazing piece on SCHINDLER'S LIST, and it even prompted some amazingly thoughtful comments!

Kai took a moment to rap about his favorite new directors.


Enjoy!

Something to Talk About (Mad Hatter & Simon Columb Discuss THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU)

The cool thing about writing as part of a community is meeting people who have similar tastes to your own. Eventually, you meet someone who's tastes overlap so much that they're more or less your filmgoing soulmate. For me that bromance is currently raging with Simon Columb.

Though even in the most sound of relationships, an entity will come along that will divide the house. Just such a film arrived in the form of THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU. So rather than relegate the back-and-forth to the comments section, i thought I'd push the conversation further and post it hear for you fine readers to ponder.

MH: I get the impression that I liked this more than you.

SC: For certain. It simplified an exceptionally fascinating philosophical point. On the one level, it is huge - he will be president, she will be a great dancer - on another level is base-romance, love-at-first-sight. Yes, events-lead-to-bigger-things (like yourself and Lady Hatter) but in reality, it is the connection that is established and built upon that makes a strong relationship - not the obsession one would have at first glance.

Matt Damon did fall 'at first sight' for Blunt, as did she for him. That is a very obvious, simple starting point. Within the first ten-minutes the question of whether they are meant to be together is answered and, lets be honest, there was little doubt that it wouldn't work out for them.

MH: You're right, relationships are built on much more than just instant chemistry. But the way this film emphasizes the little, seemingly inane occurrences is rather intriguing.

For example, you're in London - a city of seven million people. You probably run across the same people day in and day out, not just at work...but because you all run a similar routine (you're walking out the door at the same time, taking the same train schedule, etc). Think about all of those people you never encounter, who you might if you left ten minutes earlier.

One of them could be quietly looking to hire an artist in residence that fits your profile! Or one of them could be the woman of your dreams. Keep on your normal routine, you never even meet (let alone find out if you work well together)...have one morning where you decide to get an early start and all of a sudden you're striking up a conversation because you notice someone reading a rare book you like.

(Check out the lengthy - and slightly spoilerific - conversation after the jump)

SC: It's a little bit too perfect in this film. In reality, no one is perfect. Relationships are fragile and those small details can be beneficial or destructive. In THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, Matt Damon is Good, that is clear. Emily Blunt is Good. Mackie is trying to be good. The entire Adjustment team are neither good or bad - they are just following orders. But it is clear that we are sad for how their relationship is expected to turn out.

But that's the rub, we want them to get together. I think it could have been much more challenging if you saw much more conflict in that dynamic.

MH: But I thought that the complexity was there in as much as it needs to be. It's not that the Bureau are simply following orders, they are following orders for a greater good. They pull Dave aside and specifically tell him "What we are doing serves a higher purpose. No, you cannot have what you want in this instance, but it is because we are pushing you towards something we believe you want even more". Put that sort of choice to anybody and watch what they do.

SC: But how we simply have to accept it is a 'greater good'. What is good? What is bad? Norris is going to make a change by being President - fine. But how? We have to place alot of trust - as does Norris - about what is 'Good'. Elise will become a 'highly successful' dancer... in an unhappy relationship? That doesn't seem very good. But in the simplicity of the story presented we simply accept 'tough choice'. Unfortunately, there is no tension at all when the foundations of the relationship are not solid.

MH: Let me answer your question with a question: Why does every detail need to be spelled out? If someone came to you and said "Do what we say, we assure you that you will become Prime Minister and do great things" are you gonna look at them and ask "What great things?" No - it will be very persuasive just as it is. Remember of course that he's already a politician so this is feasible.

Nobody gets it all in life - there's always a sacrifice be it personal, professional, financial, etc. For an artist like Elise, telling her that she will achieve great things artistically, but at a steep personal cost - I'd wager she'd take it. Much of the greatest art in history has come from artists that were personally unhappy.

SC: Fair point, but the fact that you would simply reckon she'd prefer it simply says how much is reliant on 'just going with' the plot. Where is the tension? I want to see her see that decision, I want to see the challenge this is, I want to see the [potential] hatred she may see in Norris for 'holding her back'.

Relationships often break down because someone is holding them back from something they love - but apparently these two are 'so in love' that won't happen. I know people who appear to be content at this point in their lives about what they have achieved - but you know that in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, the person will resent their partner for stopping them from doing something. The point being that you can't simplify their entire life into 'she wants to be an artist' VS 'loving relationship with Matt Damon'. There are so many other possibilities and outcomes.

On another note, The Bureau have alot of inconsistencies. What do we mean by 'earlier versions of the plan' - like the first six versions of the matrix? There is nowhere near enough background to attach these very vague catch-all answers to. What about the small scale of New York - all these doorways and hiding places in ONE city??? The emotions of Anthony Mackie - the ONLY angel who has acted on his emotions??? Huge inconsistencies.

MH: The "earlier versions" point to prior maps of The Plan that had been altered by ripples. The job of the bureau is to keep the plan on track while making as little ripples as possible - not "no ripples at all". Odds are, while trying to keep the whole thing on track, they managed to throw a wrench into Norris and Elise meeting.

As for the plausibility of all these doorways and hiding places in one city, I have to smile and ask you "Ever been to New York?"

Howard might be the first agent to act on his emotions, but that's not to say that others haven't had them.

Here's the thing though mate - you call these inconsistencies, and I call them elements of a fantastical tale that you just didn't buy. Perhaps that could be why I liked it more than you did - as I declared in my review, the film presents to us a hypothesis of faith...and the amount you enjoy the film comes down to the amount you believe in the hypothesis.

It's almost as if you think Jack & The Beanstalk is inconsistent because for the size of the cow he was trading, he shouldn't have been given that many beans.

SC: Every detail doesn't need to be spelled out, fair point. But having said that, you should at least feel like those details don't matter. When you are dealing with such a huge argument, you need to factor these thoughts in.

MH: I think I just noticed something - It feels as though I took what we were presented and just filled in the gaps for myself...whereas you wanted a few more of those gaps to be played out on the screen.

Fair point?

SC: Yeah, I think that's true. But I would argue that when you are dealing with such a theme, I expect the filmmakers to explore the themes more.

If you want a fate vs free-will romance, then present the romance and build a quick context around it - think of SLIDING DOORS. There was nothing necessarily magical about that film, just an exploration of "what if..." by showing two stories play out alongside each other and seeing the outcome. THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU confuses us with talk of alternate realities, freezing time, hats-to-transport, the 'chairman', the 're calibrator' and backs all of this up with ... nothin'.

Why not simply show one guy who doesn't work for a 'bureau' or anything, but who could potentially be an angel miss his adjusting and that one guy, racing to try and catch it up? Lets be honest, the 'story' I present would be alot more clearer a romance and, therefore, would be marketed as such, and therefore would only make rom-com money ... opposed to potentially block-busting box-office smashes which is more important to the studios.

MH: But it's not like this film was posing as a prestige picture. It was more of a popcorn film with a bit more brains than usual.
Does such a picture really have to paint with such detail?

SC: As I said, it pretends it does have detail: alternate realities, freezing time, hats-to-transport, the 'chairman', the 're calibrator', etc, etc.

If (doesn't want to elaborate on any of them) - why even mention these things! I refer you to my idea - LOVE ADJUSTEMENT (my new title for the film) whereby none of those things (alternate realities, freezing time, hats-to-transport, the 'chairman', the 're calibrator', etc, etc.) exist. It is simply an angel sent from God (why even flower it with this chairmen rubbish) to stop a couple getting together. End of.

Why do we need Slattery as Mackies boss? Why do we need Thompson as 'The Hammer'? It is primarily about Damon and Blunt.

As for it posing as a prestige picture - I'll bet the initial expectation was otherwise. Even the posters look like Jason Bourne films - the couple 'running' away from agents. It is a popcorn film, but it hasn't got 'brains'. It pretends it does but, deep down, its just a run-of-the-mill romance ... completed badly.

MH: I see what you're saying, but there's where I disagree. I think that when it comes to a fantasy story like this, that every answer will only lead to another question...and that the only way to paint such a picture is to intentionally leave gaps for the audience to fill in.

As for it posing as a prestige picture, I mean to say that it didn't hold itself up as an Oscar contender or one that we'll be talking about as one of the year's best (For what it's worth, I don't see the Bourne films as prestige pictures either).

SC: Enough of this playing defence. What about you? Do you think the marketing is an accurate reflection of the story?

MH: The marketing was slightly misleading as it put more emphasis on the action than it did on the relationship, there's no disputing that. But that prompts two thoughts for me.

First of all is that one should only put so much stock in how a film is marketed, as they can often be marketed misleadingly. I try to come into each film as though somebody handed me a ticket to see it and said "Here - don't ask, just watch". Further, the marketing of the film is what lead to me being pleasantly surprised, since I thought I was in for some sort of metaphysical chase as opposed to watching two people struggle with whether what they felt for each other was worth holding on to.

SC: I on the other hand think the marketing was semi-accurate - it was a little muddled. Didn't know what it was - romance or action? Here lies the problem I have with the film. It didn't know what it was.

Ironically, I thought the relationship worked (though what was with Blunt and her dunking-of-phone in his coffee - who does that?) ... but alas, this is not all there is to the film. Nothing else was strong enough and, as you have guessed, the lack of context completely annoyed me.

I'm as up for a romance as much as the next guy, but this was a romance reduced to its basic level - boy meets girl, they fall in love. What about 'Adrian', her 'serious' ex who she left, virtually at the altar, because of a complete chance encounter with someone who, as a politician, should've set some alarm bells ringing. I refer back to SLIDING DOORS, a film whereby the ex-boyfriend is not only completely connected to the story, but so-much-so, we actually sympathise with him a little. Its nowhere near as simple as boy-meets-girl-and-they-fall-in-love.

What about execution? Do you think that your connection to THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU is more about philosophical points raised rather than execution of the story?

MH: I believed the execution was "good enough". The direction is fine, editing fine, photography fine, and production values fine. There was no part of its technical execution that left me feeling wanting. The chemistry between Blunt & Damon is top-notch and goes above & beyond "fine" so that's a big plus. As I said in my review, I think much of one's enjoyment of the film comes down to how much they buy the concept ADJUSTMENT BUREAU is trying to sell. I bought it, thus I enjoyed it.

Ultimately, I think the difference between our takes on the film is that I took what it presented and said "Right, I follow" and you had more of a nagging "Wait! What about...?"

I think I have just about everything to do the post, so what would you say is your final word on ADJUSTMENT BUREAU?

SC: My final word is that you need to watch SLIDING DOORS.

The Writing's on The Wall (CAVE OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS Trailer)

I'm still very much on the fence about the use of 3-D in films, and of all the trillions of features playing in three dimensions soon, the only one I have any interest of ponying up the extra loot for is Scorsese's HUGO CABRET.

But then there's Werner Herzog.

The one thing I'll always associate with 3-D is those nature films that would play at the science centre and you'd watch 'em through the gigantic goggles. This doc seems to evoke those old films, and from what I understand even has a moment or two of Herzog's dry humour.

I know many of y'all will probably give this one a skip, but after hearing so much about it from quite a few TIFF-goers, I'm hoping to give it a look.

Doubleback: MORNING GLORY

There's a lot about MORNING GLORY that makes me want to just wail away on it. But in a rare twist, there is also an awful lot to dig. However, the fact that the details I dig are never really seen to fruition just makes me want to wail away all the more. It's a paradox I've been struggling with since the weekend.

'Case you don't know, MORNING GLORY is about a young television producer named Becky (Rachel McAdams) who basically pleads her way into a job producing a network morning show that's getting clobbered in the ratings. Her first move is to fire the male co-host and replace him with celebrated journalist Mike Pomeroy (Harrison Ford). He doesn't take the job so much as he's blackmailed into it, and his disdain for the job and his co-host Colleen Peck (Diane Keaton) is wildly evident.

Here's my first point of contention - this framing alone, and the behind-the-scenes look at morning TV is a great start, but it feels wasted. Colleen feels like an afterthought, which is particularly odd given that she is the constant from the morning show being a joke to its run up the ratings. MORNING GLORY gives the show production less attention than an average episode of "Studio 60 on The Sunset Strip".

With that potential seed already wasted, I was left perplexed by McAdams. She attacks the interview, and by extension the job, like an over-caffinated labradoodle. It's an odd take on the performance, and had me continually reaching for the remote to turn her down. Where McAdams' part in the story gets equally odd is with her crush on co-worker Adam Bennett (Patrick Wilson). After the meet-cute, she seems flustered and completely stunned that he'd ever be interested in someone like her. The movie seems to overlook the fact that we can see that Becky looks like Rachel McAdams.

Oddest of all is the fact that around seventy minutes in, the film abandons all narrative structure and turns into one screamingly long montage. The ups and downs of creating the show are all but abandoned, and in its stead is a series of spastic moments with very little connective tissue. The film, which is a comfortbaly short length has suddenly gotten itself in a hurry thinking that the audience's attention span must be waning.

However, what makes this truly tragic is the fact that it wastes some flashes of truly wonderful filmmaking. Once or twice during these vignettes, the charm and determination of this story comes through. Likewise, when the film wants to, it allows us to see Becky and Adam relating like sophisticated grown ups. And I;d be remiss if I didn't point out that the film includes one of the greatest final shots I've ever seen.

But what the film wastes the most is a glorious performance by Harrison Ford. The man commands every scene he is in, and makes everybody around him that much better by extension. He takes on the role of crusty elitist with gusto, and has spectacular chemistry with both McAdams and Keaton. He's a character who doesn;t give a shit anymore and is only in it for the money, and old Han Solo epitomizes that role gloriously.

Pity the movie can't build on it.

Midnight Radio: The Matineecast Episode 30

This week brings a special episode of The Matineecast which might have been better in concept than it was in execution.

I couldn't have been happier with what my guests brought to the table, and having been shooting the shit with these guys in person since last summer I was thrilled to finally get them on my show. As guests they didn't disappoint...but the circumstances are a bit iffy. See, the deli that they usually record from was rammed thanks to it being the dinner rush, and as such the results were...well...loud.

It's not unlistenable, but it's a tad rough. Hopefully you dig it because along with the fact that the discussion was a ball, it marks the first double dose of "Know Your Enemy" and the debut of an alternate feature.


Here's the Tim Raines episode...



(Go here or to iTunes if the embedded player doesn't start)

Here's what's in store in episode thirty...

Runtime
61 minutes, 06 seconds

Up for Discussion

1. Introduction
2. KNOW YOUR ENEMY - Q& A with this week's guests Matthew Price and Matthew Brown of MaMo - also available at Row Three (2:49)
3. COME TALK TO ME - We talk about decent remakes of foreign films (13:54)
4. THE KING OF PAIN - Quick plug for the upcoming Blog-a-Thon (22:00)
5. THE NEW SLANG - Review and reaction of RANGO (24:09)
6. HOT TOPIC - Each of us bring a "Fish Out of Water" film to the table in honour of RANGO (43:12)

Comments and feedback are welcome, and thank-you very much for listening.

Enjoy!

Review: THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU * * * 1/2

My life as I know it all comes down to a seat in a movie theatre.

One night, I went to a film and ran into a friend of mine along with two friends of hers. After chatting for a few minutes, we decided to sit together for the film we were lining up to watch. Once inside, I picked a seat - one seat over from my friend, with one of her friends sitting in between us.

Had my friend sat next to me, or her other friend sat in between us, my life as it stands right now wouldn't have happened. That's what THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU is all about: Those little moments - like choosing where to sit - and how they alter an entire existence.

David Norris (Matt Damon) is a young politician making a run at the United States Senate. After stunning many by losing his election bid late in the game, he stows away into a hotel men's room to practice his concession speech. It's there that he meets Elise (Emily Blunt) - yes, in a men's restroom. The two talk, all the while exhibiting a very palpable attraction and seal their unexpected rendezvous with a kiss.

Days later, before David makes his way into work, we're introduced to a pair of dapper gentlemen named Harry and Richardson (Anthony Mackie and John Slattery). Richardson reminds Harry that David needs to spill his coffee no later than 7:05am. Why? We're not told, but Harry leads everyone, including Richardson, to believe he's got it all covered. He doesn't, as it happens, and as Harry dozes off, David gets to 7:06 not missing so much as a drop.

When he gets on a bus, full coffee in hand, he's delighted to see Elise again. Once more the embers glow, and this time our boy is smart enough to get a phone number. However upon getting to his office we all learn what was afoot with the coffee-spilling-plot: David has unknowingly altered the plan of how his life was supposed to go. Thus these men, "The Adjustment Bureau" are dispatched by an unknown entity called The Chairman to cause a few minor incidents and push him back on to their track.

At first the idealistic go-getter plays along...but the heart wants what the heart wants, and it's only a matter of time before his determination forces his path to cross with Elise's again. Thus he faces the choice: play nice and both he and Elise can achieve great things separately? Or continually defy The Bureau, and force their hand into occurrence after occurrence that will drive their lives apart whether they choose it or not.

At this point, I should state that how much you enjoy THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU will entirely depend on how much you buy into its philosophy. If the concept rings true for you, this movie will take you tightly by the hand and lead you down an introspective road of "what if?". If the premise seems hokey, then odds are the film's execution won't do much for you.

I am the former - a firm believer in what the film is preaching, and as such I was an ideal audience for this particular story.

While we all want to believe that we are primarily in control of our own lives, but the fact is the little things matter. Sometimes the entire course of a person's life can be determined by a missed traffic light...or that they were twenty minutes late to work. We don't know these things at the time - we never can of course lest we all lose our sanity. But as the film illustrates, an action as simple as spilling a cup of coffee can cause a ripple effect that changes our entire future.

I've thought these very things for a long time. For instance, when I was younger I attributed my relationship with the first girl I loved to an injury during a hockey game. Wasn't my injury. Not only was I not playing in the game, but I didn't even know the guy who was playing it and got injured. But if not for that injury, I never would have met this girl. Our paths never crossed before it, and they never would have crossed without it.

Where THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU really earns its wings, is where it asks us to consider what's best for us. Furthermore, the film asks us to consider what's best for those we love. What's better? Drowning in a pond of immediate happiness, or giving it up for something greater to come? If you think you have your brain bent around that, ask yourself if you would consider wading out of that happy pond if it meant your loved one could go on to something great? Sure it's dressed up with fedoras, magic doors, and lots of metaphoric dialogue...but it's no less true in the end.

We exist holding evident the fact that we are making the decisions - that we are charting our own trajectory. We believe that nothing is forced and that everything is a matter of free will. But what if it's not? We could decide through our own free will that we are going to be there when those we care about most need us...but something just happens - keys can't be found, or an uneven sidewalk forces us to fall. In that instant, our determination spurred by free will has been thwarted. Is it dumb luck? Or is it all part of a plan?

This is what makes the story of David and Elise so poetic. They rise above the "adjustments"...the calls not made, the unexplained absences, the multiple heartaches...and instead see in each other something worthy of taking fate into one's own hands. They have a connection - one that has survived multiple attempts to keep them apart. Blunt and Damon play these two souls as people who feel something truer than anything they've ever felt. Even if it goes away for years, they know it hasn't disappeared within them, and all it takes is one look to bring it back.

It's their story, their bond and their love that make this movie something special. Neither one of them is flawless in their role, but their chemistry together is undeniable. You watch them together at a table in central park, or talking by the morning's light and it's clear. They have something worthy of searching for...worthy of clinging to...worthy of fighting to keep.

This film might be the sort of thing that I'd always carry with me, if I didn't already carry such ideas anyway. the fact that I do just made it that much more joyous to see them unfurl onscreen. Like the wedding Elise gets chased from or the men's room David walks into, that seat at the movies irrevocably changed my life - a simple action that I never would have guessed could play so much a hand in my future.

Just like it did that friend of a friend who sat next to me. After all, she just thought she was going to see a crummy movie...she didn't anticipate meeting her future husband.

What did you think? Please leave comments with your thoughts and reactions to THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU.