An Easter Present....

Pharos readers, in honor of Easter, we post for you a clip from Martin Scorsese's 1988 film "The Last Temptation of Christ." In the third act of the movie, Jesus hangs on the cross and has a vision, a vision of his life to be if he continues living and does not make the sacrifice. In the scene below, Jesus runs into Paul, played by the always-wonderful Harry Dean Stanton, and the two men have a wonderful conversation about the necessity of religion.

Come out to Read Aloud!

By Jeff Webb


In an effort to increase volunteerism and literacy, Upshur County Read Aloud is hosting two training sessions today, January 28th, for anybody interested in participating in the program. The first session will be held at 11AM in Martin Religious Center, and the second session will be held at 3PM at Stockert Youth Center in Buckhannon. Anybody is welcome to attend.

Sarah Wilkinson, Americorps VISTA, literacy and tutoring coordinator, urged for anybody who has a desire to work with students and young children to come out to the training. Read Aloud will teach participants how to read in an engaging and entertaining manner, hopefully resulting in allowing Read Aloud volunteers opportunities to read in schools and interact with children.

Wilkinson encouraged such people as education majors and any campus groups looking for philanthropy projects to consider coming out to the training.

Those that complete the training will receive a card that shows they have the necessary skills for effective reading aloud activities.

Leann Brown, Director of Community Engagement and Leadership Development, also encouraged people to volunteer for Read Aloud just for the simple reason of “reading great books to children and seeing their excitement.”

If you have any further questions or would like to know how to get involved, you may contact Wilkinson at Stockert Youth Center at 304-473-0145, and you may also visit Wesleyan’s Center for Community Engagement.

Top Ten Films of 2009

By Jeff Webb

Okay: we're now 25 days into 2010, and, with the exception of a few stragglers here and there, I feel confident that I've seen the majority of critically-acclaimed film releases from 2009. With that in mind, acting as the Pharos' resident critic, I give you my top ten films of 2009, as listed below. Feel free to leave a comment if you disagree or if you would like to express your own top 10.

1. Inglourious Basterds: It's not Pulp Fiction, but it's Tarantino's second best film. Completely complex in both technique and theme. Nothing short of a masterpiece.

2. A Serious Man: One of the best movie endings ever. Leaves one speechless.

3. The Hurt Locker: Speaking of endings....Jeremy Renner gives what was, to this critic, the best male performance of the year (note: I have yet to see Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart, so that opinion might change).

4. Up in the Air: Possibly Clooney's best acting. A heartfelt, tragicomedy about love and the meaning of home.

5. The Road: It's not the book, but, then again, it's not really right to compare. Director Hillcoat creates the perfect atmosphere, anchored by Nick Cave's score and Viggo Mortensen's egoless performance.

6. Public Enemies: An old-school gangster movie produced with today's technology and tenacity. The car chase sequence is, perhaps, the best action sequence of the year.

7. Drag Me to Hell: Fun. That is all.

8. Funny People: Just as Mickey Rourke was perfectly matched for Randy "The Ram," so is Sandler perfectly matched for George Simmons. Great, great role, full of melancholy and regret. And a mature, grown-up directing/writing effort by Apatow.

9. Avatar: It lacked in the story department, but the visuals and acting more than made up for it. A great time at the cinema.

10. Precious: Completely engaging. Not one false note; everything felt so real.

So, there it is. That's my top 10 of 2009. Do you agree? Disagree? What would you add? Let us know by leaving a comment below or on our Facebook page.

I Admire Your Pictures Very Much

A Review of "Up in the Air"
By Jeff Webb

Do you know anybody with an iPhone? Or a Blackberry, for that matter? These people walk around, constantly playing with their phones, checking their Facebook walls and Twitter posts. They know what everybody is doing every second of their day, from what store their best friend is shopping at to what their favorite athlete is eating for lunch. It is a technology obsessed culture, one where people communicate more through text message than face-to-face meeting.

Such interaction, understandably, can lead to loneliness, a craving for something real, and this is the story of director Jason Reitman’s “Up in the Air.” George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a man who spends his life traveling from city to city, all for his job. That job is, fittingly, a termination specialist, someone who is contracted out to companies to come in and fire employees. It is a position that conditions him to not have connections. He must remain detached in his firing, and, because of his constant travel, he must remain detached from his home.

Bingham is someone who does not want human connection. Like last year’s Randy the Ram from “The Wrestler,” Bingham is a man who escapes in his work. However, instead of retreating to a fantasy world of the ring, he, instead, runs away from reality by isolating himself in airplanes and bars and motel rooms. Human connection brings responsibility and disappointment. Lovers leave, people die, etc. It is understandable someone might want to leave all this, and that’s what Bingham does, but, in so doing, one must realize something else. You may escape the burden of relationships, but you cannot escape loneliness. “Life,” as Bingham comes to acknowledge, “needs company.”

Clooney brings a desperateness to the role that he has shown perhaps only once before, in 2005’s “Syriana.” Bingham goes from a confident loner to someone who wants, so terribly, a meaningful relationship, and it tugs on the heartstrings to watch as he simply ends up jaded. The fast-paced world of the 21st century cannot allow him to form that connection. This is what he must come to realize, and Clooney plays it wonderfully, allowing himself to shed his cocksure image and achieve something much more everyman, something real and honest manifest in Bingham’s sadness.

Vera Farmiga plays Bingham’s love interest, and, while Farmiga is a wonderful actress, she feels a little underused and isn’t given much to work with. Anna Kendrick, however, who play’s Bingham’s young apprentice, is given the meatier of the female roles, allowing Kendrick to undergo a similar transformation in character to Clooney, from confident to jaded. She does so wonderfully.

“Up in the Air” will probably win Best Picture at the Oscars. It is not the best film of the year, in the opinion of this critic, but it is a great film, and it would be deserving of the title. Reitman delivers a strong script with fast dialogue, and there doesn’t seem a false note in performances. The story is somewhat Capraesque, but there is also a turn for the tragic, resulting in something much more like Cassavetes. It is that tragedy, that loneliness in the world, that resonates with viewers and makes the film special. The film, then, may look modern with its emphasis on technology, but its themes are something eternal. Something real.

Moby-Dick 2: Ahab's Revenge

By Jeff Webb

So, my American Literature class just finished reading—or Sparknoting, for some—Herman Melville’s _Moby-Dick_. While I found the novel to be quite the classic and well-deserving of its “Great American Novel” reputation, I think it did leave something to be desired. Then it hit me: the book needs a sequel.

Picture this: the last time we saw Ahab, he was being pulled down to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, tangled up in some lines attached to the Whale. We assume he dies, but what if he doesn’t?

Thus, the book’s sequel, tentatively titled _Moby-Dick 2: Ahab’s Revenge_. It begins with a legless, old man being washed up on some remote Pacific island. He is unconscious and stumbled upon by some of the island’s natives. They take him and nurse him back to health.

It is then that Ahab tells them the tale of Moby-Dick, how the Whale possesses supernatural powers, how he seeks revenge on it. He recounts how he survived the events of the first book, that he was being pulled down, but he managed to cut himself loose and the tide must have carried him to this island.

Ahab befriends the islanders, and maybe, just maybe, he might develop a romance with one of the women. However, his passion for revenge and the White Whale’s blubber overrides his want of a peaceful life. He convinces the islanders to help him construct a boat out of the island’s trees, and then he puts together a crew. During the course of this, too, he fashions himself a new leg out of a tree branch (and, if Robert Rodriguez were filming this, Ahab might go so far as to turn this branch into some sort of Gatling gun).

After a heartfelt goodbye with his romantic interest on the island’s shore, Ahab sets sail once again, seeking revenge upon Moby-Dick.

Just imagine it, though. The woman asks him, standing there in the sunrise, the boat rocking back and forth on the ocean, she asks and pleads, “Ahab, why do you have to do this? Stay here and be happy.”

Ahab, the most sentimental we’ll ever see him, kisses her face and says, “It’s what I have to do. Billions of years have led to this moment. I’m going to kill the Whale.”

Thus ends Act 1 of _Moby-Dick 2: Ahab’s Revenge_.

Act 2 could see Ahab return to his old self, captain and dictator of the ship. It could also lend for some interesting—and, at times, humorous—events, as Ahab will be working with a ragtag team of islanders who have never manned a whaling vessel before. Unlike the experienced Starbuck or Stubb, Ahab must not only lead these men, but he must also teach the basics of maritime etiquette. All the while, they steadily get closer and closer to Moby-Dick.

Act 3 could conclude the novel with an epic fifty-page showdown between Ahab and the Whale. This time, instead of letting the Whale ram the ship, Ahab turns the ship toward the Whale, and the two crash in a head-on collision. The ship—it’s only made of trees, remember?—breaks apart and men fall into the ocean, drowning. Ahab treads water as the Whale comes toward him, opening its mouth, and, like Jonah, swallowing Ahab whole.

However, inside the Whale, Ahab sees this as a perfect opportunity for victory. He somehow makes his way to the heart, stabs it with his harpoon, then he claws his way out as Moby-Dick finally perishes. Ahab has, at last, achieved his revenge.

The novel can end with a little epilogue, detailing that Ahab returns home to Nantucket. After his voyage with the Pequod and then his time on the island and his voyage with the islanders, Ahab had been at sea for nearly five or six years. He was thought dead, and, as such, his wife has moved on, marrying another man.

Ahab, also, finds that a young man named Ishmael had survived the Pequod endeavor and told everyone the story about his madness, thus ending any whaling company ever wanting to hire Ahab as a captain. He may have killed the White Whale, but, in doing so, he has garnered a reputation as a madman, and nobody wants to entrust a ship to a madman.

Thus, we end with Ahab, old and alone, drinking in a bar and telling stories of his glory days to anybody that will listen. His life and love had always been at sea, but now he can never go back. He must end his poor, miserable life on land.

The question becomes this: Ahab has gotten his revenge, but at what cost?

Tell me you don’t want to read that book.

Zombies, oh my!

'Invictus' Trailer Now Online

Over the past decade, Clint Eastwood has proven to be the most consistent and best American director working today. With films like "Mystic River," "Million Dollar Baby," "Letters from Iwo Jima," and "Changeling," Eastwood's films offer a tough view of the world, but they are, always, full of human emotion and power. It looks like Eastwood's latest effort, "Invictus," will be no different. The film, due out later this year, tells the true story of Nelson Mandela and the South African rugby team's quest to make the 1995 World Cup Championship. The trailer was just recently released online, and we have embedded it below. Feel free to take a look:

C'etait un rendez-vous

With Halloween approaching, it's always worth looking at some scary movies, and, though _C'etait un rendez-vous_ isn't a scary movie in the classical sense of the term, it is, nonetheless, absolutely 8 minutes of suspense. On an early Sunday morning, Claude Lelouch set out on the streets of Paris in his Mercedes, and the result is one of the best car chases--it's not a chase, but you get the idea--ever filmed. There is also some romance involved, which is always a bonus. So, check out the video below. Feel free to turn up your speakers and enlarge the screen to get the full effect.

SYC Wants You!

My Experience as a Tutor at Stockert Youth Center
By Jeff Webb

It’s that time of the year again. The leaves are changing color, people are getting sick with the flu, and Stockert Youth Center is asking for volunteers.

As an education major, I’ve put in two semesters at Stockert, and, I must say, the time I spent there was some of the most rewarding time I’ve ever had in my life. It was even more rewarding than the time I met LFO (anybody? anybody?) after their performance at the Charleston Sternwheel Regatta, but that’s the topic for a future blog post.

During my time at Stockert, I worked with two separate students. Without breaching confidentiality, I’ll simply say that one was an elementary-aged girl, and the other was a middle school-aged boy. The girl was perfectly nice and eager to learn and quite the conversationalist. She’d tell me about her day, and then I’d help her with her homework and maybe we’d play a couple games of “Hangman” or something to end the session. For one hour, two days a week over the course of one semester, this is what I did.

The boy, on the other hand, was a bit more difficult. He had some learning disabilities, and it was often hard to get him to focus. There were days where he was completely uncooperative and just sat at the desk with his head down, refusing to work or even to talk. Being the young educator I was—I’m still a young educator—I was left a little lost. I didn’t know what to do with a kid that so stubbornly refused to work. All of education, though, can be summed up in doing whatever you can to “get their attention,” so I learned the kid’s interests—he liked football, I remember—and I tried to gear the learning in our session toward football in someway.

Alas, this still didn’t work, and, actually, my inability to reach the student still irks me a bit to this day. But, that’s life. It’s never going to come out perfect, and there are some students—no matter how hard you try—you just might not be able to reach.

The important thing is, though, I kept meeting with the student for the remainder of the semester. Granted, I was required to for one of my education classes, but, every tutoring session, I still tried to engage him. I tried and tried and tried different methods, none of them really working, but I kept trying, and, from that, I got my reward.

Knowing that I had some effect on these students—be it positive or negative—was perfect intrinsic motivation. Knowing, though, that I was doing something useful with my time—when, normally, I’d probably be spending that hour in the afternoon sitting in my dorm room, reading a book for Russian literature or, more likely, watching Youtube videos—was, perhaps, even more rewarding. In some small way—call it the butterfly effect, if you will—I was doing my part in bettering the world. That’s really the essence of all volunteer services, and it’s also really something you probably wouldn’t understand until you take part in a volunteer service.

So, yes, now that Stockert is looking for volunteers and tutors, perhaps you should give it a consideration. It can be difficult, indeed, but it can also be so satisfying.

If you are interested in volunteering at Stockert in some capacity, you may contact SYC at (304) 473-0145.

I Admire Your Pictures Very Much

A Review of "Inglourious Basterds"
By Jeff Webb

There is a scene in the final act of Quentin Tarantino’s WWII drama “Inglourious Basterds” wherein two characters—on opposing sides of the war—shoot each other dead. Said scene is bloody, loud, and fused with wonderful Ennio Morricone music, and, then, Tarantino cuts away from it, as well he should. The characters are dead; their story is done. But, just a couple minutes later, as mayhem ensues in other realms of the story, Tarantino cuts back to the two characters, an overhead shot—almost God-like—looking down on the stillness of the bodies laying side-by-side. It is, perhaps, the most poignant shot in the film.

Likewise, the whole story of “Inglourious Basterds” just might be summed up in that one single shot. Two characters—two forces, essentially, or two ideologies—clash, and they destroy each other in brutal fashion.

Or, perhaps it’s better described with the words of the film’s Lt. Aldo Raine, that he didn’t come all the way from the Smoky Mountains to be humane to the “Natzee” bastards.

In short, war is hell, and both sides, when paired with absolute certainty and fanaticism, are equally capable of destroying one another.

In this meditation on violence, Tarantino does for war movies what Peckinpah’s “Wild Bunch” did for Westerns. That is, Tarantino takes our classic idea of the hero and twists it, perverts it, and, doing so, he reveals that oftentimes the good guys aren’t good.

In this case, it’s the Basterds, a group of American-Jewish soldiers who blaze their way through Europe, scalping and torturing any German soldier that crosses their path. As the audience, we cheer for them because—why? They’re American, yes, and perhaps the Nazis have it coming to them, but do even the Nazis deserve such cruel punishment? And what of the ones who fight more out of compulsion, out of allegiance to home or their fellow countrymen as opposed to out of allegiance to the Fuhrer? Do they deserve to die such horrific deaths?

See, the Basterds use intimidation and torture and suicide-bombings as standard war tactics. Does any of this sound familiar? Yet, we see them as the good guys, and we want them to succeed, but, yet, they are just as savage as the evil in which they fight.

Tarantino isn’t insinuating that the Americans who fought in WWII were just as bad as the Nazis or that they used terrorist tactics, because, in short, this isn’t a real WWII film. It’s an alternate reality, the WWII time period serving more as a filmic allusion than as a historical setting. Tarantino, in his usual style, wanted to make a film that harkened back to war films like “The Dirty Dozen” and Spaghetti-Westerns like “Once Upon a Time in the West.” The WWII setting simply provides Tarantino a setting in which to blend those two genres.

After that blending, though, the story becomes entirely his. He distorts history to his own means, as any artist should. However, to dismiss “Inglourious Basterds” for this reason is a tremendous mistake, for, even with its distortions, it is, still, perhaps one of the best war films to emerge from Hollywood in recent years. The commentary on violence and justice, feminism and nationalism—it’s all there, handled maturely, handled well.

However, perhaps what is most interesting about the film is one of its many subplots. In this case, the subplot revolving around the premiere of a German propaganda film entitled “Nation’s Pride,” and the pride, indeed, the Germans take in such a film. They watch and cheer as a German sniper kills hundreds of Allied troops, and, at the same time, we watch and cheer as a squad of American soldiers kill German troops. This cannot be coincidence on Tarantino’s part. No, this is his own propaganda film, and, perhaps the only reason we ever find ourselves cheering for the Basterds is because Tarantino, very subtly, has conditioned us that way. The Germans are presented on ominous terms, the Americans on light terms. This is Tarantino’s own propaganda film making a statement about propaganda. That is, we are all capable of being fooled, of being roped in under false pretenses, of being tricked by our governments, or, on a more personal basis, our friends, for a thread of deceit runs all throughout the film.

“Inglourious Basterds” is not Tarantino’s best film; that would still be “Pulp Fiction.” However, in its layering of theme and story, it is his most complex film, his one most provocative for discussion. And that’s a good thing.

On a technical level, the film is near perfect. The cinematography—especially in the first fifteen minutes—is so beautiful and, at times, so unbelievably tense, almost delivering Hitchcock-like suspense. As for the acting, there is not a single weak performance. Much has been said of Eli Roth’s Bear Jew, but Roth, exuding arrogance and temper, does just as the part requires. The true stand-outs of the film, though, as many other reviewers have commented, are Christoph Waltz as Hans Landa and Melanie Laurent as Shosanna. Both of them, especially Waltz, deserve nominations when the time comes.

For those that love movies, “Inglourious Basterds” is all the more wonderful with its frequent allusions to older films. For those that don’t necessarily possess quite an encyclopedic knowledge of film as Tarantino does, that’s okay; the film still has much merit. It teaches us about violence, about war, and, with its epic theatre atmosphere, it constantly removes us from the story, asking us to see it objectively, to see it as it is: a story. Thus, at the end of things, we can view it clearly, that the Basterds are just bastards and the Natzees are just Nazis, and there is just so much hatred, so much aggression, that it all just explodes in a hail of gunfire, dynamite, and celluloid.

Woodstock Remembered

Forty years ago, from August 15th to August 18th, nearly half a million people gathered in upstate New York to watch the likes of Arlo Guthrie, Santana, Canned Heat, the Who, Janis Joplin, and Jimi Hendrix. Below is a video of one of the best of these performances. So, without further ado, here is Joe Cocker performing the Beatles' "With a Little Help from My Friends."

I Admire Your Pictures Very Much

A Review of "Julie & Julia"
By Jeff Webb

First of all, I liked “Julie & Julia.” I didn’t necessarily expect to, but I had a great deal of fun watching the film. The charming performances of the leads, the vicarious experience of encountering wonderful foods, and the straightforward and simple comedy all create a light-hearted, escapist atmosphere. Perhaps above anything else, it is an incredibly relaxing film.

Now, with that aside, it’s probably not a film I would care to see ever again.

The problem with “Julie & Julia” is the script. It revolves around two stories, the first taking place in the mid-twentieth century and depicting chef Julia Child’s efforts to create a French cookbook for American women. The film’s second story is set in 2002 and shows blogger Julie Powell’s attempt to make every recipe in said cookbook within a year’s time.

It is the latter story that I take issues with. Amy Adams plays Julie Powell, and Adams is wonderful, as always. However, when the main conflict of a story is whether or not a character will meet her deadline in time, it’s a little hard to be enthralled or to leave the theater feeling you have learned something monumental about life. Now, perhaps perseverance is the life lesson here, but when it is about something so mundane as cooking, it still feels empty. Perhaps if the film was in the hand’s of a more competent director, someone adept with the mundane—someone like Jim Jarmusch, for instance—something could be taken away from the story, but, alas, the film is in the hands of Nora Ephron, a talented romantic-comedy director but really nothing more than that.

There are moments of real human drama in Julie Powell’s story, but they are brief moments, fleeting moments. There never is any tension, and that is because the conflict isn’t engaging. Every story, no matter the genre, needs a conflict, and it needs to engage the audience.

The film’s other story, revolving around a young Julia Child, is a bit more fulfilling to watch, but even it suffers from a similar problem. Its tone is too light to be accommodating as a biopic for a real person, and its suspense is killed by the interjection of the Julie Powell story. Perhaps more than anything else, though, the audience never comes to know Julia Child. We see her efforts to publish her book, but she is the same woman at the end of the film as she is at the beginning. There is no real development to her as a character, as a person.

Yes, Meryl Streep is fantastic and proves, once again, why she is the best actress of her generation, but she really isn’t given much to work with. Her Julia Child becomes a parody of the real thing, an embodiment of the woman on TV, and Streep, with the exception of one or two scenes, never probes deeply into the person that was Julia Child. But that’s a flaw of the script.

“Julie & Julia” is a good way to kill two hours, and it fits perfectly into the summer movie season. It just fails to deliver human drama, and, while funny, it’s nowhere close to being a classic of the comedy genre. To end with a terrible food analogy, the film is almost like hospital food: it’s not necessarily bad, it’ll fill you up and taste alright, but it’s not something you ever really want to eat ever again.

I Admire Your Pictures Very Much

A Review of "Funny People"
By Jeff Webb

It’s interesting to watch the direction of Judd Apatow’s directorial career play out on cinema screens. With his first film, “The 40-Year-Old Virgin,” Apatow introduced audiences to his stories of “bromance” and men stuck in adolescence. With “Knocked Up,” Apatow covered similar territory, but this time making it a bit more personal, basing it somewhat on his own experiences with becoming a father. Still, there was a sense of the cartoonish in the characters, an outrageousness to the film. With his third and latest film, though—the newly released “Funny People”—Apatow has hit his stride. It is his most focused feature yet, completely realistic and understated and restrained.

The problem with Apatow’s previous two films is not that the stories lack a moral—for they do have a point—but that they sometimes lose focus of that moral, wandering into territory where it just seems like comedy for the sake of comedy. Nothing is learned. Plot and characterization is not advanced.

That is not the case with “Funny People.” Yes, the movie is long—perhaps a bit too long—but every scene plays a part in the bigger story. That story revolves around George Simmons, a popular comedian who, upon finding out he has leukemia, starts to reevaluate his life. Helping him on this journey of self-discovery is young and insecure comedian Ira Wright.

Adam Sandler plays Simmons, and Seth Rogen plays Wright. For the latter, it is clearly the best role of his career, one that is truly unique from his other characters. For Sandler, it is his best since work since 2002’s “Punch-Drunk Love,” and, even at that, Sandler may be even better here than in PTA’s mini-masterpiece. Simmons is Sandler, Sandler is Simmons, and through the course of the film, Sandler plays his part to perfection, never ringing a false note, never going for the zany over the dramatic. It is a character wrought with pain and disappointment, and Sandler plays him just as such.

Some people will walk into the film expecting a comedy, and, while the film is a comedy, it carries quite a bit of dramatic weight with it, as did Apatow’s “Knocked Up.” However, unlike “Knocked Up,” the drama in “Funny People” doesn’t come across as forced or schmaltzy. It feels natural, perhaps because the premise is a serious premise. It is about a man dying. If anything, it is the laughs that feel forced, but the very fact that the man in question is a comedian makes it all seem right.

There is nothing outrageous about “Funny People,” no hair-waxing scene or mushroom trips to Las Vegas or shock value shots of female genitalia. No, like the characters in his films, Apatow finally seems to be growing up, not only addressing themes of adulthood, but also addressing them like an adult: serious, focused, and in control.

Without giving it away, the ending of the film is enough evidence of Apatow’s maturity as a filmmaker. There is nothing grandiose about it. It’s just a plain and simple ending to a fairly plain and simple story, and, thus, by making it all the more real, it becomes all the more relatable.

And that is something every filmmaker—be the genre comedy or drama—should strive to achieve.

Neil Young with the Band

Neil Young is a great musical artist, and, perhaps, he has never been better than seen here, performing "Helpless" with backing from the Band. Enjoy.

It's An Honor Even To Be Nominated

By Jeff Webb

A little less than a month ago, Academy president Sid Ganis announced that 82nd Academy Awards will feature ten Best Picture winners, as opposed to featuring just five as in years past.

To some, this may be occasion to rejoice, and having ten nominees might not be that bad. For instance, take last year’s Oscars as an example. Films like Rachel Getting Married and The Wrestler most certainly deserved a Best Picture nomination, but they were shut out. Widening the field to ten would likely include these films.

Likewise, animated films and lower-budget indie films might also gain an advantage, with the Academy looking elsewhere than big-budget December releases to fill their Oscar pool.

Lastly, the revenue brought in by having ten nominees should be positive for studios, theaters, and the Academy broadcast. Ten films gaining critical praise means more people rushing to see these movies in theaters, as well as more people tuning into the broadcast to see whether or not their film will win.

However, even with these benefits—and there are more, as you can read on some other blogs devoted to this—having ten nominees may have its drawbacks. In a way, it seems more fair to be including more nominees, but that may just be a fantasy. Already the Academy nominates things that shouldn’t be nominated and leaves out things that should be nominated. Why would widening the field to ten be any different? Instead of having two mediocre nominees and three good ones, now we might just end up with four mediocre nominees and six good ones, with other good films left out.

The Academy might also be more likely to nominate something just to give it the honor of a nomination rather than nominating it on the basis that it could—and should—win the Best Picture Oscar—cough, cough, The Dark Knight.

It does not seem quite the honor of receiving a nomination when the field is ten as opposed to five. The club isn’t as exclusive, and for a program that is supposed to recognize the very best in the year’s motion pictures, exclusivity should be a consideration.

If a film truly is great, it should, theoretically, be good enough to receive a nomination, and that shouldn’t change whether the field is five or ten, though that doesn’t always happen. But why would that happen with ten nominees as opposed to five? The Academy is going to nominate what it’s going to nominate.

It seems as though the Academy might be grasping as straws to make the awards more open and appealing, but, in doing so, it might be hurting the prestige of the Oscars. If they really do nominate ten of the year’s best films—of which I am skeptical—what will it say for the winner? Whereas under the previous system, two or three frontrunners would emerge, with ten nominees, we might have four or five frontrunners. Votes will be divided, and there might never be a clear winner. Not only would it seem less impressive to say a film has been nominated, but it might be just as underwhelming to say that a film even won.

My Top Ten Movie Theater Experiences

By Jeff Webb

I have loved movies all my life. Seeing recent summer blockbusters like “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” and “Star Trek,” I have been thinking about some of my best movie-going experiences, the films and the energy that really made me feel involved in the picture. I have listed ten of these experiences below, and I encourage you to list some of your favorite movie-going experiences in the comments below this posting.

Note: The years correspond to the year the film was released, not the year I saw the film in theaters.

1. Grindhouse (2007): Probably the most fun I ever had in a movie theater. I went and saw this on opening day with about four or five of my friends, and the theater was packed. “Planet Terror,” full of tongue-in-cheek fun, had the audience all pumped up, though the energy dwindled some when “Death Proof” came around and the pace of the film slowed down. However, the climatic car chase redeemed it all, and still ranks as one of the best car chases, in my opinion, in film history.

2. Titanic (1997): Anybody growing up in my generation listing movie-going experiences and not including “Titanic” is lying. It was an event movie, and in the twelve years since—even with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Harry Potter, and the trend of superhero movies—nothing has still approached the epic reception of “Titanic” by the public. You didn’t just see it once. You saw it two times. Three times. Middle-aged couples planned evenings around it, like they were getting dressed up to see a play, but, rather, they went to the cinema. I, for one, saw it in the now defunct Kanawha Cinemas, with water dripping slowly from the ceiling, giving it all an air of realism. It was my first experience with Kate Winslet, too, giving my fifth-grader self a movie star crush that lasts even to this day.

3. The Dark Knight (2008): If any movie has come close to “Titanic,” it is “The Dark Knight.” I saw it five times, and every time was fantastic, though the best was opening night. It was a midnight showing at Marquee Cinemas, a sold-out theater, and, that first showing, it all was so much darker and intense than I had ever anticipated, and I loved it for it. It’s not a film masterpiece, as some would suggest, for it does have some flaws script-wise, but, in terms of summer blockbusters, “The Dark Knight” is one of the absolute best.

4. No Country for Old Men (2007): Perhaps the most suspenseful movie I have ever seen in theaters. I sat in the front row with two of my friends, in a packed theater, and perhaps because the crowd was into it, or perhaps because I was so close to the screen that I felt actually in the action, I was completely tense. I remember actually feeling a weight lifted off me when the film concluded, a conclusion that many people criticized but I felt to be absolutely genius.

5. There Will Be Blood (2007): The film that should have won 2007’s Best Picture Oscar. I could not convince anybody to go with me, so I drove alone one Friday evening from Buckhannon to Morgantown to see it. The theater itself was new to me, and was a very clean facility, which was nice. The film, though, was what really impressed, with Paul Thomas Anderson’s direction reminiscent of such greats as Kubrick or Huston, and Daniel Day-Lewis, as Daniel Plainview, turning in one of the best performances of motion picture history. The audience was completely engrossed by the time the final scene came around, and I just remember everybody sitting in stunned silence at the shocking ending the film serves up.

6. The Wrestler (2008): My friend and I anticipated this film for a good six months before its release. I ended up seeing it twice, once with said friend in Pittsburgh, and once more with a girl in Buckhannon. In Pittsburgh, on the film’s opening weekend in the town, the theater was packed, and the audience energy was high, responding to such scenes as the hardcore match and the Ram working in the deli. In Buckhannon, it was just the girl and me alone in the theater, but “The Wrestler,” is, in all essence, a simple film, one that can enjoyed both with a crowd and with only one other person.

7. Jurassic Park (1993): I only have a vague memory of this experience, as I was five years old at the time I saw it, but I remember it was at a drive-in theater, and it was at night. I remember being scared, thinking that dinosaurs might come out from behind the movie screen and attack us all. It was, probably, the first time I was terrified by a movie, but I also loved it. Spielberg films have always been dear to me, playing important roles in the development of my childhood, and “Jurassic Park” is no exception.

8. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981): Speaking of Spielberg, I saw this at the Warner Theater in Morgantown in Spring 2009. I have loved Indiana Jones since I was a child, going so far as naming a pet cat, when I was six years old, after the iconic movie character. The film is completely mesmerizing on the big screen and in a dark theater. However, I had already seen it countless times on home video, so I knew what to expect, but I must wonder what it would have been like seeing it for the first time in 1981, and how exciting that must have been.

9. Blindness (2008): The film received poor reviews, but I, for the life of me, cannot figure out why. I saw it by myself, in a theater completely empty but for me, and that was an experience. That has only happened a couple times in my life, and it is such an outstanding feeling. It makes you feel important, like it’s a private screening all for you, and, with a film like “Blindness,” it makes it all much more intense and scary, which, perhaps, is why I have a more favorable opinion of the film as opposed to others.

10. Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999): I saw this with my brother and his friend, Kenny. I don’t remember much about the experience, though I do remember it was at Park Place Cinemas in Charleston right after they had remodeled, and that it was a tremendously funny movie. I just had a good feeling that night, and that, of course, is the end result of a good movie-going experience.

I Admire Your Pictures Very Much

A Review of "Bruno"
By Jeff Webb

With “Bruno,” star Sacha Baron Cohen crosses every line of taste, and, while such boldness succeeded in “Borat,” it just can’t help feeling recycled and tired in the latest effort. It is a funny movie, yes, and, at times, it achieves moments of comedic greatness, but, by the end of the film, one has learned nothing. It is almost all comedy of shock value and no comedy of intelligence.

Chiefly, “Bruno” fails where “Borat” succeeded in that Cohen, in a way, holds back. No, he doesn’t hold back in terms of gags and graphic content, but he holds back in terms of the challenges he makes to his audience. “Borat” was a wonderful satire, exposing in both over-the-top and subtle ways the prejudices of American society. With “Bruno,” all the subtlety is gone, and, at that, all the satire is gone. Of course someone is going to act angrily when a naked man comes to his tent in the middle of the night. It is funny, yes, but it is cheap, and it lacks the intelligence of Cohen’s previous effort.

In addition, the story is practically a rehashed story of “Borat,” making the film feel rather stale. The story arcs are the same: a foreigner comes to America, causes some trouble with Middle America, loses his partner-in-crime about halfway through the film, sinks into a depressed slump, and, at the end, is reunited with his partner and all is alright. That was the plot of “Borat,” and that is the plot of “Bruno,” only in “Bruno,” it’s nothing new.

Cohen, for all his effort, is an amazing acting talent, becoming so completely the characters he plays. It would truly be interesting to see him in a more serious role, something akin to his brief performance in 2007’s “Sweeney Todd.”

Director Larry Charles, who directed “Borat” and is noted as a prime creative force behind TV’s “Seinfeld” and “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” is also genius at dissecting the idiocy of American society, but, once again, with “Bruno,” all the honesty and patience feels lost.

Perhaps more than anything else, though, the film feels rehearsed. There are many more staged scenes in “Bruno” as compared to “Borat,” and, while that might work if the story were truly compelling, it can’t help but make the film feel more false. Because the film is not real, because Cohen goes more for the insane than the subtle, one never really feels challenged. The satire is lost, and the film is nothing more than unintelligible comedy garbage.

But, strangest thing of all, it is one of the funniest things you will ever see in your life.

Happy birthday, America!

'Tis July 4th, America's Independence Day, or, at least, the day we celebrate our independence as the true date of our Independence Day is kind of up to discussion. That said, spend the day with friends and family, but remember what the day is about. Be rebellious, because our forefathers were rebellious. You know, read a banned book or curse loudly or something bold like that. To put you in such a patriotic spirit, see video below:

I Admire Your Pictures Very Much

A Review of "Public Enemies"
By Jeff Webb

“Public Enemies” is not new or original. The story of John Dillinger has, many times, been brought to life through literature and film, and the basic plot of “Public Enemies” follows along the same lines as many other classic—and superior—crime films, such as “The Untouchables” and “Heat.” However, perhaps never has such a story about Depression-era crime been told with such grit and honesty as “Public Enemies,” acclaimed director Michael Mann applying modern sensibilities to an old story. The end result is brutal, tense fun.

Mann, the director of the aforementioned “Heat” as well as “Collateral” and “Manhunter,” has always had a knack for depicting crime on film, and “Public Enemies” is very much a Michael Mann film. Yes, the people are pretty, the settings are nostalgic, but the camera work—while slow and clear at some points—can quickly become rapid and grainy, and that is pure Mann. Viewers aren’t used to seeing this type of old-style gangster movie filmed like a police procedural about two cops in South Central, but the lack of sentimentality makes the film unique. Even the legendary “Bonnie & Clyde,” which was groundbreaking in its portrayal of violence onscreen, digressed into comedy and melodrama at times.

Evidence of the power of this filmmaking objectivism is clearly evident in the climatic shoot-out with George “Babyface” Nelson. There is minimal music, minimal lighting. We just hear the punches, the gunshots, and we see the resulting corpses. In a way, it’s savage, but it’s so very real.

However, “Public Enemies” falls short of other classic crime dramas, though, mainly due to character development. John Dillinger robs banks, and Melvin Purvis is the FBI agent charged with tracking him down. That’s about all we know about the two main characters, and, while this fits with the film’s terse tone, it’s not quite as effective. What makes the film unique is the way it tells an old story in a new way. What makes it fail is that, while the technique is new, the story is still old.

At the end of the film, audiences might be left asking, “Why did we really care if Dillinger got away or not?”

That is a question that is never really resolved.

However, working with what they had, all the actors do an exceptional job. Johnny Depp delivers as John Dillinger, though, with the exception of one or two scenes, he isn’t necessarily electric. Christian Bale as Dillinger’s chief antagonist is quite wonderful, ever-stoic and tough, but it is Dillinger’s story, and Bale never really gets an opportunity to come alive, but that is a problem with the script and not a fault of the actor’s.

Marion Cotillard as Dillinger’s girlfriend, though, is the film’s real stand-out, perhaps because she is the best developed character, or perhaps just based on Cotillard’s sheer talent. Either way, she gives her character life and takes her through a whole range of emotions.

It should be interesting come next winter to see whether “Public Enemies” benefits from the expansion of the Academy’s Best Picture field from five to ten. It’s not winner-worthy, but, depending upon further releases this year, it might be good enough to warrant a nomination. At the very least, though, “Public Enemies” is certainly the best of the summer, thus far, one of those rare gems that comes along in the middle of the season that melds both blockbuster and arthouse flick into one enjoyable experience.

I Admire Your Pictures Very Much

A Review of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
By Jeff Webb

Nobody walks into the theater to see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen with the expectations of seeing a serious film about such things as technology and war. No, people go to see the new Transformers film to escape, to live vicariously through the characters and be caught up in the action. They want to be entertained rather than stimulated in thought.

The question then becomes not whether Revenge of the Fallen is a good film, but is it an entertaining film? The answer to that is yes.

The story picks up where the first Transformers left off, with Optimus Prime and his band of Autobots protecting the world from the evil Decepticons. An audience member really needs to know nothing else to grasp the action of the story, though, and that is unfortunate. The first film’s biggest flaw was its script, and the same goes for the sequel. It lacks complexity, and it lacks detail. Why do the Decepticons despise the Autobots so much? Why is the Matrix of Leadership so powerful? No answers are given, and character motivations are not only hidden but practically non-existent. Yes, the film calls for a suspension of disbelief, but—as this summer’s Star Trek or last summer’s Dark Knight evidence—suspension of disbelief does not necessarily mean that a film still cannot be grounded in some reality.

Mostly, though, the shallow script does not allow the audience to connect with the characters. Yes, we know Sam Witwicky and the noble Optimus Prime, but, other than that, characters are two-dimensional. Even the most unbelievable of films must connect the audience with the characters, must allow the audience to relate to the film in that way, for, if the film fails in that regard, the audience will never be truly enthralled.

Still, with the lack of story depth, the film is entertaining, reliant primarily upon its visual effects. The action scenes look spectacular, even though some of them—including the climatic battle in the desert—are too frantic and, in the words of my father, “busy.” It’s easy to lose track of the characters, especially when many of the transformer robots bear such striking resemblance. However, there is truly one wonderful scene—perhaps the best of the summer—and that is the action scene in the forest about halfway through the film. Interestingly enough, it is the one scene where Michael Bay’s camera and editing are at their most deliberate and calm.

Say what you want about Michael Bay and his films, but the man has his own style, and that is a lot more than many directors can say. Yes, he specializes in cheesy, over-the-top action films, but it’s not generic action. It is Bay’s vision, no matter how ridiculous it may seem, and anybody that has a vision and can commit that vision to film should be applauded at least just a little bit.

It is worth mentioning, too, that Shia LaBeouf is another victim of unwarranted criticism. His acting in this film, while safe and typical, is not bad. Anybody that truly believes Mr. LaBeouf is a bad actor need only to watch A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints.

In conclusion, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen will probably be the highest-grossing movie of 2009’s summer movie season, and with its beautiful cast and stunning action, it’s easy to see why. However, it does lack a story, and, while such things can be expected or forgiven, one can only wonder how good a film it might really have been if it had been written just a bit better. If one can see the film, though, and truly suspend all disbelief and just be entertained, one should not be disappointed, for the film, with all of its flaws, is still a step above most other mindless Hollywood action flicks.

Just one step above, but a step, nonetheless.