Posts
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.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Thursday, October 01, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
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."
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, August 01, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
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.
Monday, July 20, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
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 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.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)