A Serious Man (2009)

The expectation: This is a Coen Brothers film. A scholar just published a book dissecting their films called "The Coen-verse". And these films are like that- they have their own style, their own pace, and yet still manage to be unique within the Coen formula. They are strange, often without traditional narrative coherence, but still funny and lighthearted. They capture your attention without knowing why, and they take a few days, a discussion with others (and maybe a few screenings) to fully and adequately digest. I expected the same out of this film as can be found in the brilliance of No Country for Old Men and Burn After Reading. In the Coen-verse, the only order that can be found is the one we make for ourselves- filled with the ridiculous and the sublime, rife with misunderstanding, and capitalized on by bad choices fr ought with good intentions. It is in the "bad deeds of good men" that we are led as humans. And that has its own consequences.

The result: Larry Gopnik is a physicist who lives in Minnesota with his wife and two children. He is up for tenure, his wife has left him, he has been offered a bribe by a student, and his son is preparing for his bar mitzvah. With the suburbs as a fittingly bland background, the film is shot to capture the mundane and it succeeds in its quiet nature, allowing no room for successful answers to the larger issues at stake in life- the issues that Larry faces. This film, more than any of the others, uses as its base the overwhelming significance of religion in creating meaning for the individual- here, Judaism specifically. Gopnik faces obstacles, not with courage and fortitude, not with despair and apathy, but with a measured casualness that points to his reliance on his religious beliefs, his historical and religious upbringing, and his understanding of and adherence to society's rules. Through this, he accepts- no matter the pain or wrongdoing. His frustration is great comic fodder- especially wrapped in the bland hauntingly quietness of the film. He grapples with his failure, after full compliance in the religious and social systems of our day- and does, finally get an answer that is both unfair and cruel. And ultimately, the larger life decisions he makes are not as important as the smaller ones he misunderstands. And yet, there is still no rational, tangible formula to learn from. We are all adrift with a set of rules we must contend with only after they have chosen vengeance and made themselves apparent- no matter how serious of a man we might be. Absolutely brilliant- I have to go watch it again.

What to look out for:
The presentation of the suburbs- colors, pace, sets, music.
The quiet of the film- and its affects on your neighbors. Look around during the film and watch everyone in their own uncomfortableness.
The props in the Rabbi's office- they foreshadow, they comment, and they inform.
Jefferson Airplane?

Flickr photo by futureatlas.com

An Education (2009)

The expectation: I really wanted this one to be great; it is my kind of film- independent, dramatic, tragic, and nicely shot and styled. I knew the story- a teenage girl in the 60's in suburban London gets swept away by a man twice her age through an attraction to culture. Nick Hornby wrote the screenplay so the story had a chance, and I had heard great, great things about Carey Mulligan in the lead, Jenny. With Peter Sarsgaard as the lead man, David, I was hopeful that the film could pull off this 'unconventional' story well- and not just create a creepy couple that has no hope at all. These things do happen sometimes...

The result: The movie is beautiful and it is easy to get caught up in the freedom that the characters afford. It is one of the charms of the film- that we can understand Jenny's attraction to the life that David shows her and most of this is Carey's work as an actress who allows the film to grow and flourish without dragging into into insecurity and tactlessness. She is absolutely brilliant and- as a fan of Sargaard- I do hate to say this- but she is the only brilliant one really and the movie not only is carried by her but ultimately fails her performance. But we cannot always blame the actors- it is the story itself that falls short for me. I hoped-as most people did at first hearing about this story and seeing the trailer- that it would not become the story that is so very cliche. Just because it was set in the 1960's, it does not justify the ending that is in store for this couple. I wanted to scream in the theater. No surprises here- and this film deserves better than to just drown in cliche. I know that it was based on a memoir but shame on you Nick Hornby- why make this film at all if you cannot create something original- something that will not just disappoint your viewers by creating a film they know the end to before even buying a ticket.

What to watch out for:
Carey Mulligan all the way.
Oh.. and those cars- I do love period flicks.

Flickr photo by austinevan

Whip It (2009)

The expectation: Drew Barrymore's feature debut means that this film can go either way really. I think that she makes rather smart choices in the roles she plays and she is a good actress who can move between different genres. Her sense of comedy is usually very smart and with Ellen Page as her title star, this film should be funny. But, of course, the world does not always work that way and being a director requires a different set of tools than being an actress or even a producer. So, of course, this film could go either way really and I am very intrigued as to how it all plays out.

The result: Drew Barrymore is not a terrible director- but not a great one either. The film is a good start for her. The story is not bad, with just a little bit of sympathy, comedy, and moral fortitude to make up a good Hollywood story that will appeal to the masses. Mix in a bit of retro and a list of top women actresses and there is something quite fun about this film's punkness. But alas, it is not brilliant and it does move through too many cliches to actually have sustainability in cult circles- a motive too apparent in content, music, and style. It is very fun and their are a some moments where editing and flow are abruptly and apparently aware of its own seams- a major problem for the movie watching crowd. Fun for now, but what it really makes me want to do is get drunk and attend a few roller girls games. With this film's soundtrack in the background- that would really be a fun night to remember!

What to look out for:
Juliette Lewis- skinny but so very hot.
That soundtrack....

Flickr photo by tristanbrand

Dracula (1992)

The Expectation: Francis Ford Coppola, Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Dracula. Great director, actors, and story line. I was so excited once we started to watch it that I also got a little mad at myself for not having known that this film existed before this day.

The Result: So I know that my expectations were very high but I must confess that this film lived up to them! A part of that is that I have my own idea of a reasonable set of expectations for the mystical adventurous spirit that vampire flics somehow fit into in my mind. I can't handle horror but I can somehow revel in the vampire attach- blood everywhere, fangs in your face- you know what I am talking about. But I also have to appreciate Coppola- the man did make those wonderful Godfather films, etc. and he has a very smart directing style. For me, it is the lighting. The cinematography in this film is absolutely brilliant (yes, pun intended) and Coppola gives the story, which could have been overdone and cliche, a hauntingly creative spin of his own that makes its horror unique in a way that seems quite impossible. The colors are beautiful and the costumes are fabulous. Coppola stays rather true to the story and that is really what truly matters sometimes. And believe it or not, Keanu Reeve's terribly stone cold acting style (which I will never understand) does not taint the film too badly.
You can watch the film for free on Hulu right now!

What to watch out for:
The love between Dracula and Mina- it is believable in a way that makes you believe in this tale and of course, Dracula's power himself.
Anthony Hopkins as Professor Van Helsing- he gives the film a lightness it could not live without.
Those beautiful colors, fast moving camera shots (as if you were the wind), and the use of shadows.

Flickr photo by Hamed Saber.

Adventureland (2009)

The expectation: Looking for a Sunday evening movie, we came across this one. I was hoping it would be calm and interesting; David, my boyfriend, was looking for something funny. Alas, I had heard, months ago, that this film was not just relegated to stupid teenage humor but that it had some very smart parts. I did not even know yet that it was the creation of Greg Mottola, who has worked with Judd Apatow- comedies I can really enjoy because they are stupid humor done smartly.

The result: It took me almost 15 minutes to realize that this film was set in the 80's. At first I just thought that the setting of an old-school amusement park bordering on carnivalesque and filled with tawdry entertainment was just highly reminiscent of the 80's. And then I realized that this in itself made the film great. The film did not resort to the crazy caricatures that we so often think of as the 80's (especially in film) and it did not inundate itself with 80's cliches. It was simply a story of post-college angst that happened to be set in the 80's. Because of this, the 80's references themselves provided much of the humor, while still allowing the film to retain a wholesome and often heartwarming story. And the amusement park atmosphere is a perfect setting for the seemingly mundane and apathetic atmosphere surrounding the film's narrative- where the protagonist is lost in that moment of post-grad wanderings. The supporting characters are incredibly rich and they lend themselves to the same environment where growth is impossible and leads to an interesting form of self-degradation. And even though the movie falls into a traditional narrative closure, overall it was a perfect smart comedy for a lazy Sunday afternoon.

What to look out for:
Interesting settings for specific scenes where characters find themselves hanging out in bumber car graveyards and behind game booths.
The music- I need to get the whole soundtrack.

Flickr photo by ktylerconk

Visioneers (2008)

The expectation: This film was a recommendation by a creative and brilliant friend of mine whose context of the world is perpetually informed by his revolutionary perspective of ideology. His ability to question our established cultural conventions without becoming cynical is commendable- especially to someone like me who cannot seem to figure out how to wade this tension. I just get cynical. So, a black comedy recommendation- I am excited.

The result: A dream film for the modern hipster who revels in antagonizing our corporate structure, Visioneers stars Zack Galifianakis (The Hangover)as George Washington Winsterhammerman and Judy Greer as his wife Michelle. George works for a large company whose main goal is to instill productivity in its workforce so as to combat the creative thought that ultimately leads to depression, anxiety, and spontaneous combustion in the human population- a widespread epidemic with no cure. Think the power of big brother in 1984, mix it with the hypnotic lethargy of Fahrenheit 451, and set it in our contemporary TV watching, consumption driven, imperialistic culture. Zack, although a popular comedian, plays an excellent zombie drone whose body language is a great reflection of my reaction to most people, and the film has a corresponding despondent and melancholic tone that propels it forward. While this tone creates a very drawn out and overly dreary film, the message is heightened through the boring saga- and the random outbursts by the character are sharper through this contrast. Some of the more memorable scenes comically highlight ridiculous procedures, props, and rituals that are pushed onto the characters so as to dampen free thought and ultimately hinder 'human explosions'. Spontaneous combustion is feared at all costs, giving the characters an reason to do anything necessary to remain devoid of emotion, independence, and individuality. Stress is personified as literal spontaneous explosion. In an interesting twist, one which the film does not really explicitly tackle, is the fact that it is this life within the corporate workforce that creates enough stress to allow for an 'explosion epidemic'. George's life is juxtaposed by a brief encounter with the 'hippie culture' of anti-establishment, living apart from the corporate workplace. Here we see that the epidemic can only be cured by a complete re-envisioning of daily life, not in preventative measures within it. This film is a gem by first time director Jared Drake, written by his brother Brandon Drake, and although the filming is not always stellar and creatively positioned, the blandness of the film's tone is perfectly reflective of the consequences of widespread cultural pacifism. Although the film isn't overtly funny, it is a perfect warning for our times.

What to look out for:
Colors- all blues and grays. Wonderful cinematography.
Great acting by Zack and Judy- with a colorful interjection by James LeGros who plays George's brother Julieen.
The concept of a son in this world- what are the consequences to children?
The opening scene- creatively and sardonically narrated!
Last song by Tim Delaughter of the Polyphonic Spree- the only place you can find it. Singer-songwriting works well with lethargy....

Flickr photo by StarvingFox

Pride and Prejudice (2005)

The expectation: I thought that we would do a hat trick of romantic flicks today since I rewatched this film yesterday. I will start with this- I am a Jane Austen fan. She may be dry to read at times in our contemporary context, she may describe every single detail in a room entered by a character, and her writing may come off as inundated with feminine perspective, but I think that her tales, once examined, are scathingly hysterical for gender studies. But of course, that takes tremendous focus. I try to remember the context of the times in which she was writing and that makes it all a bit more accessible for me (and the people I know). But, alas, not everyone likes Austen and that I have come to accept. What I cannot understand is the recent insertion of Jane Austen into contemporary pop culture narratives. I think that these new 'revisionist' takes on Austen- tales of how she is interpreted- make her accessible at a cost. She is no longer appreciated for her work, but stygmatized for her romantic themes, her costumed characters, her description of china, etc. So, taking all of this into account, I was not sure what to expect from this film. On the one hand, I love her writing, even if it is a bit stretched, and thus, I love the 1995 British version told in 6 hours. But, it is 6 hours and not a lot of people want to watch that. So, the tension is now between authenticity and accessibility.

The result:
The pace of this film is exactly what it should be. It moves slowly, as Austen's world would have, and it tells all that you need to know while focusing on the environment- rural countrysides, decorated mansions, domestic spaces, and country entertainments. Keira Knightly as Elizabeth Bennet is breathtaking, and Matthew Mcfayden, although he sometimes seems a little bored, plays a fitting Mr. Darcy. The true gem of this film is the filmmaking itself. Director Joe Wright wields a camera as if he were a true artist, framing shots that take advantage of every corner and of natural light and settings. He orchestrates the most beautiful long shots that I have seen- and they fully capture Austen's gendered confinement to domestic spaces. All of the supporting characters are just as they should be- settling into their roles. Overall, the film does justice to Austen, retaining its core while stripping the story down into a format that we can all enjoy in our modern context. For some reason, I feel that it is a more healthy and productive fantasy- to be wooed by a story that we cannot be a part of- from a time period that we cannot have back. Does this give us a healthy outlet for our romantic projections? I like to think so.

What to look out for:
Those beautiful long shots- Joe Wright is a genius- they take a lot of work to set up and film correctly.
Although the costumes are not really what they should be according to the time period's fashions, they are beautiful. Pay attention to the colors.
Austen's subtle wittiness. You have to really focus but her dialogue can be incredibly hilarious.

Flickr photo by Ben Sutherland