1. Two from the Times: Karen Durbin's profile of Melissa Leo (my girl!) and Dave Kehr's latest DVD column. Related: Andrew O'Hehir interviews Courtney Hunt, director of Frozen River (which stars Melissa Leo).
["Her independence has deep roots. When she was 9, she and her mother moved from the Lower East Side to Putney, Vt., and eventually to London, where, at 15, she remained on her own to study acting for two years before coming back to get her high school equivalency diploma and enroll at Purchase College. “My mom was a ’70s mom,” she said of her mother’s willingness to let her stay in London. “She paved a road that no one had yet walked. To get the hippie out of certain characters is probably the most difficult thing for me. I was not a hippie by choice but by birth.” Ms. Leo, 47, has long lived in Ulster County, near Woodstock, N.Y., with her son by the actor John Heard, and now on her own. She’s a familiar presence at Woodstock’s indie-oriented film festival, and is part of the loose network of artists, performing and otherwise, who have gravitated there. She explains her résumé by saying, “I do the work that’s in front of me.”"]
2. "Let's Step Outside": Dennis Lim traces the evolution of the movie fight scene for Slate. (Hattip: Glenn Kenny)
["At one point in Michael Ondaatje's book of interviews with Walter Murch, the venerable film editor reflects on how effective cutting keeps audiences grounded as one shot, often imperceptibly, becomes another. The trick is to determine where the viewer's attention is trained in a particular shot and to cut to a shot that contains a focal point in the same area of the frame. But there is at least one major exception to this rule: the fight scene. "You actually want an element of disorientation—that's what makes it exciting," Murch says of his approach to splicing together a fight. "So you put the focus of interest somewhere else, jarringly, and you cut at unexpected moments. You make a tossed salad of it, you abuse the audience's attention." ... The fight scene as it usually turns up in today's action spectacles—smeared, destabilized, fixated on chaos at the expense of clarity and precision—reflects the changing syntax, the all-around acceleration, of movies in general and Hollywood blockbusters in particular. The current vogue for chopped-up fights also raises the question: Are these hyperedited brawls any more successful than their more straightforward predecessors?"]
3. The Self-Styled Siren on Fanny (1961).
["Fanny, in the end, made the Siren take a look at how much emphasis she places on direction. On that score, you have to flunk the movie. Logan guided three very good performances and one so-so one, but in other respects it's badly directed, end of story. But the Siren can't lie and say she disliked Fanny, when in fact she enjoyed it very much. The delicate theme of romance down the years, children as the thread that binds us together, the beautiful south of France, the intensely lovable characters and most of all Jack Cardiff created a movie that the Siren was powerless to resist completely, Logan or no Logan. It is out in a new widescreen DVD that supposedly looks quite good, so check it out and tell me whether you, too, had to throw your reservations off the pier."]
4. "How Big Is Your World? Good Rap Songs": By Brandon Soderberg for No Trivia.
["B.O.M.B 'Over Here'": This song's just no bullshit. Under three-minutes, these really tight drums, and justB.O.M.B--"Baltimore On My Back"--rapping straight-forward stuff that's spare and direct and descriptive and nothing more or less. There's a good mix of influences here as well. Like so many smart thugs, he owes a great deal to 'Pac, but there's some golden-age New York influence in his delivery and the beat--especially those Primo-ish drums--but it's aware and internalizes more recent rap trends. The all-keyboard aspect of the beat, the purposefully simple and immediate lyrics, and the filling it all-out with ad-libs, show a relatively traditionalist rapper that didn't turn the radio off in 1998."]
5. John Kenneth Muir delves deep into The X-Files: I Want To Believe.
["Belief isn't easy to come by these days. But - despite most reviews - I still believe in The X-Files. Perhaps the biggest problem with this new film (sub-titled I Want to Believe) arises not from the stars (or the production itself), but from ourselves, and -- specifically -- our expectations. Based on the savage reviews proliferating on the web and in print, audiences and critics apparently desired a Wrath of Khan, when what they actually get is...The Search for Spock. In other words, X-Files: I Want to Believe is a more intimate, cerebral adventure than it is a "big event" summer movie. There are virtually no optical special effects in this movie. I could detect no (or very little) CGI. There are few action sequences. There is little violence of any kind, actually (I don't believe a single gun is fired...). Mulder and Scully never even carry fire-arms, as far as I can detect. And there are no explosions whatsoever. All the fireworks, rather...are purely human; emotional. Accordingly, the climax is one that relies on the specific nuances of human interaction and relationships, not fights, chases, or gun-fire. The film's success hinges on such old--fashioned elements as atmosphere and mood. A wintry, oppressive location -- West Virginia -- is practically a supporting character here, and the build-up of real suspense is generated through effective use of solid film techniques such as cross-cutting. This is good work, beautifully photographed; it's merely out-of-step with the kind of movies being offered in our cineplexes today. Honestly, I Want to Believe's greatest failing has nothing to do with what it is; but rather what it is not; what people apparently "wanted" to believe about the form it would take."]
Quote of the Day: Samuel Butler
Image of the Day (click to enlarge): Agents of CHAOS!!!!! Everywhere I look... (Hattip: Jonathan Pacheco)
Clip of the Day: "You're a Bush! Act like one!": The trailer for Oliver Stone's W.
_____________________________________________________
"Links for the Day": Each morning, the House editors post a series of weblinks that we think will spark discussion. Comments encouraged. Suggestions for links are also welcome. Please send to keithuhlich@gmail.com.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Links for the Day (July 30th, 2008)
Labels:
Links for the Day
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I think that might be one of the most perfect trailers I've ever seen.
My expectations were actually low for W. But if Stone actually plays this as a comedy (as the trailer suggests), then I think he's taking the right approach.
I don't know why, but what really struck me was the final shot of Bush running.
The last time I saw running that serious I was watching Surviving the Game.
Geez, I'm grumpy today...
The piece on fight scenes left a lot out. It mentions The Duke in the title, but fails to include John Wayne's most famous fight scene from The Quiet Man. More disappointingly, it ignores any of the James Bond films (the train battle in From Russia With Love for instance), yet includes a Die Hard scene.
I know there's more than one way skin a cat, but these omissions were particularly glaring for me (well, if you want something done right...more later).
Re: W. The trailer was interesting, but I'm not exactly looking forward to it. A Bush movie now is probably still a few years too early. And I'm not sure about the comedic approach...could end up as a campy cross between Stone's Nixon and Mommy Dearest (both sucked).
BTW, Toby Jones looks as miscast as Karl Rove as Daniel Craig was as Perry Smith in Infamous.
I'll agree that Daniel Craig was miscast -- his looks aren't quite right for that part, methinks, a bit too romantic no matter how grizzled he is -- but I still think he should have been nominated for an Oscar for it, he was that damn good. Shoulda had two that year with Casino Royale.
In regards to Slate's fight scene piece, a film.com piece by Glenn Erickson published a week earlier, covered the same ground -- in fact, used the same exact opening examples (The Dark Knight & The Bourne Ultimatum) to lament about how fight scenes have (d)evolved. (And it included From Russia with Love, you'll be less grumpy to note, gccr ;)
The best part, though, is the tongue lashing that Chicago editor Martin Walsh gives in the comments (the fight scenes from The Bourne Ultimatum were compared unfavorably to the dance sequences from Chicago).
Hey Rob, RE: Daniel Craig, I agree that he's a great actor and his Bond was certainly worthy of more recognition.
The problem I had with him as Perry Smith was that SO much of what Smith was about was tied to his physicality.
So, while many 007 fanatics slammed Craig for being too short a Bond, I was whining that Craig was too tall to play Smith.
#1: Seems like Leo has finally made the character actor leap from "Hey, it's what's-her-name, she's always good" to cult treasure.
#5: Sincere question: Are the comments to Muir's review, with their exceeding gratitude for his having "gotten it" commingled with sneering dismissals of critics and dumbed-down mainstream audiences, anything more than the flipside of the colony of bat fans that descended upon Keith's Dark Knight review? Or is greater latitude allowed for their opinion being in the minority?
And please alert us when your longer review is up, Keith. Because my enjoyment of Carter's B-movie-blunt philosophical debates was almost tossed aside over the weird reveal that (if I followed this) the gay guy was putting his lover's head on women's bodies, and I'm looking forward to a smart admirer actually wrestle with this aspect of the film.
And W. looks better the more I see. (Checking imdb to get the title right--period or no?--I see that Oliver Stone's first producer credit was as Oliver W. Stone. Let me be the first to say, hmmmm.)
Fight scene lists are a staple of film blogging, along with literary adaptations, christmas films, sex scenes, etc. Hell, I did one at the House a while ago:
5 for the Day: Fight Scenes
It's fun to compare the different approaches as well as notice which titles keep popping up -- it's sort of incidental canon-building.
Hey Bruce-
I will alert you and other readers when the review is live. Having seen the film a few times, I think the logical reason for the transplant onto women's bodies is that it's suggested (I think by Mulder after discovering body parts in the ice) that these experiments have been going on for years and that men's bodies have been tested previously. So my impression is they've determined women's bodies are the best to use for their purposes.
Beyond that, I think it works thematically as an attempt to transgress/transcend flesh (of a piece with the Catholic iconography and, in particular for me, the final close-up of Scully, which achieves that very thing through camerawork and performance).
Keith:
A day late and dollar short, but thanks for the brief explanation; I look forward to the longer piece.
Agreed about the final close-up. Anderson's remarkable as ever here, and those dismissing the film are, at a minimum, tossing out one of the great performances of the year with the bathwater.
In hindsight, I should have placed a spoiler warning in my previous post, and apologize if anyone was put out by my question.
I realized after posting that a possible misreading should be clarified. "Day late and a dollar short" referred to my own thank you, not Keith's X-Files explanation.
I've not been firing all cylinders of late, obviously.
Re #1:
I thought that Melissa Leo left H:LOTS because she was tired of her screentime declining to the point where Kay had little or nothing to do. But the NYT piece implies she was fired in favour of Callie Thorne and Michael Michele.
Anyone know what actually happened?
Post a Comment