movies: Cloud Atlas is the new movie made by the Wachowskis, creators of the Matrix trilogy. It is a very bold story, much like The Matrix (I swear I will only mention those one more time at most.). It tells a story of life's connectivity, spanning untold centuries and six different stories. The story follows actors more than it does characters.
Cloud Atlas is six stories beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century on a ship, that begin(chronologically) out on the seas for slave trade or something to do with Darwin - it is at times hard to tell, and end in some unknown future (106 years after the fall). It also dabbles in times in between. The life on the the ship in 1849 is those of aristocrats invaded by a man posing as a doctor and a slave freed by the son of the family who runs the ship. The next is the story taking place near the turn of the century about a young man who goes to study with a composer in his later years who used to be considered one of the worlds greats looking to create the greatest song every composed. The next is in England in the middle of the century about a man who is a publisher who was committed to a home, by his brother unbeknownst to him, plotting his escape. Then we follow a woman in the 1970s uncovering corporate espionage. The final two are the most closely related in plot. Those are the story of Neo Seoul in 2144. A world where people are manufactured for work and unceremonially disposed of(killed when they are no longer useful), while a revolution is building against this ploy of the government. The other is the story after the fall where they people now live as savages and pray to the woman who was the focal point of that attempted overthrow in Neo Seoul, which leads us to believe that these two times are not too far apart although they could be.
With all of these stories going on at once, Cloud Atlas starts as something of a mess. The inter-cutting of stories and timelines is just confusing and poorly put together. It may have been necessary though. The book upon which it is based, by David Mitchell, it told one story at a time. This would have been almost impossible to convey as a narrative on film considering the scope of the story and the abstract message it looks to convey. Once the viewer gets oriented to each story, the film seems to find its way. Each particular story begins to flow better within itself as you see the pieces of each fall into place. The greater concept of the story also becomes visible as well. That concept is that life is always connected. Whether it be in terms of the life we are living in the moment and the way we connect to what is going on around us or that as time passes and life and death comes and goes those connections carry through time from one life into the next. That someone else will find in the connections in their lives that we have found in our own. And that those connections are always human. For it is certainly not the plots that bind this film together but the characters that throughout time find themselves and each other and are willing because of their interactions to be compelled to fight for what they believe in, whether it is survival from sickness on a shipping vessel or the composition of the greatest song ever written or the uncovering of corruption or freedom from captivity or the discovery of love and purpose or just the ability to keep on living when all hope seems lost.
The thing, as I stated before, that holds this movie together is the actors. What the actors bring to this movie is both remarkable and unique. Most of the actors in this movie are forced to play as many as six roles. In doing so we see stars such as Tom Hanks and Halle Berry, as well as somewhat less known actors like Jim Sturgess (most known Across The Universe and 21) and Jim Broadbent (most known for playing Horace Slughorn in the Harry Potter movies) and Keith David (who has been in just about everything ever made, seriously look it up) show off the maximum amount of range in one movie by literally changing character from scene to scene. The change in their emotions, from hero to villain in accent, and most noticeably in makeup are just astounding. Without a cast of actors capable of doing so, the movie would have never worked. I couldn't help but also notice that these actors were, despite their ability to adapt, still noticeably themselves. That quality was also essential to the movie. Tom Hanks has never been doubted as a great actor, but if he were not recognizable as himself from scene to scene as himself then continuity and message of the movie would have been lost.
In the end I found the movie hard to put my finger on. The acting was impressive while the actors themselves were at times distracting. The movie was visually compelling while the structure of it was at times a total mess. I guess if I had to put my finger on it I would call Cloud Atlas so ambitious that it was impossible to get totally right. The message of life carrying on beyond mortality was very eloquently presented, but like in the Matrix (see I told you only one more time) did not at all emotionally resonate. And while the movie was character driven, the message overpowered the relationships that could have provided that emotion. I think if I had to lodge my biggest complaint it was that, when presented with six fully developed worlds with full developed characters, I found myself wanting two hour movies centered around a few individual settings rather than the hodgepodge that was presented to us. A messy movie no doubt, but certainly with enough to keep me happy. Now I just want those three individual movies instead of the Cloud Atlas sextet.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
the world series
sports: The World Series begins tonight between the San Fransisco Giants and the Detroit Tigers. It looks to be a classic battle between two teams, one filled with star power, and power - the Tigers' Justin Verlander, Miguel Cabrera, and Prince Fielder, and one being a host of players willing to step up in big moments thanks to depth and consistency. What this series is also about is resiliency This is something I have talked about throughout the postseason. With underdog teams like the Athletics and Orioles, who spent their seasons constantly battling back from the brink of many defeats to get into the playoffs, and the Cardinals, after their run in last years playoffs (the multiple World Series game six comebacks) and the divisional series this year(being down 6-0 early and coming back to win 9-7 down 7-5 in the ninth inning of that game), being considered the best clutch team in baseball, capable of overcoming any deficit, this is a series between what may have been the two most resilient teams of the year.
The Tigers may have never been too far behind the White Sox, but were clearly the second best team in their division for most of the season. But they managed to get hot and win most of their games down the stretch (7-3 in the final ten games) while their division rivals, the White Sox couldn't do the same (going 4-8 in that same calendar time).
The Giants resiliency has been found during the playoffs. There is't much to say. They are 6-0 in elimination games, most recently outscoring the Cardinals (supposedly the best clutch team in baseball) 20-1 in the three elimination games of their season.
This series presents a very interesting match-up. Much like the Giants last series against the Cardinals, it is a series between the Giants, a team with remarkable depth both in their lineup (but no true stars or go-to power hitters) and in their pitching staff (this may be the best group of pitchers in baseball at holding a lead), against a team with great power in the middle of their lineup and a great ace heading their otherwise decent staff (I know the Tigers starters posted a sub-1.00 era against the Yankees, but the way those two teams looked during that series, you have to put as much of the on the Yankees hitters as the Tigers pitchers). The difference in this series is that the Tigers are like a bigger and badder version of the Cardinals. Instead of Holliday and Friese, you have Fielder and Cabrera. Instead of Kyle Losche, you have the best pitcher in baseball, Justin Verlander. The keys for the Giants will be to keep the Tigers role players off the bases and not allow to the brutal middle of the Detroit lineup to drive them in. The key for the Tigers will be to keep the Giants from spraying the ball around the field and building early leads that their fantastic bullpen are adept at holding.
The other key, and arguably the biggest of this series, is how the pitching rotations are set up. With a sweep and four days of rest the Tigers have Verlander ready to go for games one and five, while in game one the Giants will be sending out Berry Zito. Zito has rebounded in recent years to be a solid starter, maintaining that huge looping curve ball that is tough on hitters, but he still is not the ace he used to be, and facing the best ace in baseball could put the Giants behind the eight ball early. Verlander will also be available for game five. And knowing the Giants' propensity in these playoffs to dig a hole, if they get down 3-1, there maybe no coming back having to face him even once in an elimination game. On the other hand, with the pitching rotations being off set by the League Championship Series, in the other games the Giants with being running their best pitchers, Ryan Vogelsong (1.42 era through three post season games) and Matt Cain (the Giants' undisputed ace and star of a shutout performance from the pitching staff in game 7 against the Cardinals.), against the bottom of the Tigers rotation. And if the series would go long they would both be available for starts later in the series against the non-Verlander part of the Tigers rotation The only detraction to this will be that those games, three and four, will be in Detroit and Vogelsong and Cain have actually hit well during their plate appearances in the playoffs, knocking in crucial runs in all of their outings.
All in all it should be a great series. If I were going to Vegas I sure wouldn't want to have to pick a winner. My heart says its got to be the never say die Giants and all the fun that they showed two years ago when they won. My head is saying that Verlander and Cabrera just too tough. I honestly don't think I know who's going to win this one (Not that predictions have been great this post season). But I'll at least say this, if it is short series (five or less) the Tigers will take it. If it goes long (six or seven and the San Fransisco withstanding two Verlander outings) the Giants will win. It should be fun either way.
The Tigers may have never been too far behind the White Sox, but were clearly the second best team in their division for most of the season. But they managed to get hot and win most of their games down the stretch (7-3 in the final ten games) while their division rivals, the White Sox couldn't do the same (going 4-8 in that same calendar time).
The Giants resiliency has been found during the playoffs. There is't much to say. They are 6-0 in elimination games, most recently outscoring the Cardinals (supposedly the best clutch team in baseball) 20-1 in the three elimination games of their season.
This series presents a very interesting match-up. Much like the Giants last series against the Cardinals, it is a series between the Giants, a team with remarkable depth both in their lineup (but no true stars or go-to power hitters) and in their pitching staff (this may be the best group of pitchers in baseball at holding a lead), against a team with great power in the middle of their lineup and a great ace heading their otherwise decent staff (I know the Tigers starters posted a sub-1.00 era against the Yankees, but the way those two teams looked during that series, you have to put as much of the on the Yankees hitters as the Tigers pitchers). The difference in this series is that the Tigers are like a bigger and badder version of the Cardinals. Instead of Holliday and Friese, you have Fielder and Cabrera. Instead of Kyle Losche, you have the best pitcher in baseball, Justin Verlander. The keys for the Giants will be to keep the Tigers role players off the bases and not allow to the brutal middle of the Detroit lineup to drive them in. The key for the Tigers will be to keep the Giants from spraying the ball around the field and building early leads that their fantastic bullpen are adept at holding.
The other key, and arguably the biggest of this series, is how the pitching rotations are set up. With a sweep and four days of rest the Tigers have Verlander ready to go for games one and five, while in game one the Giants will be sending out Berry Zito. Zito has rebounded in recent years to be a solid starter, maintaining that huge looping curve ball that is tough on hitters, but he still is not the ace he used to be, and facing the best ace in baseball could put the Giants behind the eight ball early. Verlander will also be available for game five. And knowing the Giants' propensity in these playoffs to dig a hole, if they get down 3-1, there maybe no coming back having to face him even once in an elimination game. On the other hand, with the pitching rotations being off set by the League Championship Series, in the other games the Giants with being running their best pitchers, Ryan Vogelsong (1.42 era through three post season games) and Matt Cain (the Giants' undisputed ace and star of a shutout performance from the pitching staff in game 7 against the Cardinals.), against the bottom of the Tigers rotation. And if the series would go long they would both be available for starts later in the series against the non-Verlander part of the Tigers rotation The only detraction to this will be that those games, three and four, will be in Detroit and Vogelsong and Cain have actually hit well during their plate appearances in the playoffs, knocking in crucial runs in all of their outings.
All in all it should be a great series. If I were going to Vegas I sure wouldn't want to have to pick a winner. My heart says its got to be the never say die Giants and all the fun that they showed two years ago when they won. My head is saying that Verlander and Cabrera just too tough. I honestly don't think I know who's going to win this one (Not that predictions have been great this post season). But I'll at least say this, if it is short series (five or less) the Tigers will take it. If it goes long (six or seven and the San Fransisco withstanding two Verlander outings) the Giants will win. It should be fun either way.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
nationals, redskins, injuries, and one crazy weekend
sports: I started contemplating this article around this time last week. I decided to hold off on it until the weekend in pro sports played itself out, and I couldn't be more glad that I did. Last weekend saw one cities sports hopes fall and the rise in such an intense way centered around two different teams in two different sports. That city was Washington D.C. Never have I seen such drama centered around teams from different sports in one city that were seemingly so greatly impacted by the young centerpieces of those teams and the injuries they have suffered. Also seeing them handled by their respective organizations in such diametrically opposed results that were equally puzzling was fascinating.
On Friday night the Nationals played game five of the divisional series at home. After jumping out to a 6-0 lead early, that lead slowly faded. Then, down 7-5 in the ninth inning, the Cardinals made that lead disappear and ended up winning the game 9-7. It was a remarkable comeback by St. Louis. But the questions after the game surround the Nationals. They surround their benched ace Stephen Strasburg. It has been well documented now that the Nationals shelved their ace in early September after giving him an innings limit for the year to keep his arm healthy coming off of Tommy John surgery. They did this in order to ensure that Strasburg would be able to be their ace well into the future on the kind of quality team that Washington had this year. It was said best in a podcast on the Grantland Network that baseball is "iterate". Everything is cause and effect. This is not to say that the Nationals lost because they benched Strasburg, but to say that you can draw a cause and effect line from that decision to the end of their season. The decision is made back in April to put this innings count the young ace. He pitches healthily and brilliantly through the first nine months of the season leading the Nats to the best record in baseball only to be shelved. The team then has to reorder their starting rotation. Gio Gonzalez, who is one on of the leading Cy Young candidates in the National League is now moved up to the pressured filled scenario of being an ace instead of his cozy lived in home as the best number two starter in baseball. That pressure is put to the ultimate test in the playoffs where he loses the first game of the series and is off the hook for the second loss as he allowed the team to begin to squander their huge lead to a Cardinals team that has been as resilient as any in all of sports over the past two years(especially in the playoffs; ie: the 2011 World Series game six). One can argue over the wisdom of benching Strasburg to preserve him for the future, but two things are certain. One is that the Nationals organization did exactly what people thought they had done, which was to hurt their legitimate opportunity for greatness in the present for an opportunity at greatness in a very uncertain future where they hope to return to this moment many times with Strasburg as their ace - world championships are too hard to project. The other thing we know is that they mismanaged Strasburg. Research done for Baseball Prospectus has shown that innings counts have little effect on pitchers. What they need limited are pitch counts. Detrimental injuries to starting pitchers have greatly reduced over the past ten years as opposed to the previous ten due to pitch counts being implemented as a standard of managing. Typically, starting pitchers want to average no more than 110 pitches per game based on the research available. According to baseball-reference.com, Strasburg only threw more than 110 pitches in a game once. In that game he threw 112 . Limiting him was certainly the right idea, but based on the information available, the Nationals organization chose to limit him based on the wrong parameters
The other D.C. team in the headlines this weekend was the Redskins. After coming off of a loss in which Robert Griffin III was concussed against the Atlanta Falcons, the Skins were now facing the Minnesota Twins, who much to most peoples surprise seem to be much better than was thought. Despite the NFL's emphasis on head injuries and the unbelievably huge investment Dan Snyder, the owner of the Redskins made in Griffin (which you can read my feelings about here: http://robpoppost.blogspot.com/2012/03/rgiii-and-skins.html), he was allowed to play without a single weeks rest. Griffin played brilliantly He passed for over 300 years. He had an eighty yard touchdown run that is being called the best play for the Redskins in the past twenty years. He never took more than a minor hit, let alone anyone coming near his head. And he won. Thanks to Griffin, by the end of the weekend, the city of Washington D.C. and its sports fans went from sorrow to elation. And in the process no one questioned the reckless nature of this team that won. Dan Snyder put this young man out there with no time off after being concussed and asked him to win a week six game in early October in his rookie season. He did this with seemingly no consideration for the player of which this was asked or of the franchise he was asking him to do this for. After giving up five draft picks in the first two rounds of upcoming drafts plus the swap of this past drafts first round picks with the Rams, giving his team a hard road to build around Griffin, he then asked this coveted player to go out and play in a game that won't be remembered with a head injury that is currently costing the NFL millions in lawsuits.
I don't think could have imagined a more unique weekend for a city in sports; where a cities sporting opportunities seemed to revolve around the injuries of young star players and the decisions on how to handle them by their owners. The amazing thing is how they were handled and their results. The Nationals erred on the side of caution, though in a misguided way, and were rewarded with heartbreaking loss. The Redskins, on the other hand, acted in a cavalier, if not reckless manor, and were rewarded with a win and performance from their young star that brought the downtrodden hearts of that baseball loss back to joy and hope for their cities sports.
One can only wonder how these decisions will effect the long term plans of these franchises. The Nationals are young enough and good enough to do good on the promise of having someone as great as Strasburg as their ace for years to come. The Redskins could continue to see Griffin break tackles for blazing touchdown runs and throw from the pocket with laser accuracy. But if both teams continue to act in the manner they have, we just may never see that moment.
On Friday night the Nationals played game five of the divisional series at home. After jumping out to a 6-0 lead early, that lead slowly faded. Then, down 7-5 in the ninth inning, the Cardinals made that lead disappear and ended up winning the game 9-7. It was a remarkable comeback by St. Louis. But the questions after the game surround the Nationals. They surround their benched ace Stephen Strasburg. It has been well documented now that the Nationals shelved their ace in early September after giving him an innings limit for the year to keep his arm healthy coming off of Tommy John surgery. They did this in order to ensure that Strasburg would be able to be their ace well into the future on the kind of quality team that Washington had this year. It was said best in a podcast on the Grantland Network that baseball is "iterate". Everything is cause and effect. This is not to say that the Nationals lost because they benched Strasburg, but to say that you can draw a cause and effect line from that decision to the end of their season. The decision is made back in April to put this innings count the young ace. He pitches healthily and brilliantly through the first nine months of the season leading the Nats to the best record in baseball only to be shelved. The team then has to reorder their starting rotation. Gio Gonzalez, who is one on of the leading Cy Young candidates in the National League is now moved up to the pressured filled scenario of being an ace instead of his cozy lived in home as the best number two starter in baseball. That pressure is put to the ultimate test in the playoffs where he loses the first game of the series and is off the hook for the second loss as he allowed the team to begin to squander their huge lead to a Cardinals team that has been as resilient as any in all of sports over the past two years(especially in the playoffs; ie: the 2011 World Series game six). One can argue over the wisdom of benching Strasburg to preserve him for the future, but two things are certain. One is that the Nationals organization did exactly what people thought they had done, which was to hurt their legitimate opportunity for greatness in the present for an opportunity at greatness in a very uncertain future where they hope to return to this moment many times with Strasburg as their ace - world championships are too hard to project. The other thing we know is that they mismanaged Strasburg. Research done for Baseball Prospectus has shown that innings counts have little effect on pitchers. What they need limited are pitch counts. Detrimental injuries to starting pitchers have greatly reduced over the past ten years as opposed to the previous ten due to pitch counts being implemented as a standard of managing. Typically, starting pitchers want to average no more than 110 pitches per game based on the research available. According to baseball-reference.com, Strasburg only threw more than 110 pitches in a game once. In that game he threw 112 . Limiting him was certainly the right idea, but based on the information available, the Nationals organization chose to limit him based on the wrong parameters
The other D.C. team in the headlines this weekend was the Redskins. After coming off of a loss in which Robert Griffin III was concussed against the Atlanta Falcons, the Skins were now facing the Minnesota Twins, who much to most peoples surprise seem to be much better than was thought. Despite the NFL's emphasis on head injuries and the unbelievably huge investment Dan Snyder, the owner of the Redskins made in Griffin (which you can read my feelings about here: http://robpoppost.blogspot.com/2012/03/rgiii-and-skins.html), he was allowed to play without a single weeks rest. Griffin played brilliantly He passed for over 300 years. He had an eighty yard touchdown run that is being called the best play for the Redskins in the past twenty years. He never took more than a minor hit, let alone anyone coming near his head. And he won. Thanks to Griffin, by the end of the weekend, the city of Washington D.C. and its sports fans went from sorrow to elation. And in the process no one questioned the reckless nature of this team that won. Dan Snyder put this young man out there with no time off after being concussed and asked him to win a week six game in early October in his rookie season. He did this with seemingly no consideration for the player of which this was asked or of the franchise he was asking him to do this for. After giving up five draft picks in the first two rounds of upcoming drafts plus the swap of this past drafts first round picks with the Rams, giving his team a hard road to build around Griffin, he then asked this coveted player to go out and play in a game that won't be remembered with a head injury that is currently costing the NFL millions in lawsuits.
I don't think could have imagined a more unique weekend for a city in sports; where a cities sporting opportunities seemed to revolve around the injuries of young star players and the decisions on how to handle them by their owners. The amazing thing is how they were handled and their results. The Nationals erred on the side of caution, though in a misguided way, and were rewarded with heartbreaking loss. The Redskins, on the other hand, acted in a cavalier, if not reckless manor, and were rewarded with a win and performance from their young star that brought the downtrodden hearts of that baseball loss back to joy and hope for their cities sports.
One can only wonder how these decisions will effect the long term plans of these franchises. The Nationals are young enough and good enough to do good on the promise of having someone as great as Strasburg as their ace for years to come. The Redskins could continue to see Griffin break tackles for blazing touchdown runs and throw from the pocket with laser accuracy. But if both teams continue to act in the manner they have, we just may never see that moment.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
perks of being a wallflower
movies: The Perks Of Being A Wallflower is a movie based on the book by Stephen Chbosky. It is the story of high school freshman named Charlie trying to find his way in high school where he doesn't exactly fit. It begins with Charlie, played by Logan Lerman, entering high school for the first time while he narrates to the viewer how many days are left; days he is clearly not looking forward to. From that point the movie becomes the coming of age story of what we find out is very troubled young man.
As Charlie meanders his way through the first few days of school in loneliness and quiet, we find out that despite the fact that he sits all alone in the lunch room and that he refuses to show his intelligence by answering obscure questions in his English class for extra credit, he appears to be more than just a loner. He possesses a drive and intelligence that makes good on his being alone as he reads his Lit assignments and even endears himself to his teach who pushes him by lending him books to read and write about in what is surely an extra credit arrangement but is presented as pure enjoyment for Charlie.
Then Charlie meets his new friends, stepbrother and sister Patrick and Sam. They view themselves as outcasts, this being a sentiment that Charlie can understand. As upperclassmen they take Charlie under their wings and introduce him to the world of high school outcast and show him a world in which he might belong. And that story of finding oneself is what the movie is about.
Through the course of Charlie's story we find out that he is not just a quiet young man not doing good on his potential, but someone possessing a truly damaging past. His past being one in which his aunt, who he was very close with died in a car accident that Charlie is carrying around a sense of respsonsiblity for that is so damaging he is prone to act out if not in a controlled situation. As Charlie loses himself in the Patrick and Sam's world he finds himself more and more out of control and finding it harder to control his uncontrollable emotions.
The story at its core is this coming of age of Charlie as he learns to manage his troubled past, but the story at its strongest is the moments between Sam, Charlie, and Patrick. Charlie and Patrick develop a wonderful friendship that is heartfelt and genuine as the two ebb and flow in and out of personal problems that force each other to deal with the highs and lows of each others lives. And the timing is always good with them not being mirrors of each other but opposites, thus making it harder to relate but showing that true friends can do so. The relationship of Sam and Charlie, though, is what really drives the story. As the story progresses, Sam and Charlie develop a friendship that turns into love. And that love for Charlie is his first and thus very powerful, and despite Sam's many past relationships maybe her first feeling of love as well. Watching those two dance around each other as they uncover each others checkered pasts while not knowing how to manage their feelings is the most exciting and emotional parts of the movie and ultimately what makes the movie enjoyable to watch.
The movie is not without flaws however. Chbosky, who also chose to write and direct the movie based on his book had trouble inter-cutting the flashbacks of Charlie's aunt's death in a way that really made sense until the end when Charlie himself explains what we were seeing. The beginning of the movie also suffered from some weird thing where the characters, particularly Sam, Charlie, and Patrick in their first meeting don't speak at all in a conversational way but rather in one lined affirmations of the romanticist notion of outcastdom that were made for movie trailers by having moments where Emma Watson stares right into the camera and says "Welcome to the island of misfit toys" or Charlie stares off into space in his first moment of happiness in the movie and proclaims "I feel infinite." Not even in the most dramatic of teen universes do kids talk like that.
But in the end the movie hits its beats delivers completely, mostly through the story of Charlie and Sam. Their relationship is so exciting to watch throughout the movie as these two find a real love between the two of them that never really gets actualized. Sam being damaged by past relationships is not willing to be with someone she really cares about and Charlie is just so afraid of everything; his past, his instability, being a freshman. And that notion, even if not in high school, is the one that is most easy to relate to. Looking into someone's eyes and knowing that you know them better than anyone but lacking the confidence to make the bold move and knowing that they are going to chase love in other places just to fill the void that could best be filled by you. But that's what happens sometimes. People don't always get the love they do deserve, they accept the love they think they deserve. And in the case of our two main characters, they ultimately get the latter. For Charlie that is a fleeting glimpse and for Sam that is the wrong one all the time, well besides that previously metioned fleeting glimpse.
As Charlie meanders his way through the first few days of school in loneliness and quiet, we find out that despite the fact that he sits all alone in the lunch room and that he refuses to show his intelligence by answering obscure questions in his English class for extra credit, he appears to be more than just a loner. He possesses a drive and intelligence that makes good on his being alone as he reads his Lit assignments and even endears himself to his teach who pushes him by lending him books to read and write about in what is surely an extra credit arrangement but is presented as pure enjoyment for Charlie.
Then Charlie meets his new friends, stepbrother and sister Patrick and Sam. They view themselves as outcasts, this being a sentiment that Charlie can understand. As upperclassmen they take Charlie under their wings and introduce him to the world of high school outcast and show him a world in which he might belong. And that story of finding oneself is what the movie is about.
Through the course of Charlie's story we find out that he is not just a quiet young man not doing good on his potential, but someone possessing a truly damaging past. His past being one in which his aunt, who he was very close with died in a car accident that Charlie is carrying around a sense of respsonsiblity for that is so damaging he is prone to act out if not in a controlled situation. As Charlie loses himself in the Patrick and Sam's world he finds himself more and more out of control and finding it harder to control his uncontrollable emotions.
The story at its core is this coming of age of Charlie as he learns to manage his troubled past, but the story at its strongest is the moments between Sam, Charlie, and Patrick. Charlie and Patrick develop a wonderful friendship that is heartfelt and genuine as the two ebb and flow in and out of personal problems that force each other to deal with the highs and lows of each others lives. And the timing is always good with them not being mirrors of each other but opposites, thus making it harder to relate but showing that true friends can do so. The relationship of Sam and Charlie, though, is what really drives the story. As the story progresses, Sam and Charlie develop a friendship that turns into love. And that love for Charlie is his first and thus very powerful, and despite Sam's many past relationships maybe her first feeling of love as well. Watching those two dance around each other as they uncover each others checkered pasts while not knowing how to manage their feelings is the most exciting and emotional parts of the movie and ultimately what makes the movie enjoyable to watch.
The movie is not without flaws however. Chbosky, who also chose to write and direct the movie based on his book had trouble inter-cutting the flashbacks of Charlie's aunt's death in a way that really made sense until the end when Charlie himself explains what we were seeing. The beginning of the movie also suffered from some weird thing where the characters, particularly Sam, Charlie, and Patrick in their first meeting don't speak at all in a conversational way but rather in one lined affirmations of the romanticist notion of outcastdom that were made for movie trailers by having moments where Emma Watson stares right into the camera and says "Welcome to the island of misfit toys" or Charlie stares off into space in his first moment of happiness in the movie and proclaims "I feel infinite." Not even in the most dramatic of teen universes do kids talk like that.
But in the end the movie hits its beats delivers completely, mostly through the story of Charlie and Sam. Their relationship is so exciting to watch throughout the movie as these two find a real love between the two of them that never really gets actualized. Sam being damaged by past relationships is not willing to be with someone she really cares about and Charlie is just so afraid of everything; his past, his instability, being a freshman. And that notion, even if not in high school, is the one that is most easy to relate to. Looking into someone's eyes and knowing that you know them better than anyone but lacking the confidence to make the bold move and knowing that they are going to chase love in other places just to fill the void that could best be filled by you. But that's what happens sometimes. People don't always get the love they do deserve, they accept the love they think they deserve. And in the case of our two main characters, they ultimately get the latter. For Charlie that is a fleeting glimpse and for Sam that is the wrong one all the time, well besides that previously metioned fleeting glimpse.
the league championship series
sports: I know I said I was going to preview all of the playoff series in Major League Baseball, but do to going to see Argo (my most recent post), pro football, and other movies that will discussed at a later date, not to mention I have a job, I was unable to get to the LCS's before they started. It turns out I am glad for that. Besides spouting some generic match-up info, much of which would have been discussed when looking at the rotations and rosters leading up to the Divisional Series, there may not have been much to say. But now there have been two games played in each series. So lets see where the teams stand.
In the American League seires between the Tigers and Yankees, the story has been nothing short of fascinating. The script has been totally filliped on both teams. The Tigers, thought of by most(including me) to be a three man team with bad defense and pitching beyond Verlander has been nothing short of the total opposite. While Verlander turned in an historic performance in game five of the Divisional Series, the entire rest of the starting rotation has been no less great, posting an ERA blow 1.00 . And their two offensive stars, have been great, with Miguel Cabrera driving in runs and Prince Fielder getting robbed in key situations (the Coco Crisp grab over the wall) but nonetheless hitting the ball well. The Yankees have even more so turned into the opposite of what we thought they would be. Their offense has been nothing short of horrible. Robinson Cano just set a record for consecutive at bats in the playoffs without a hit, and there are several other hitters in their lineup hitting under .130. Alex Rodriguez can't hit strkes, and Curtis Granderson is swinging at pitches that are no where near the strike zone. The only productive players for the Yankees this post season have been Ichiro and Jeter, two guys who are supposed to get on base and get knocked in by the guys who are all stuggling. And to make matters worse Jeter is now out for the remainder of the post-season with a broken ankle. The Yankees pitching staff on the other hand has been very solid, not allowing more than 5 runs in a single game this post season, and ace C.C. Sabathia has been the lights out long inning ace people hoped to see. But the Yankees are headed to Detriot down 2-0 and with a horror show of a pitching match-up for the crucial game three: Justin Verlander vs. Phil Hughes. Even if Verlander weren't coming off an all time great playoff performance (9IP, 4H, 1BB, 11K, 0ER) it would still be a lopsided match-up between an elite pitcher and one who is good but also gives up a lot of home runs, which the Tigers are more than capable of hitting. If the Yankees hitting doesn't turn around in a hurry, and against one of the best pitchers in baseball, the hole they have dug themselves may be to deep to climb out of, especially when missing their captain and all time great, Derek Jeter.
The NLCS provides a little more intrigue after two games. Heading back to St. Louis we have seen the best of what both teams have to offer. In game one the Cardinals pulled out to a big lead behind their ace, Kyle Losche, and the power in the middle of their lineup, particularly Freise and Beltran, beating up on the Giant's pitching. We also saw in that game the Giants' on big deficiancy. With no true power in the middle of the lineup they struggled to come all they way back having to base hit their way out of a big hole. In the second game we saw the opposite. We saw the base hitting of the Giants hammer Chris Carpenter out the game early as his pitch count rose while Ryan Vogelsong and the unbelievably deep Giants pitching staff (whose relievers also did a great job in game one after the six runs allowed by Madison Bumgarner) held the powerful Cardinals in check leading to a rather emphatic 7-1 beat down of the Cardinals. And that is what the series is going to come down to. The power and clutch hitting of the Cardinals against the deep pitching and wear you down base hitting offense of the Giants. Who brings their best every night will be what determines the series.
No picks since the series are underway. But there you go with analysis. Oh hell, Tigers vs. Giants. There you go.
In the American League seires between the Tigers and Yankees, the story has been nothing short of fascinating. The script has been totally filliped on both teams. The Tigers, thought of by most(including me) to be a three man team with bad defense and pitching beyond Verlander has been nothing short of the total opposite. While Verlander turned in an historic performance in game five of the Divisional Series, the entire rest of the starting rotation has been no less great, posting an ERA blow 1.00 . And their two offensive stars, have been great, with Miguel Cabrera driving in runs and Prince Fielder getting robbed in key situations (the Coco Crisp grab over the wall) but nonetheless hitting the ball well. The Yankees have even more so turned into the opposite of what we thought they would be. Their offense has been nothing short of horrible. Robinson Cano just set a record for consecutive at bats in the playoffs without a hit, and there are several other hitters in their lineup hitting under .130. Alex Rodriguez can't hit strkes, and Curtis Granderson is swinging at pitches that are no where near the strike zone. The only productive players for the Yankees this post season have been Ichiro and Jeter, two guys who are supposed to get on base and get knocked in by the guys who are all stuggling. And to make matters worse Jeter is now out for the remainder of the post-season with a broken ankle. The Yankees pitching staff on the other hand has been very solid, not allowing more than 5 runs in a single game this post season, and ace C.C. Sabathia has been the lights out long inning ace people hoped to see. But the Yankees are headed to Detriot down 2-0 and with a horror show of a pitching match-up for the crucial game three: Justin Verlander vs. Phil Hughes. Even if Verlander weren't coming off an all time great playoff performance (9IP, 4H, 1BB, 11K, 0ER) it would still be a lopsided match-up between an elite pitcher and one who is good but also gives up a lot of home runs, which the Tigers are more than capable of hitting. If the Yankees hitting doesn't turn around in a hurry, and against one of the best pitchers in baseball, the hole they have dug themselves may be to deep to climb out of, especially when missing their captain and all time great, Derek Jeter.
The NLCS provides a little more intrigue after two games. Heading back to St. Louis we have seen the best of what both teams have to offer. In game one the Cardinals pulled out to a big lead behind their ace, Kyle Losche, and the power in the middle of their lineup, particularly Freise and Beltran, beating up on the Giant's pitching. We also saw in that game the Giants' on big deficiancy. With no true power in the middle of the lineup they struggled to come all they way back having to base hit their way out of a big hole. In the second game we saw the opposite. We saw the base hitting of the Giants hammer Chris Carpenter out the game early as his pitch count rose while Ryan Vogelsong and the unbelievably deep Giants pitching staff (whose relievers also did a great job in game one after the six runs allowed by Madison Bumgarner) held the powerful Cardinals in check leading to a rather emphatic 7-1 beat down of the Cardinals. And that is what the series is going to come down to. The power and clutch hitting of the Cardinals against the deep pitching and wear you down base hitting offense of the Giants. Who brings their best every night will be what determines the series.
No picks since the series are underway. But there you go with analysis. Oh hell, Tigers vs. Giants. There you go.
Friday, October 12, 2012
argo
movies: Ben Affleck is easily becoming one of the most interesting people in Hollywood. It is just amazing to think that the guy who starred in Sum Of All Fears and Gili is now a critically acclaimed director. But he is. And this weekend he brings us the third movie he has directed, Argo. Argo is the true story of the extraction of six Americans hiding out at the home of the Canadian Embassader in Tehran Iran during the hostage situation that began in 1979 and ended in 1981.
The story is told from the point of view of CIA agent Tony Mendez, played by Affleck. Faced with the problem of trying to get these six people out of Iran he concocts the crazy idea to go into Iran posing as a fake movie crew creating a seemingly real movie and using the people he is trying to rescue as his crew scouting for locations for a science fiction film called Argo. From the moment the plan is hatched, it seems doomed to fail. The idea is crazy enough, but the powers that be in Washington D.C. are also not supporting Mendez. But he presses on, and pursues his mission to save these people, no matter how long the odds continue to get.
Along the way we get to meet some truly unforgettable characters played by nothing short of unforgettable actors. Mendez's boss Jack O'Donnell, played by Brian Cranston, is torn from the moment the movie begins to when it ends. He is unsure of when and how to support his agent, when to follow orders from above. Cranston brings the same intensity to this performance in some his most excited moments that he brings to Breaking Bad, only this time we seem him use that authority to fight for the lives of people rather than against it. John Goodman and Alan Arkin are comedy gold as the duo from Hollywood helping to bring this fake movie to its most real actualization without ever making it. They are both so delightfully jaded and tired of politics of Hollywood that everything they say comes out as much needed break from how tightly wound the rest of the story is (including the movies most memorable line "Ar-go fuck yourself"). Our hostages at the Embassador's house (sorry i'm not rattling off six names but just trust me they are all noteworthy) bring exactly what they need to to their situation. Not fear, because they believe they are safe in hiding, but rather a claustrophobic sense of boredom and stir-craziness after not being able to go even on to the back porch for some fresh air. Watching them just sit and wait every time the story cuts back to them gives a greater sense of time passing during their stay in this home, which were it not for their circumstance would be a dream home, than any time stamp in the corner. And then their are the two scene stealers, Kyle Chandler and Zeljko Ivanek, who between the two of them have a total of about 5 minutes of screen time as White House staff members sitting in on the CIA's plans. It seemed that every time they showed up it was just a reminder of how deep the talent pool in this movie really was, particularly as each got their chance to go toe to toe with Cranston in tense moments.
But really the credit has to be given to Affleck, not as an actor - though he was fantastic, but as a director. All of the performances mentioned were so great because of how well they functioned within his vision of how to tell this story. Everyone mentioned above, which by the way is basically every significant charcter in the movie, had an important role to play in the outcome of the plot. And they functioned exactly as they needed to further the story and build the tension that kept you on the edge of your seat till the very end. (side note: I don't know if I have ever seen a movie besides Apollo 13 that did such a good job of making me hang on the edge of my seat about an event in history I already knew the outcome of. Not only was I excited to see how the story got from beginning to end, but I actually doubted that our heroes would survive at all despite the fact that the history books already told me they did.) The other real trick of the movie that falls to Affleck is how concise it is. There is not a single shot in the movie that didn't have a purpose in being their - everything from the ability to give different looks and feels (cold steady cam in the CIA offices and hand shaky hand helds all over Tehran) to different settings to showing found footage in fullscreen to further make you feel like you were watching something from back in 1980, and their wasn't a single plot point that wasn't important and resolved by the end of the movie. Even the somewhat cheesy part at the end when Mendez comes back to his estranged family was validated by the text at the end of the movie stating that he in real life he did reunite with them. That could have been cheese meant for a feel good end but instead was given a real reason. And then for further hammering home of how tight a movie Affleck made, over the credits we get to see side by side pictures of either characters or scenes from the movie with their news photos or peoples passport photos right next to them. The likenesses are so striking it just makes you appreciate what you saw more.
In his three efforts as a director Ben Affleck has managed to all but completely erase his downward spiral from once promising actor to Gili. It truly is amazing. And in Argo we see his best effort yet, stepping out from the streets of Boston in his previous two films to tell a brilliant spy thriller. I don't know if it will earn him recognition from the academy or not, that may depend on other movies yet to be released. But even if that is not the case, he is making great movies that fill a very specific place in the movie industry: exciting movies geared towards adults. As surprising as Affleck's success is, the fact the he would have chosen that void to fill (left mostly by the passing of Tony Scott) seems almost unlikely, but he has done it.
The story is told from the point of view of CIA agent Tony Mendez, played by Affleck. Faced with the problem of trying to get these six people out of Iran he concocts the crazy idea to go into Iran posing as a fake movie crew creating a seemingly real movie and using the people he is trying to rescue as his crew scouting for locations for a science fiction film called Argo. From the moment the plan is hatched, it seems doomed to fail. The idea is crazy enough, but the powers that be in Washington D.C. are also not supporting Mendez. But he presses on, and pursues his mission to save these people, no matter how long the odds continue to get.
Along the way we get to meet some truly unforgettable characters played by nothing short of unforgettable actors. Mendez's boss Jack O'Donnell, played by Brian Cranston, is torn from the moment the movie begins to when it ends. He is unsure of when and how to support his agent, when to follow orders from above. Cranston brings the same intensity to this performance in some his most excited moments that he brings to Breaking Bad, only this time we seem him use that authority to fight for the lives of people rather than against it. John Goodman and Alan Arkin are comedy gold as the duo from Hollywood helping to bring this fake movie to its most real actualization without ever making it. They are both so delightfully jaded and tired of politics of Hollywood that everything they say comes out as much needed break from how tightly wound the rest of the story is (including the movies most memorable line "Ar-go fuck yourself"). Our hostages at the Embassador's house (sorry i'm not rattling off six names but just trust me they are all noteworthy) bring exactly what they need to to their situation. Not fear, because they believe they are safe in hiding, but rather a claustrophobic sense of boredom and stir-craziness after not being able to go even on to the back porch for some fresh air. Watching them just sit and wait every time the story cuts back to them gives a greater sense of time passing during their stay in this home, which were it not for their circumstance would be a dream home, than any time stamp in the corner. And then their are the two scene stealers, Kyle Chandler and Zeljko Ivanek, who between the two of them have a total of about 5 minutes of screen time as White House staff members sitting in on the CIA's plans. It seemed that every time they showed up it was just a reminder of how deep the talent pool in this movie really was, particularly as each got their chance to go toe to toe with Cranston in tense moments.
But really the credit has to be given to Affleck, not as an actor - though he was fantastic, but as a director. All of the performances mentioned were so great because of how well they functioned within his vision of how to tell this story. Everyone mentioned above, which by the way is basically every significant charcter in the movie, had an important role to play in the outcome of the plot. And they functioned exactly as they needed to further the story and build the tension that kept you on the edge of your seat till the very end. (side note: I don't know if I have ever seen a movie besides Apollo 13 that did such a good job of making me hang on the edge of my seat about an event in history I already knew the outcome of. Not only was I excited to see how the story got from beginning to end, but I actually doubted that our heroes would survive at all despite the fact that the history books already told me they did.) The other real trick of the movie that falls to Affleck is how concise it is. There is not a single shot in the movie that didn't have a purpose in being their - everything from the ability to give different looks and feels (cold steady cam in the CIA offices and hand shaky hand helds all over Tehran) to different settings to showing found footage in fullscreen to further make you feel like you were watching something from back in 1980, and their wasn't a single plot point that wasn't important and resolved by the end of the movie. Even the somewhat cheesy part at the end when Mendez comes back to his estranged family was validated by the text at the end of the movie stating that he in real life he did reunite with them. That could have been cheese meant for a feel good end but instead was given a real reason. And then for further hammering home of how tight a movie Affleck made, over the credits we get to see side by side pictures of either characters or scenes from the movie with their news photos or peoples passport photos right next to them. The likenesses are so striking it just makes you appreciate what you saw more.
In his three efforts as a director Ben Affleck has managed to all but completely erase his downward spiral from once promising actor to Gili. It truly is amazing. And in Argo we see his best effort yet, stepping out from the streets of Boston in his previous two films to tell a brilliant spy thriller. I don't know if it will earn him recognition from the academy or not, that may depend on other movies yet to be released. But even if that is not the case, he is making great movies that fill a very specific place in the movie industry: exciting movies geared towards adults. As surprising as Affleck's success is, the fact the he would have chosen that void to fill (left mostly by the passing of Tony Scott) seems almost unlikely, but he has done it.
nashville
tv: ABC premiered it's new show Nashville last night. It is a show based around a country music star Rayna James, played by Connie Britton, who has been the queen of the genre for twenty odd years. As the show picks up we find her struggling to keep up with the times as a young star is taking music by storm. This star is Juliet Barnes, a Taylor Swift-like crossover sensation. As Juliet's star continues to rise and the new version of the music industry, that seeming to be one of internet sales based less around records and radio hits than what goes viral on youtube, Rayna is forced to into a difficult decision. With her record and ticket sales spiraling, she is asked to open for Juliet on her coming tour. This idea is met with total distaste by Rayna who even says, "she wouldn't even cut it as my backup singer."
The other side of the story deals with Rayna's family. Her father, played by Powers Boothe, is a seemingly corrupt philanthropist (though he would tell you otherwise), who is looking to put Rayna's husband in the Nashville mayoral running based on his sympathy from his tough losses during the recession. Rayna is opposed to this idea, believing that being under the thumb of her father would be like owing a favor to Michael Corleone.
While these plots, set to the back drop of country music produced by T Bone Burnett, who wrote the music for Crazy Heart, may be exciting, it is not where the shows strength seems to lie. The shows strength lies in its being the best of what network television has to offer. It is not the hyper-specific vision of a showrunner like Matt Wiener or Vince Gilligan. It is simply a ton of tawdry drama. It is fun and sexy and full of twists and turns in a world that we feel like we all can understand simply because it is about something we all know: music. People's loyalties are split. Peoples love lives are complicated. And of course, their is the potential for everyone to either hate or love each other at the drop of a hat.
On top of that the show is centered around stars. While Connie Britton may not ever be an Oscar wining actress, she is certainly made for television. She has a lived in quality that makes her purely charismatic on week to week basis. Combine that with the cowboy in Powers Boothe and the enjoyability of Hayden Penettiere and you have a smash hit on your hands.
The show is fun and cool and may even at some point have the chance to border on interesting. But the truth is that there is nothing better than seeing Mrs. Coach (for all you Friday Night Lights fans) every week on our televisions in our homes.
Sometimes network drama (more drama with air quotes than drama like Sopranos or Mad Men) can be good. And Nashville shows that. It is not always about the artful high concept storytelling of shows that are often revered. Sometimes it is all about just making something fun to watch. I feel like if I tried to write this about this show like have something like Breaking Bad I would almost ruin it by trying to be so damn serious. Instead I just want to admit that sometimes the drama and the soap opera can be fun. And in this case it can be good too. And I can't say it enough: Connie Britton, Mrs. Taylor, God bless her.
The other side of the story deals with Rayna's family. Her father, played by Powers Boothe, is a seemingly corrupt philanthropist (though he would tell you otherwise), who is looking to put Rayna's husband in the Nashville mayoral running based on his sympathy from his tough losses during the recession. Rayna is opposed to this idea, believing that being under the thumb of her father would be like owing a favor to Michael Corleone.
While these plots, set to the back drop of country music produced by T Bone Burnett, who wrote the music for Crazy Heart, may be exciting, it is not where the shows strength seems to lie. The shows strength lies in its being the best of what network television has to offer. It is not the hyper-specific vision of a showrunner like Matt Wiener or Vince Gilligan. It is simply a ton of tawdry drama. It is fun and sexy and full of twists and turns in a world that we feel like we all can understand simply because it is about something we all know: music. People's loyalties are split. Peoples love lives are complicated. And of course, their is the potential for everyone to either hate or love each other at the drop of a hat.
On top of that the show is centered around stars. While Connie Britton may not ever be an Oscar wining actress, she is certainly made for television. She has a lived in quality that makes her purely charismatic on week to week basis. Combine that with the cowboy in Powers Boothe and the enjoyability of Hayden Penettiere and you have a smash hit on your hands.
The show is fun and cool and may even at some point have the chance to border on interesting. But the truth is that there is nothing better than seeing Mrs. Coach (for all you Friday Night Lights fans) every week on our televisions in our homes.
Sometimes network drama (more drama with air quotes than drama like Sopranos or Mad Men) can be good. And Nashville shows that. It is not always about the artful high concept storytelling of shows that are often revered. Sometimes it is all about just making something fun to watch. I feel like if I tried to write this about this show like have something like Breaking Bad I would almost ruin it by trying to be so damn serious. Instead I just want to admit that sometimes the drama and the soap opera can be fun. And in this case it can be good too. And I can't say it enough: Connie Britton, Mrs. Taylor, God bless her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)