4th Wall

Ive always been iffy about my feelings towards breaking the 4th wall. Breaking the 4th wall is when a character in a film talks directly to, or acknowledges the audience watching the film. I'm indecisive about this technique, because it throws you out of the film for a moment, which means if the movie is not engaging enough to begun with, it may be hard to fall back into the world of the film. however when it is done correctly it can make for an amazing viewing experience.  

One of my favorite examples of breaking the 4ht wall is in Woody Allen’s Annie Hall. Annie Hall is about a comedian in New York City named Alvy Singer and his relationships and love interests throughout his life. Through out this movie Allen’s character, Alvy, breaks the 4th wall and talks directly to the audience. Allen later said he chose to use this Technique “because I felt many of the people in the audience had the same feelings and the same problems. I wanted to talk to them directly and confront them.” 

Another excellent example of breaking the 4th wall is in the Netflix series House of Cars staring Kevin Spacey. This show is based on a BBC mini series which was based off a Michael Dobbs novel. The show centers around a power hungry, Congressman, and his equally heartless wife and their rise through the government. The creators of the show says that they use “Shakespeare’s direct address from Richard III, where the Main Character speaks directly to the audience.” the goes on to say “i think it is a really rich and effective way to bring an audience even close to the material.”

Fight Club also famously breaks the 4th wall, arguably the most seamlessly. Fight Club revolves around an insomniac and a strange soap salesman he meets on a plain. The two become unlikely fiends and start a fight club, that become more and more popular and spreads to many cities. The first time you see this film you might not even realize the 4th wall was being broke, however Ed Norton and Brad Pits characters, or character, do it relatively frequently. 

Classic literature on film

So my last post on here was about book to film adaptations.  I mostly discussed the young adult genre and deliberated whether or not such adaptations should be as close to the source material as possible.

However today, I will be discussing a whole different genre of writing: classic literature. Now, there are two major approaches I have found to adapting a piece of classic literature into a film. The first, is to make the film as close to the source material as possible, practically matching it line for line. The second, is to completely reimagine the story so that it best translates to a modern audience, but still keeps the basic structure, themes, and/or issues of the original content.

Now, there is one of these two approaches that I'm more partial to. You probably have already guessed which it is, but if you haven't heres an example of my point. Let's take Shakespeare's Hamlet for example.

Here are two film adaptations of Hamlet. Which one would you rather watch?

Did you pick the one with the singing lions? Because if you did you probably agree with the point I'm about to argue. 

I find films that take elements or plots of classic stories and adapt them for a new audience to be extremely clever and interesting for several reasons. To start, let's be honest, not everyone has read the original Hamlet by Shakespeare and even fewer probably understood it on first read. So it's probably safe to say that to someone who is not familiar with Shakespeare and his works might find a direct adaptation of the play (such as the one featured above, starring Mel Gibson) to be confusing or even daunting. But, an animated film about a young lion cub is something that is much more accessible to people of all ages. 

Now, you can say what you want about the dumbing down of great literature or that people should be challenged by art, or even that The Lion King isn't really shakespeare at all, but I beg to differ. I don't think that The Lion King is the dumbed down version of Hamlet at all. While it's not a direct adaptation all the themes of the original play are there. The Lion King deals with issues of family, morality, corruption, responsibility, and leadership just like it's source material. And, the film is able to do this without the complicated language that is Shakespeare. It also features similar plot, the villain kills his brother in order to become king and the hero of the story must avenge his father and take responsibility for the kingdom. Sure, he may not die in the end along with most of the other characters, but come on this is a Disney movie.

You might actually be surprised how many movies are actually based on Shakespeare and other classic literature. For some reason, the teen movie genre tends to pull from classic literature quite a bit. The films below are just a few examples.

                      

Based on The Scarlet Letter                   Based on Twelfth Night           Based on Taming of the Shrew

Even when films aren't directly adapting classic literature, a lot of films have plot points or lines that reference it.

For example, it took me several watches before I realized this scene from Lord of the Rings was actually referencing Macbeth.

You guys get it? In Macbeth, no man that was born of a woman could kill him. Macbeth naturally believes this makes him invincible and tries to take over the kingdom, only for him to later be defeated by a man who was cut from his mother's womb not "born". 

Get it? Get it??? 

I don't know guys, I thought it was cool.

Anyway, what do you guys think of the relationship between classic literature and film? Do you prefer direct adaptations or modern retellings? And, more importantly do you get as excited as I do when you pick up on a reference to it?

Bing Crosby and Bob Hope: On the Road Again

Bob Hope and Bing Crosby have been everywhere.  From Bali to Morocco, Rio, Singapore, and even Utopia, they find romance and adventure.  Though the  "Road to..." movies are formula films, they manage to captivate the audience every time.  Bing plays a smooth talking performer who can manipulate people into getting what he wants.  Hope, his partner in crime, is the gullible brawn of the operation.  Bing can talk him into doing almost anything.   The love interest, played by Dorothy Lamour, serves as a damsel in distress to be rescued by the courageous duo.

Though each actor plays the same character and the plots of all the movies are very similar, these movies remain entertaining.  The audience is familiar and comfortable with the characters on the screen.  They are simply looking to see how Bing, Bob, and Dorothy will get themselves out of trouble this time.

Bob Hope and Bing Crosby are masters of comedic timing, an art that is rarely seen in comedies today.  Wit is also something that Bob and Bing did incredibly well.  Their incessant bickering and back and forth is entertaining and filled with subtle comments sure to make an audience laugh.  For example, at one point in the film, a Gorilla kidnaps Bob Hope.  Earlier in the film, Bob and Bing have killed her mate on a safari expedition.  As Bob Hope is being caressed by a huge gorilla that is obviously a man in a gorilla suit, he makes comments such as “Why am I attractive to young widows,” and “Get a rock, get anything, kill one of us.”

Audiences loved the “Road to…” pictures.  The majority of these films were released during World War II.  They offered the audience an escape from the threat of attack and the hard times of war.  All of these films contain at least one light-hearted musical number, reenforcing their cheery mood.  These films represented an escape to an entrancing destination during a time when audiences were troubled by a world at war.

Living Down Lost

IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN LOST PLEASE GO WATCH IT NOW INSTEAD OF READING THIS BLOG. (SPOILERS AHEAD)

In 2004 JJ Abrams and Damon Lindelof created a phenomenon. Lost took over, it was the show everyone watched. An epic of 6 seasons, the show tells the story of Jack Sheperd, Kate Austen, Hurley, Sawyer, John Locke, Sayid Jarrah, Clair Littleton, and the other 70 survivors of Oceanic flight 815. They wake up amid the wreckage of their plane on a remote (possibly nonexistent) island inhabited by very old, very dark supernatural forces.

Along with the supernatural forces that have been on the island for basically eternity, there were also other obstacles the island used as pawns. Such as Benjamin Linus, and other castaways washed up on shore. The Darma Initiative was an experiment that was able to find the island and harness some of its unexplainable power. Leftovers from the extinct 1970's Initiative litter the island in the form of Polar bears, unopenable hatches, and many Darma Stations.

With twists, turns, and huge reveals, Lost was a true drama, keeping viewers on the edge of their seats up until the very end. Which led to a controversial finale Lindelof has been apologizing and beating himself up over for 4 years now. When Breaking Bad  ended, Lindelof used the opportunity to ruminate on his own epic finale and make peace with his fans in an interview:

“I’m sick of myself for continuing to beat this particular drum, so I can’t imagine how sick of it you are. If it’s unpleasant and exhausting for me to keep defending the Lost finale, aren’t you getting tired of hating it? And so … I, like Walter White, want out. To be free. And to grant you the same.“I’d like to make a pact, you and me. And here’s your part: You acknowledge that I know how you feel about the ending of ‘Lost.’ I got it. I heard you. I will think about your dissatisfaction always and forever. It will stay with me until I lie there on my back dying, camera pulling slowly upward whether it be a solitary dog or an entire SWAT team that comes to my side as I breathe my last breath.“And here’s my part: I will finally stop talking about it. I’m not doing this because I feel entitled or above it — I’m doing it because I accept that I will not change hearts nor minds. I will not convince you they weren’t dead the whole time, nor resent you for believing they were despite my infinite declarations otherwise.”

When all is said and done we have to look at Lost as a piece of art. It doesn't belong to the fans, it belongs to the person who made it, who labored to create it, stayed up late at night trying to find the best story. So I think we should leave poor David Lindelof alone.

Four years later, the world still isn't over Lost, however. JJ Abrams and David Lindelof's new show is still fighting backlash from the Lost finale. Headlines like "Damon Lindelof Promises You His New Show Won't End Like 'Lost'," are still being written for articles about their new show The Leftovers.

Is Technology a Curse?

As each year goes by, several new products in technology are developed. Technology is what now drives our society. Everyone is always looking for the next big thing they can get their hands on and how fast they can get it. For example, the iPhone. Just this month, the iPhone 6 was released. And only about two years ago, the iPhone 5 came out. Think about that, within only two years a whole new phone was developed with so many more advanced features. And from an even bigger perspective, we've only been using smart phones for about six years or so?

Being that our technology is continuing to advance so quickly, what's going to happen to say classic American pastimes? For example, moving going. Going to the cinema has been something that Americans have bonded over a little less than 100 years. The literal action of getting in your car, driving to the theater, and then sitting in a huge room full of strangers, can be seen as a great experience. It is what helps connects us to movies and people throughout our life. But now that we have DVD players and blu ray, we can simply just wait for the movie to come out and watch it on our TV. And by doing that, we completely miss the experience of going

out to the movie. If anything it is also isolating us because if we go see a movie, we are more likely to ask a friend to accompany us, where as in the comfort of my own home I don't need someone to watch TV, or a movie with me. You can also go online and stream episodes that you missed on TV or want to re-watch. You can also subscribe to different websites such as Netflix, or Hulu Plus, and stream movies or shows. Netflix is one of the biggest streamers that people subscribe to. I know coming to college, mostly everyone has Netflix. And if you don't, then you need to find a friend with it ASAP and use their account. It has now become such an essential

part in our society. So much so that in some of my classes I have been told to watch movies on Netflix for homework. They literally have said, "it is on Netflix, so watch it there for homework", assuming we all had Netflix. This just proving that it is so common that professors are automatically assuming that everyone has it.

Even before you could stream it from your computer, Netflix was personally delivering to your home the specific movie you had chosen. Thus, just making it easier to not leave the house once they streamed online. And now, not only does Netflix stream movies, or past season of TV shows, they now have TV shows that premiere on Netflix. So now not only are we eliminating going to the movies, or leaving our home to go to the DVD store, we are also getting rid of the need to have a TV in our homes altogether. And if we do have a TV it is merely to say we have a TV. 

Netflix, or shows like it come up in our everyday conversations. It is something we actually bond over which is weird if you think about it because by watching netflix we are isolating ourselves from social interaction. People are constantly blogging about it, like myself, or using it as an ice breaker in social settings, and they are even using it as an excuse to get out of social gatherings.

Netflix is everywhere we go! And it is ultimately eliminating the need to go anywhere. And what does that mean for our cinema fanatics? And does this mean it is eventually going to get rid of cinema altogether? Or having TV shows on a cabel channel, and waiting a week for each new episode to premiere? It is a scary thought because it is getting rid of things that we have had for so long. Cinema has been around for as long as I can remember, my parents can remember, or even my grandparents! I remember growing up I always wanted to go to the theater and watch every new movie that had come out. It was something I looked foward to because watching it at home just wasn't the same. Being put in a theater setting automatically makes you feel as if you're in the movie, watching from a distance. And don't get me wrong, I love Netflix. It's convenient and easy to use, but what does that say about us? Are we justing using it because we are too lazy to get up and go somewhere? Are we too busy with everything else that we can't and don't want to make time to go to the movies? I mean if that's the case, then America, along with other countries are going to never leave their homes. Especially because of how fast technology products are being introduced.

Needless to say I hope in my lifetime and several other people's lifetimes, that going to the theater to watch a movie is still going strong.

Emmanuel Lubezki and Children of Men

The first time watching Children of Men, I was so struck by the visual language that you can get from the camera movements in this film. Unaware at the time, what really goes into filmmaking, I found the action happening onscreen extremely unique. Taking a look at the process of how some of the imagery was created in this science fiction adventure, can surely inspire. Emmanuel Lubezki, the cinematographer of the film, collaborated with Alfonso Cuaron, the director, in order to accomplish some of the many choreographed, long takes in this film.  There are more than three different long takes which are more than three minutes a piece, the longest of which is six whole minutes. During production, what has caused many problems, eventually paid out into a creative landmark. During an ambush sequence there was a special car rig for the camera, so that the camera could turn 360 degrees, and by allowing seats and actors to move, there was a floating-documentary style of capturing the story. Of coarse there are some instances with CGI aided effects to make seamless transition for the effect, but nevertheless Lubezki help create some really beautiful sequences.

The L Word and Media as Culture

There are few shows made today that can capture and define a community as much as The L Word did for the lesbian community. Created in 2004 by a lesbian woman, Ilene Chaiken, who wanted to give the public a glimpse into a widely misunderstood world, the L Word serves as one of the only mainstream representations of lesbians which actually has lesbians behind it.

Ok lets get one thing straight(pun intended): this is a really bad show. The writing is mediocre, the acting is mediocre, the music is horrible, and overall it’s a melodramatic soap opera. But I love it, and so does every queer woman I know. Not because it’s a great show but because it gives a mainstream voice to people who are not in the mainstream. Many straight people don’t realize that as a gay person you have straight culture shoved down your throat, on TV in movies, and more importantly in real life. To watch a show then which focuses solely on this minority of people gives voice to people who are often overlooked in media.

This isn’t the only reason its adored by the lesbian community, its also because as a gay person it is hard to get interested and invested in straight plotlines and romances, so when the relationships reflect yours they’re much more interesting and investing.

Perhaps the most important thing the L Word does is connect a community. If you meet a lesbian anywhere in the world, above the age of 16, they’ve probably watched the L Word, and if you have both watched the L Word you have something in common, right away. This is important for such a small community that doesn’t have any one thing that connects all of these people besides the fact that they’re homosexual.

Another thing the L Word does, and maybe the most profound is that it teaches women about lesbian culture. When you look at typical mainstream perceptions of lesbians they are either a straight man’s fantasy of women with laughable love scenes (Blue is the Warmest Color). Or they are slipped in as secondary characters to get some queer people to see it. These couples are either seen as a happy, stable and frankly boring lesbian couple with kids (The Kids are Alright), or as unstable crazy, alcoholic fuck-ups who are killed off just as soon as they get into a relationship (Skins). As a teenager this is a grim future. You’ll either be used for men’s pleasure, or you’ll move to the suburbs and bake cookies, or you’ll become a prostitute drug addict and die before the age of 30. Where’s all the fun, adventure, and hope that’s offered our straight counterparts? Its in the L Word, with crazy lesbian parties and bars and book circles. It gives young queer women the hope that they will have a life, an exciting, fun life. It shows them that there’s other people like them who have affairs and one night stands, who come in all different shapes and backgrounds.

Some of the dialogue seems especially geared toward educating people. For example one character will say “We’re going to the Dina Shore Golf game next week” and another will say “What’s that?” and the first will look into the camera and give a detailed description of what it is and why its started and how it became a foundation of lesbian culture.

The L Word is an example of the profound effect that TV or film can have on people. It can give hope and education about things that not everyone knows about. It can give voices to the voiceless and leave its mark. Even though the L Word has been off air for about 5 years, it is still so vital to the lesbian community who use it as a unifying point and probably always will.

The Fun Left in Hollywood

Hollywood has always been known as the cutthroat heart to the American film industry, usually filled with professionals and never much room for laughter. And all of this is totally acceptable when many budgets cross over a hundred million dollars and studios are looking for the biggest bang for their buck. But it was the seventies and the rise of the American auteur that gave Hollywood some of the most iconic films and at the same time showed that directing is really just about the inner child's imagination. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg both created so many films that will be ingrained into film history for the rest of time. And as they dominated the seventies box office looking back it almost seems as if they were playing a game with each other.

In the late seventies George Lucas was nervous about his new release Star Wars. So when he turned to his friend Steven Spielberg and saw that he was was working on Close Encounters of the Third Kind it just made him feel worse. Lucas believed that Spielberg was creating "the biggest hit of all time" and that Star Wars would fail miserably. So as a small bet at the time Lucas bet 2.5% of Star Wars in exchange for 2.5% of Close Encounters. What was a small bet at the time turned into a forty million dollar investment for Spielberg. But even that wasn't the end to their game.

For the next decade the two would play box office ping pong and when it came to video rentals the two would send letters to each other publicly about the others success. 

The two showed that what they were doing was something that was fun no matter how serious it was, and that through the millions of dollars it wasn't about money. 

For a long time in Hollywood I feel like we have lost that. The sense of fun behind the movie making and that no matter what, film should be about making something that you feel should be made and having fun with it. But hope is not lost! There has been a new resergence in the industry and in a way it comes from the same franchise, Star Wars. 

J.J. Abrams is deep into production on the new trilogy and is bringing the same atitude as Lucas once did. Meanwhile on the other spectrum Zack Snyder is working on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, and between the two films they are both approaching the situation just as the original duo did. With a twenty first century twist the two have been crossing their respective franchises in a way to respect the massive amount of pressures they both hold. It's the fun that Hollywood was missing and I hope it continues to stay. 

                                     
These images have been sent back and forth to each director. And the video below is the most recent gag from J. J. Abrams.

Here's to hoping the fun is still alive. 

Cinematic Hypnosis and the films of Weerasethakul

One of my favorite contemporary filmmakers is a Thai director named Apichatpong Weerasethakul. The name's a mouthful for sure, but he goes by "Joe" to facilitate his fans. Originally receiving a bachelor's degree in architecture before getting his master's in filmmaking, he's been making features since 2000. His filmography is a short list, but he's found considerable success, unexpectedly winning the Palme d'Or in 2010 for his mystical drama, Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives.

In the Spring of 2011, I got to see this much-talked-about film at my local art house theater. They were only showing it for a week and I was eager to see what all the fuss was about. It was my introduction to Weerasethakul, so I didn't know what to expect and the experience I got was like no other. Uncle Boonmee was a very different kind of film. A slow pace and loose storytelling drove a film of boundless mysticism and spiritual intrigue. There is no intense plotting and none of the characters hide shocking truths. It is languorous and the meaning is hard to discern on first viewing, but the film's relaxed quality was something that I found undeniably attractive. 

Boonmee, as well as other Weerasthakul films like Syndromes and a Century and Tropical Malady, is something special. Even the biggest art house fanatics must admit that some films belonging in the realm of "slow cinema" can try one's patience. For example, I believe Bela Tarr's The Turin Horse (pictured above) to be a masterpiece, a crushingly pessimistic work of desolation and futility. However, it is an extremely tough sit (You wouldn't be far off in calling it an endurance test). With the likes of Boonmee, though, I am completely soothed by the film's rhythms. Weerasethakul has such a way of using sound and environment to suture the viewer into his films and although I would definitely call him an acquired taste, his relaxed approach makes viewing and analyzing his work almost an exercise in meditation. 

I can't quite explain the draw of his films. They all very clearly take place in physical, tangible spaces (popular locations are jungles, open air houses, country fields, etc.) and yet, they also belong to a world in which many fantastical happenings are possible. Animals speak. Spirits visibly separate from bodies. Ghost monkeys with glowing red eyes roam the forests. On top of all this, the director likes to toy with reality, frequently mixing documentary with fiction (most notably in Mysterious Object at Noon and Mekong Hotel). The films are strange, distinctive and experimental and Weerasethakul's patience with the material allows the viewer to absorb the primal and spiritual energies that each setting emits. 

Weerasthakul on set.

I'm sure that many cinephiles have at least one inexplicably beloved film and Uncle Boonmee is that film for me. I never expected to engage with it the way I did and I never thought such a film would be so easy to watch (and re-watch) and settle into. As far as deciphering the meaning of it, I have written extensive theories and appraisals in my spare time, but in researching the themes afterwards, I've found certain intentions I never imagined (one allusion being to a specific moment in Thai history that most people from outside the country would have never guessed). That's okay, though, as this is the beauty of cinema and subjectivity. In Weerasthakul's own words: "Sometimes you don't need to understand everything to appreciate a certain beauty. And I think the film operates in the same way. It's like tapping into someone's mind. The thinking pattern is quite random, jumping here and there like a monkey." Perhaps the positive feeling is all you need.

In Praise of Charlie Kaufman's Synecdoche, New York

"An artist makes a movie that is so labyrinthine and obscure, such a road map of blind alleys, such a turgid challenge to sit through that it sends most people skulking out of the theater -- except, that is, for a cadre of eggheads who hail the work as a visionary achievement."

-Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly

In Roger Ebert's review of Charlie Kaufman's 2008 directorial debut, Syncecdoche, New York, the late critic deliberately included the above quote. Gleiberman isn't exactly the vanguard of the next generation of film critics, but Ebert takes pains to emphasize that although he disagrees (and considers himself one of the "eggheads" to which Gleiberman is referring), he respects his colleague's opinion on a film that many consider bloated, self-indulgent, inaccessible, and pretentious. 

"...just when you think it’s safe to go back to the movies, the plunger sucks up something from a clogged drain like the unspeakable, unpronounceable Synecdoche, New York, and you’re forced to take back every prematurely made prophecy about “the worst movie ever made.” Because no matter how bad you think the worst movie ever made ever was, you have not seen Synecdoche, New York. It sinks to the ultimate bottom of the landfill, and the smell threatens to linger from here to infinity."

-Rex Reed, The New York Observer

Since the late 1990's, Charlie Kaufman has become one of the few household name Hollywood writers. He and Spike Jonze burst onto the scene with 1999's Being John Malkovich, a strange film that dealt with the boundaries between fiction and reality in a way previously unseen. Over the next 10 years, he would write the critically acclaimed features Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, with the latter becoming both a critical and commercial success. How then did Kaufman, who had created large amounts of critical goodwill, find himself with a directorial debut that some considered the worst film of all time? How, also, did Roger Ebert name this film the best of the 2000's?

"Impressionistic, inaccessible and endlessly frustrating, “Synecdoche” is replete with art-house pomposity and the type of muddled profundity one sees in an introductory philosophy seminar. Ever witnessed a freshman struggle with the writings of Nietzsche and the implications of nihilism on his own self-awareness? Ever wanted to see that struggle blown up on the silver screen for two interminable hours?"

-Sonny Bunch, The Washington Times

Synecdoche, New York is Charlie Kaufman's masterwork. The film deals most directly with themes present in all of Kaufman's films: dopplegangers, the nature of art and the creative process, obsession with love, obsession with loss, memory, and mortality. These themes all crop up organically in the unique narrative, which, although hard to distill into a sentence, essentially tells the story of a man trying to capture life in theater. We experience almost the entirety of a theater director's adult life in a way that has never before been attempted on film. The film flies through time, barely ever giving us a signpost of how far we've come. The narrative is layered beyond belief, and the other creative aspects of the film confront that narrative with full force. Phillip Seymour Hoffman turns in a masterwork of a performance as the protagonist, Caden Cotard, a man whose name gives an insight into his worldview (for more information, look up Cotard's Syndrome). Cotard's attempts to capture his life in an creative work echo the attempts of millions of artists that came before him, and echo the attempts of Kaufman himself.

"Even if you come out of the theater with your head spinning, as the days pass (and this is a film that will cause endless internal debate for days and weeks), what emerges in your memory is a sweet and profound tale of the struggle to create meaning out of the messes of our lives."

-Ian Buckwalter, DCist 

The grammatical term "synecdoche" refers to a small piece of something standing in for the whole object (for example, using "suits" to refer to businessmen). The title Synecdoche, New York is a key to unlocking the entire film. The play-within-the-film's set is a stand-in for New York City as a whole, and our protagonist is a stand-in for artists, writers, and creatives everywhere. The film seeks to miniaturize (but not reduce) some of the biggest issues that face any creative person, in order to examine them. Beyond that, the film could be read as being about life in general, transcending the creative process and tackling the totality of existence. Roger Ebert seems to think so:

"...the playwright's life refers to all lives, and all lives refer to his life. So Kaufman gives the whole thing away right there in his title. Talk about your spoilers."

-Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times 

Although I don't purport to understand the entirety of the film (or even most of it), I think that it's a film worth struggling through for anyone who thinks about topics like the nature of creativity and how mortality defines the human condition. I can't possibly contain all of my feelings about it in one blog post, so please excuse the rambling. Synecdoche, New York is a film that will haunt you, stick with you, and one that you will want to return to again and again.

To say that Charlie Kaufman’s “Synecdoche, New York” is one of the best films of the year or even one closest to my heart is such a pathetic response to its soaring ambition that I might as well pack it in right now. That at least would be an appropriate response to a film about failure, about the struggle to make your mark in a world filled with people who are more gifted, beautiful, glamorous and desirable than the rest of us — we who are crippled by narcissistic inadequacy, yes, of course, but also by real horror, by zits, flab and the cancer that we know (we know!) is eating away at us and leaving us no choice but to lie down and die.

-Manohla Dargis, The New York Times

I'd recommend reading Ebert's full review on the film, which can be found here, http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/o-synecdoche-my-synecdoche, as well as Manohla Dargis' full review in The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/movies/24syne.html?_r=0.

Why Anime Shows Can't be Live Action Films (at least in the U.S)

Reading an earlier blog post about books turning into movies inspired me to write about anime shows turning into live action films, and why they just don't work.  

I mean, c'mon. When was the last time you went to the movies to see a live action film based off of an anime show and it was actually really good? Probably never. And this idea of turning anime into live action films will never, never work because the film industry in the U.S just completely fails when doing so. 

Fail Number One: Avatar: The Last Airbender & The Last Airbender (2010)

That character interpretation tho

Avatar: The Last Airbender was no doubt one of the best shows Nickelodeon came out with. However, the movie adaptation, The Last Airbender (directed by M. Knight), was completely horrible. I mean, the film won Worst Picture in 2010, and was universally attacked by critiques about the plots being inconsistent with the show, and let's not even begin on the acting or the pronunciation of character names. (Is it Eroh or Iroh?) The film's budget was $150,000,000 but only grossed in $131,564,731 in the U.S. Surpringly though, it ranked second in the box office behind The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. (Ironic?)
The anime show is Asian-influenced especially when it comes to the characters and cultures (meditation relating to Buddhism, etc.) HOWEVER, Paramount Pictures and Nickelodeon were critiqued for casting Caucasians in the film, and even being racist by having Prince Zuko played by Dev Patal, the only 'colored' actor in the film. The Asian community was so upset by this action that the Media Action Network for Asian-Americans urged for a boycott of the film. Even though anime characters are all up for interpretation, the industry could at least try to make it close enough to how the anime character looks. I mean, the artists literally drew them out for you.
Besides the terrible casting, the visual effects were sad to see and the dialogue was just painful to listen to. The film is narrated by Katara, but every character is so repetitive with their lines and even explain themselves so much, that there really isn't a need for the poorly written narration. The film was HEAVILY scripted as well, with way too much talk and not enough visual effects. It seems like the director told the kids to just wave their arms around and it's 'bending'. Bending is an actual form, but thank you very much for taking the time to consider that. (Sarcasm for those of you who don't understand it). The movie Avatar came out around the same time, so obviously special effects could have been pulled off in the film. The bending looked so computer generated (I'll give them credit though, it's tough to make fire look natural but controlled at the same time). But there's a scene where you can see Aang petting Momo the Lemur, but his hand is hovering over at least a couple inches above. The movie received 6% on the Tomatometer and 4.4 stars out of 10 on Internet Movie Database. If there's one thing the movie did do great, it was that it lived up to the title. It definitely is the last live action avatar movie we'll see.

Fail Number Two: Dragon Ball & Dragon Ball Evolution (2009)

Do I even need to really explain why this movie failed? The movie is "supposedly" based off the first series of Dragon Ball (Dragon Ball Z & GT have the same characters but are just about different periods of times in their lives, for those of you who don't know your Dragon Ball facts). The plot in the anime is that a monkey tailed boy named Goku befriends a girl named Bulma, who goes on an adventure with him to find the seven Dragon Balls which will summon the dragon Shenlong who will then grant the user one wish. I don't even know the plot for Dragon Ball Evolution; it's just somewhere along Goku's life. For starters, the film did a terrible job explaining the plot elements. Everything just sort of happens in the film without an explanation, and a lot of the original content from the anime was completely ignored. For example, Picollo (the bad guy) gets released from his seal and Goku gets appointed as the savior of the world. But there's no answers to the how's and why's, especially when all the characters just pop up out of nowhere to Goku's assistance. 

Eh, close enough

And the special effects are sooooo cheesy, and lack the visual elements that the anime provided. For those of you who are die-hard Dragon Ball fans, you know you were super excited to see Goku transform into "Oozaru", his monkey form. But wait for it...Surprise! It's nothing more than 30 seconds of really bad special effects and disappointment. The dialogue is also over dramatic and yet so uninspiring. And once again, people complained about the cast; we see that a Caucasian (Justin Chatwin) plays the role for an Asian influenced character. It's no surprise that the film received 2.8 stars out of 10 on Internet Movie Database, and 14% on the Tomatometer. The film is definitely entertaining if you're an 11 year old boy.

Fail Number Three: Speed Racer & Speed Racer (2008)

So far, it seems like movies based on anime shows fail to use special effects to their advantage. However, Speed Racer just used TOO much special effects, and not surprisingly, didn't develop a coherent story line. But that's according to the finest critiques. Everyone else actually loves Speed Racer.  The "too much special effects" isn't a bothersome to audiences but instead, enjoyable. People love getting sucked into a new world full of colors that remind them of a classic arcade game. And although there's been complaints about the actor's acting in the film, others have argued that it's supposed to add to the cartoon-ish feel of the film. I mean, the film does have it's cheesy moments, but it is suppose to appeal to a younger audience as well. But besides the film being visually accepted and enjoyable and cheesy acting, the story line is still neglected form the original anime. You can have a film be full of colors and cheesyness (which is exactly the point of the film), but can't neglect the narrative coherence of the film. The film has been listed as one of the most underrated films, and an unsung masterpiece for it's time. Speed Racer is literally a film that is so bad, that it's so good; an argumentative film that only you can either love or hate. However, the film didn't even surpass it's budget of $120,000,000. Instead, it only grossed in about $44,000,000. But based on the two previous films listed above, Speed Racer did much better in ratings with 6.2 stars out of 10 on Internet Movie Database, as well as 39% on the Tomatometer. Then again, it could have gotten better ratings than the other two since the The Wachowski Brothers took advantage of writing a movie based off an unknown Japanese manga/anime series.