Do the Right Thing (1989)

A Spike Lee film is nearly always socially aware, if not, it’s probably a Hollywood film (to bring in funding for more personal semi-independent projects). His style is often a merging of cinematic traditions, which is often a tool to insight a political awareness. In Do the Right Thing (1989) Spike Lee has tackled issues surrounding African American’s in present day USA. In doing so, what has been created is a political statement, albeit in film (entertaining film at that) form. To break free from the stereotypical countenance of the “Blaxploitation” film, Lee has strived to use the convergence of multiple film forms, such as documentary aesthetics and music video styles, in order to birth the new “Black Cinema”. The effect of this marrying of forms is a unique style and a thoroughly entertaining and provocative cinematic experience.

What I found to be most prevalent in this film is Lee’s documentary aesthetic. Spike Lee stated in an interview with the Guardian, “my skills as a documentary filmmaker help my narrative filmmaking skills”[1]. The intentions behind the pseudo-realism created in Do the Right Thing, is to evoke a sense shock in relation to the story of racial division, which I believe is exceptionally achieved.

           Examples of the differing documentary cinema styles are seen dispersed throughout; The use of hand held cameras, the technique of ‘direct’ filming, and the play on the cinema verité style are some of the more notable techniques used in Lee’s film. The cinema verité style stems from observational filming, or to film as an observer. This is prevalent in scenes such as the broken fire hydrant scene, or the scenes that depict the casual banter within Sal’s pizzeria. We look onto these scenes as a fly on the wall, and what is portrayed is a sense of realism. This technique offers a naturalistic tone simply because we are not aided with classical film edits such as cuts, zoom etc.

Another style that is used to outstanding effect is Lee’s habit of ‘direct’ filming. The characters address the camera (the audience) directly, involves them in the action as if entering a conversation. “The use of direct address operates not simply as a rupturing device but directly challenges the viewer while offering multiple and conflicting viewpoints”[2]. This is because the “Viewer has been implicated into this world and into the real issues that they represent”; by means of direct address, we witness the opinion and thoughts of that character directly, not as an audience member, but as a converser. This is seen is the racial rant scene, as well at the direct address from Radio Raheem on “Love vs. Hate”.

The overarching tone of Do the Right Thing is heavy with popular music television culture of the late 1980’s. The MTV influence weighs heavily in the younger generation within Bedford-Stuyvesant, with specific reference to their fashion, musical trends, and attitude. An example of young music video culture within the film is found in the anthem of Lee’s picture, “Fight the Power”, which was recorded specially for the film by the New York based hip hop group, Public Enemy. The popularity of this music genre from this African American group interestingly highlights the forces of racial division, while simultaneously encapsulates an entire youth culture through strategic use of popular musical forms.

What Lee has created in the use of Music Video techniques and aesthetics is a generational power; a new, more accepted, African American generation. “The film for some ridicule apparently holds up Da Mayor as a drunk, and the music underscores this through the playing of minstrelsy themes that call up the traditional ways in which African Americans have been treated in the classical Hollywood period.”[3] What Lee has created is a new generation of African Americans, which is both, represents the people, and the film form. By using film forms such as the music video medium, Lee has developed an association to new ‘Black Cinema”.

 The opening credits, which showcases a solo Rosie Perez dancing to the film’s anthem, Public Enemy’s “Fight the Power”, are rich with powerful images that set up the stylistic tone for the rest of the film. The integrated styles and techniques from differing film periods and traditions are separately exhibited in the four minute scene.

            In the first glace onto the Bed-Stuy set in the opening credits we see myriad of cuts depicting silhouettes of Rosie as she showcases differing poses and positions before we enter her energetic and aggressive dancing styles. This form links directly to the film noir period, as it uses silhouette and dark and ominous lighting. We are then thrown into a haze of bright red light as we see Rosie dancing across the set. The use of primary colours in this regard, as well as in the bold typeface of credits is drawn from French New Wave Cinema, especially that of Jean-Luc Goddard.

Other forms utilized in the opening scene is the undertones of jazz and soul music which is associated to the original “Blaxploitation films”, as well of course the “Fight the Power” theme which resonates with the music video style.

This interconnected use of differing filming styles not only runs riot in the opening scene, but plays throughout the film to great effect. Film Noir is encapsulated by the often-repeated use of canted framing, silhouettes and lighting effects, and French New Wave is honoured with Lee’s use of his colour scheme and lengthy takes.

                                                   (source: Alfred Hitchcock’s Dial M For Murder” 1954)

The political tradition of film making is gestured in Lee’s notion to black rights movements and it’s political figures (such as Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King). This is seen in full effect in the scene outside Sal’s, as Mookie and Jade speak in front of a graffiti stained wall depicting “Tawana told the truth”. The mis-en scene  directly refers to the upheaval of Tawana Brawley in a case against six white men who had allegedly raped her. This political story weighed heavily in the black community causing a division between whites and blacks. This is of course Lee’s opinion on screen; his film is a medium for activism for black rights.

Spike lee has, with Do the Right Thing, developed a unique style of film, albeit using typical film traditions and techniques from multiple facets of film history. With outstanding success he is able to tell a gripping, shocking and interesting story and leave the audience with a subjective point of view; the questions that he asked throughout the film are left unanswered.

            The aspects of the classical paradigm that Lee has slotted into the film, such as the driving narrative force of Senor Love Daddy (Samuel L. Jackson), play to favour the crowd’s ingrained acceptance of Hollywood style cinema. Yet, without blatantly doing so, Lee has given himself room to experiment with alternative styles in order to create a new “black cinema”. I believe that in manipulating the classical narrative to house film convergence one is able to adapt the Hollywood paradigm. What Lee has achieved here is the creation of a film that not only tells an interesting story, but also develops an argument.  To create a film about African American communities, without specifically targeting African American’s was a testing ambition, but through means of cinematic sophistication, was made possible.  “At­tempts to critique black cinema on “white” terms place the cinematic text in a critical criteria eliminating that which exists specifically to black culture and focusing on simply the film as text, instead of as an instance of black cultural expressivity.”[4] Although Spike Lee endeavored to build a film around the rights and power of the black man, the film should not be seen as an expression of cultural comparison and racial awareness from the black community.

What is interesting about this film in particular is the unique style Lee has been able to create through the use of so many differing aesthetics from alternative genres. Although he draws upon previous successors and their film techniques, the film doesn’t appear to imitate a ‘white’ or classical Hollywood aesthetic. “Breaking again the silence of ‘Black respectability’ and refusing to perpetrate stereotypes that maintain the white status quo, Do the Right Thing is a classic space of black urban representation.”[5]

            Do the Right Thing represents a story and a statement, not only of black rights, but also of black filmmaking. This film is an exemplary piece of cinema that has tackled racism in a stylistic and entertaining manner, but seeks also to ask the masses questions that Lee chooses to leave unanswered. The convergence of film styles and aesthetics create, for Lee, a new and unique form of Black Cinema that caters to all peoples.

References:

Film:

Do the Right Thing (1989), Spike Lee.

Une Femme est Une Femme (1961), Jean-Luc Goddard.

Dial M For Murder (1954), Alfred Hitchcock.

Other:

Houston A. Baker Jr. Spike Lee and The Commerce of Culture in Black American Cinema, Routledge, (New York: Routledge, 1993), ch.10.

Hillier, Jim. "US Independent Cinema since the 1980s." Contemporary American Cinema, ed.s Linda Ruth WIlliams and Michael Hammond, McGraw-Hill, pp.247-264.

Steve Barnes, "Independence with Limits: the Influence of Alternative Cinema on American Independent Feature Filmmaking", Persistence of Vision 6 (1988): 91-100.     

---

[1] http://www.youtube.com/user/TheGuardian?feature=watch

[2] Jim Hillier, US Independent Cinema, 250.

[3] Jim Hillier, US Independent Cinema, 250.

[4] Baker, Spike Lee and the Commerce of Culture, 169.

[5] Baker, Spike Lee and the Commerce of Culture, 169.

Hitchcock

 How would you envisage a film depicting the father of film? Perhaps, just maybe, homage the many wondrous film innovations created throughout his splendiferous and lengthy career? Possibly endeavor to highlight the genius through seemingly similar genius and/or equally sensational measures? Well, the bar has been set with the new Hitchcock adaptation, and between you and me, it’s not spectacularly high. 

In his directorial debut, Sacha Gervasi has created an enchanting depiction of the life and times of Alfred Hitchcock during his most poignant career title, Psycho, highlighting the strain from studio pressure and the concurring implications on the relationship between himself and wife, Alma Reville. Hitchcock, played brilliantly by Anthony Hopkins, is infectious on screen; the duo of Hopkins and screen wife, played masterfully by Helen Mirren, is delightful. Each character is beautifully and successfully brought to life by the charming ensemble, especially with names such as Scarlett Johansson, Tony Collette, and Jessica Biel. Unfortunately the performances within Htchcock, albeit commendable, are not great enough to take the mediocre aesthetic of the film to the next level.

The expectations that I occupied in anticipation for Hitchcock were wrongly crafted. The want and wishes I had manifested for a Hitchcock-like presence within the mise-en-scene of the film were substandard, and by the end of a ninety-eight minute run-of-the-mill movie, I was just about ready to cry. There are obvious concerted efforts in an attempt to create the voyeuristic attitude, (eg. Dark corners, short sharp montage sequences, over use of shutter blinds etc.) however these moments left me aching for a more innovative homage to the legend that is Alfred Hitchcock.

What Sasha Gervasi has ironically, and undoubtedly by accident, created in Hitchcock is a greater appreciation for the true master of the screen medium. Hitchcock is a good movie with exciting performances with an equally exciting story, but what component that is missing from the polished final masterpiece is a hefty dash of pizazz. The story that wanted to be told was told; a compelling tale of a tested marriage in the midst of stardom and pressure, and the genius that broke through the doubting crowds. Sadly my own expectations of wonder and innovation left me, funnily enough, thoroughly entertained, yet bitterly broken hearted.

a weeks worth... a selection of films that filled my week

It’s Kind of a Funny Story (2010)

A simple bildungsroman story of a sixteen year old (Keir Gilchrist) who finds himself in a mental home after suicidal impulses. A pleasant enough movie, It’s Kind of a Funny Story is innocent and lovely, and with a huge helping comedic hand from Zach Galifianakis, playing the supporting yet troubled inmate, the film actually has a few good lines. It’s nothing too serious, basically just a friendly and moderately entertaining way to spend 101 minutes of your life.             

The Intouchables (2012)

What a great movie! French and absolutely fabulous, The Intouchables has enough beauty and charm to capture anyone’s heart. Directed by Olivier Nakache and Eric Toledano, the film tells the story of a quadriplegic (François Cluzet) and his unlikely aid support (Omar Sy). The mismatched pairing of the unlikely two is enthralling to watch; the banter through this incapable man’s life and the jokes that are met are natural and hilarious. I found myself crying with laughter and multiple junctures. The story behind each of the characters is a little confusing and sometimes unnecessary, but luckily this aspect takes up a small portion of the overall screen time. Performances, writing, sound and scope are all brilliant in this film and so make it a list-topper of films to see.

Tbe Master (2012)

Paul Thomas Anderson has done it again. The genius that is has produced yet another gripping and intensely interesting film, this time honing in on the mysteries and wonders that surround the cult religion of scientology. Without any kind of specific reference to the truthful religious following, Anderson has dramatically captured the confusion and capriciousness that underpins the ideas of scientology, yet the film’s premise if not based on mockery. Joaquin Phoenix is almost unrecognizable as the boozing and gullible puppet of ‘The Cause’, headed by ‘The Master’ himself, Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Both Hoffman and Phoenix are outstanding. The relationship of the master and his acolyte is almost sickening as the confusion and frustration of ‘The Cause’ is still able to seize people’s conviction.

            The underpinning idea of religious devotion makes The Master just so god damn exciting!

Welcome to the Dollhouse (1995)

I have discovered my new favourite film-maker! Todd Solondz… if you haven’t heard of him, perhaps its time you had. Welcome to the Dollshouse is the second film of Solondz’s seven-titled filmography, and so far, I think it’s probably my favourite. It’s nothing seriously dramatic or awe-inspiring, but the wit and charm oozing from the screen is enough to render it fairly remarkable. The plot follows Dawn Wiener, a hopeless and unattractive junior high student, living her life, battling bullying and the unrequited love she shares for older boys. It’s by no means a comedy, but this films is absolutely soaked with dark wit and humor that is just priceless!  

Martha Marcy May Marlene (2011)

Haunting, eerie, mysterious, unpredictable, breath-taking, beautiful. The mouthful that is Martha Marcy May Marlene (It becomes easier to remember once you’ve seen it) is the well deserved smash hit directorial debut from Sean Durkin. Extremely haunting, this story follows the ins and outs of cult life, and the suffering and paranoia that follows Martha as she escapes. Elizabeth Olsen, quite outstandingly, makes her debut in this film as the lead role of Martha/Marcy May. She really is spectacular, and the cast that aids her, with special mention to John Hawkes and Sarah Paulson, is equally as captivating. The film is so beautiful, and will leave you twisting a turning at night.

Instagram

The grandeur of the social media monster has allowed for social discourse to be transformed into a medium that attracts those who best deliver in image invention, or, identity production. Instagram is a deceivingly small and simple, yet all mighty and influential app that has let the boundaries of personal branding be broken, and allowed the swarm of masses to develop and manipulate their true character to mould a fitting identity in order to gain ‘garnered fame.’[1] I do not deny that my use of Instagram is for this very reason; I hope one day to be ‘Instagram famous’. Through use of my everyday I am able to capture an image of the individual I wish to portray. The overwhelmingly common use of the everyday within this social network allows all to participate, and the signs and devices used within the boundaries of the everyday allow for a pin-pointed target market to be chosen, and one’s ultimate identity to be created.

I acquired Instagram at a time when only very few people had it. I almost had no use for it when I first got because of the small number of people apart of the Instagram circle. What use was a photo in a public sphere when there was no second party to appreciate it? This is really what the Instagram media outlet is used for; an unbelievably popular tool for showcasing one’s photos, in order to have others see them, and ultimately attach some form of identity to its owner.   

The endless scanning of Instagram photos has become an intrinsic part of my everyday routine; the billowing pictures, from countless followers, excite me enough to make me want to do it everyday - but why? I almost feel that having an IPhone allows me the privilege of joining this exclusive connected system that is only available to smartphone owners; having an iPhone makes access to Instagram instant, and as a consequence, any free time I have is usually filled with visits to the social media outlet. My Instagram is nothing special. Although I spend every morning and evening in the haze of the endless ‘everyday image forum’ my own activity is sparse. Picture uploads vary in regularity and my comments and #hashtags are lousy and infrequent.  I am however a constant (verging on ‘spam’-worthy) ‘like’er, but apart from this I am very nonchalant in my effort to maintain my own image/identity.

The instantaneousness and selectiveness of Instagram allows people to get their ‘personal brand’ across to a social mass in a more direct and recognizable fashion. With photos being the primary focus of Instagram, a clearer image of one’s brand can be formed. This is why I love it. I am able to distinctly characterize a person simply by judging their personality based upon the information I gather from their Instagram activity. The aesthetic a user creates on their own profile is an invitation to others to credit them for their ‘artistic’, ‘humorous’ and ‘fashionable’ taste and capture.

The semantics behind one’s profile on Instagram surround the idea of nonchalance. The perceived notion of not caring, or naturalism, is the grounding ethos from which Instagram was started. The vintage filters, rendering an everyday picture into a memorable token plucked straight from the seventies, add to that easy-livin’ and young-at-heart aesthetic. This media is targeted to young people, the people with enough time up their sleeves to deliver the product (the images) and to maintain a positive consumer response (i.e. followers).

So how important is the profile you set-up, and your involvement with other users? The better one’s profile (by this I mean the number of images, the quality of images, and the attitude of the images) the better the response by other Instagram users. This positive response of others leads to an influx of followers. The more followers you get, the greater your confidence, which then leads to more image posts and other involving activities (comments, hash-tagging etc.). This cycle is constant, and with the more followers and images and likes etc., the more powerful one’s Instagram profile becomes.

“It is no accident that the discourses of branding borrow heavily from the language of radical individualism; the ‘face’ or ‘identity’ of a brand works to establish a ‘relationship’ with the consumer.”[2]

What you will have inevitably created in this cycle of power is a ‘personal brand’ of yourself, which establishes an identity within the social media and cyber network community.

The tools of Instagram are excitingly simple; there is a ‘like’ button, a place for commenting, an interesting stage for #hashtagging, and the freedom to ‘follow’. Because of Instagram’s simple and user-friendly design the usability became the feature attraction of the elegant IPhone app; “With a few simple thumb taps you can snap, edit (with awesome filters) and share an Instagram photo with the world.”[3] This connected social network, now owned by Facebook ($1 billion later), is intertwined with the largest social network stages (Facebook and Twitter), allowing it to not only reach a wider audience, but to also invite a celebrity market, which in itself promotes the Instagram brand as well as those who connect with it (i.e. being cool for having Instagram because Justin Beiber does too). 

             

There are no rules as what one can do when playing on the Instagram stage. What you post is at your prerogative, and the responsibility you have with your profile is heightened with risk that one bad picture may break a winning cycle of positive reception. The ‘everyday’ is possibly the number one best selling image now billowing from the Instagram feed. Whether it’s a meal just made/purchased, a holiday snap or a simple ‘selfie’, the everyday is the fundamental facet of this particular social network. The attraction to this normality, or ordinariness, of the everyday is due to the beauty or hilarity sourced from our lives that can be so simply shared with others. “Within current branding practices, consumer behaviour and lived experience become ‘both the object and the medium of brand activity.’[4] In capturing a piece of the everyday and uploading it for all to see, the margins that dictate your identity within this social network must be respected; the brand that you yourself have developed (through specific signs) is born from this everyday that you have created, and to alter that is to contradict your identity.

The signs that you portray within your sphere of Instagram activity advertise personality traits and characteristics that are used to attract a certain target market of users. From these users we gain positive and negative reinforcements (‘likes’ and comments) on each of the pictures that are added; the information gathered from these pictures (i.e. the number of ‘likes’) support the preservation of one’s identity by keeping one’s profile within the aesthetic of the brand that has been created. For example, I upload a picture and within the first 2 hours I receive a total of four ‘likes’, as opposed to my usual number of between eleven and sixteen. This information (negative reception) that I have gathered from this one picture, eludes me to the conclusion that the image I have uploaded does not fit my Instagram identity, and therefore mustn’t be used again. The personal brand that has been created within the Instagram sphere “is built on the [user’s] true character, values, strengths and flaws”[5]; by breaching this code of individualism, the illusion of your invented persona is shattered.

“Image invention is designed to garner fame”[6]; I use Instagram because I want people to know what I am doing and credit me for doing so. My identity, as I have built in my Instagram castle, illustrates me as an ironic, sometimes funny, creative, food-loving, young, and relatively nonchalant character. When uploading a picture I do my best to steer clear of personal between a selected few, because in doing so restricts the number of people who may potentially ‘like’ my image.

            I may be speaking for myself when I argue that Instagram is a space for people to create the ‘coolest’ version of themselves by through a brand of ‘fashionable’ or ‘trendy’ signs. Each image is carefully chosen to highlight our greatest characteristics and traits so that others will associate an appropriately trendy individualism to that profile. This idea is nothing new, the same devices of individualism and identity are used though many social networks such as Facebook and Twitter.

My identity is produced though my everyday practices. The identity I have created is one that invites users of a similar characteristic to appreciate and credit my activity, in order for me to continue the Instagram cycle. Although I am able to see the truth in each user’s image, I am still willing to appreciate it, giving back to the social network system and remaining within the social cycle.

---

[1] Alison Hearn, “Meat, Mask, Burden”, 214

[2] Alison Hearn, “Meat, Mask, Burden”, 214.

[3] Stephen Bertoni, “How Stanford made Instagram”, 58.

[4] Elizabeth Moor, “Branded Spaces”, 42

[5] Peter Montoya, “The Personal Branding Phenomenon”, 16.

[6] Alison Hearn, “Meat, Mask, Burden”, 214.

the great films?

  What are you favourite films and why?

I am self-confessed obsessed…with what? With film! Have you ever asked someone what his or her favourite films or directors are, and sneered or gawked in horrified response due to your complete disagreement? I basically judge people on their ability to impress me with their film expertise. I’m not boasting that I myself engage in the art of filmmaking, nor do I even practice in any professional media making industry, but I have made it my job to learn about the creation of film and justly critique it.

There’s my brand: Sophie Booth – “What the F**K does she know about film!”

Usually when I ask “Hey you! What’s your favourite film?”, I usually hold out for a recital of the IMDB top 10. “Oh yeah I really liked that ‘something Redemption’ movie, you know the one?”…. yes, you fool, I know the one.

These films, although stunning and epic and timeless and genius and whatever else are so generalized now as ‘the great films’ that they have almost lost their greatness. In fact if someone answers my “what’s your favourite film” with an IMDB quintessential, I am more often than not a little let down. To be a film enthusiast these days is to know a great, for its ‘ungreatness’.

A low budget ‘indie’ flick with a genius script and different perspective is more likely to throw me a-back than a wide angle Oscar-buzz season hit, simply because I am surprised by it. Both may very well be equal in quality, but the ability of the film makers in a low budget flick are obviously higher as they are equipped with more innovation and creative intellect.

Similarly, the success of a director can often undermine the ‘greatness’ of one of their films; take for example the Coen brothers. Raising Arizona (1987) is a fantastic film, one of Nicholas Cage’s finest, yet now, in a present day setting, the overwhelming success of Fargo (1996), The Big Lebowski (1998), O Brother Where Art Thou (2000), and No Country for Old Men (2007) (and many more) has stuffed earlier films into a corner, where they generally seem far less appreciated. Not to say that afore mentioned films don’t deserve the wrap they get, I only want to highlight the effects these films have on the vintage Coen collection.

Having said all that I recently read on an FILM JUNK article (see link below) the ten favourite movies from some of Hollywood’s most successful directors. I made a note of reoccurring trends and added them swiftly to my watchlist. As a consequence, my ‘films-to-watch’ is now filled with filled with Italian and French classics spanning the 20’s, 30’s, 40’s and 50’s. These films are the greatest, even the big wigs say so, and little 20-year-old me hasn’t seen them. I could probably count on one hand the amount of people I would know that have! How are these so great, yet so unheard of? You don’t need to be a genius to figure it out…they’re old and they’re foreign.

I have made it my personal mission to watch my entire watchlist over the summer and educate myself (and whoever gets caught in my movie watching web) in the subject of the real movie greats. WILL SHE DO IT???? I surely hope so.  

http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/08/06/tarantino-and-scorsese-and-other-directors-reveal-their-top-10-movies-of-all-time/ 

Killing Them Softly

Which elements fuse together in order to create a good movie? I threw myself into the cinema this Monday and I happened to stumble across a specimen that I believe is testament to good movie making. From what I know, and let me just reiterate my lack of professional experience and therefore understanding, it basically comes down to a handful of things:

Number one:

Sound – basic human physiology would have my back when I say that the better something sounds (clarity, variety, and musicality), the better our response…simple.

Number two:

Script – since the dawn of Marlon Brando, and his charming ‘method’, naturalism is key in the dialogue of a film simply because without it, we don’t accept it, and if we don’t accept it… it isn’t believed and therefore (more often than not) enjoyed. Throw a joke or two in the mix, maybe jerk and tear or two, but keep the script interesting and keep it relative.

Number 3:

Visual – it’s the reason we watch film, the reason we make film. The visual component of a screen experience is the first thing you attach to memory, it’s the impression of the film that will last the longest and it’s the element that’s going to take a well written and awesome sounding story to a beautifully high standard.

Keeping those ingredients in mind let me discuss with you Killing Them Softly, the third success story from New Zealand born director Andrew Dominik. With Chopper (2000) and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007) under his belt, Dominik is no stranger to big stories and big names.

Killing Them Softly is the story of a small time crook, his minions, their heist, and the bloody aftermath that follows. Sound interesting yet? Well… let me tell you – it’s damn interesting.

           

So basically the story flows as a two-parter. The first follows crook, Johnny Amato (Vincent Curatola) and loyal crony, Frankie (Scoot McNairy) and their plan to rob a mob run poker game with hopes that the card playing gangsters pin the crime on game organizer Markie Trattman (Ray Liota), due to his previous history of scheming the players out of money. It is a little complicated at first! Frankie brings in drug-using, dog abusing Aussie larrikin Russell (Ben Mendelsohn) to assist him with the crime. The two, after a torturously intense heist scene, make it out with the money. Bring on part two and enter Jackie Coogan, not surprisingly played by Brad Pitt. His job: ‘deal with’ those responsible.

I had no expectations of this film when I entered that cinema, I was actually just killing time and Killing Them Softly turned out to have shortest running time, so naturally I bought a ticket. THANK GOD I DID!

This film is different from any gang related, whack-fest movie reason being because of its beauty in sound, script and visual components (remember our ingredients?). The cinematography, accredited to Aussie’s own Greig Fraser, is sensual and captivating. Each frame is smooth and charismatic, and he does a beautiful job of echoing the characteristics of the men we see, through the means with which we see them. The standout of the film though is the sound design. The film is drenched with American Pop and Rock’n’Roll classics, always played at the most unlikely of times, as well as (interestingly) speeches from the 2008 presidential campaign. The film’s themes surround America’s most recent economic turmoil and therefore duly allow for George W. Bush and Obama to play as a constant soundtrack throughout.

  
The ensemble gathered for this film is inspired. Ben Mendelsohn as the drug obsessed Russell is a refreshing point of difference for this gritty thriller that, I believe, allows for a wider audience appeal. Pitt is solid, as is James Gandolfini, as import hitman, and McNairy as the morally conflicted Frankie. 

Like I said, this film is different, and god damn it’s interesting…no no…captivating. If you’re in the mood for intelligent thriller with a refreshing 97-minute running time, then look no further. I may go as far as saying it’s my favourite film of the year. 

Moonrise Kingdom

Welcome to New Penzance Island, the home of two love-drunk pre-teens, Suzy Bishop and Sam Shakusky. This is where we set our scene for the enchanting tale of Moonrise Kingdom as told by director, Wes Anderson.

Moonrise Kingdom is the seventh feature by Anderson, and might I say…the films got class. The story is built around the adolescent infatuation of two youngsters as they run away from home in a battle against family and friends (and scouts) to prove and declare their love for one another. The band of rescuers who set out to find the missing couple is bloody star studded.

Okay…so we have Bill Murray (of course…its a Wes Anderson movie), who plays Suzy’s father, the far too serious Walt Bishop, and alongside Murray is his stage wife, Laura Bishop as played by Francis McDormand. Next we have Edward Norton, who is probably my favourite of all the characters, a misunderstood middle-aged man  and resident Scout Master (and a math teacher on the side) and leader of Sam Shakusky. Tilda Swinton makes a minor appearance as the bitch social service lady, and Harvey Keitel runs the opposing Scout army on the other side of the Island. The gorgeous Jason Schwartzman is a sight for sore eyes as Cousin Ben. I don’t know why, but I just friggen love Schwartzman in basically anything he does…I mean put him on the screen, and I am sold.  Last, but most definitely not least, we have Bruce Willis who, I must say, gives an absolute ripper of a performance as Captain Sharp (resident police officer). 

Suzy and Sam, played by the premiering Kara Hayward and Jared Gilman, colour the film with vulnerability. Kara Hayward is just the most stunning 13-year old you will ever see, and Jared Gilman is just hilarious; I think we have just met the new Anderson muse. The ensemble of child actors in this film was actually awesome. The best moments for me (apart from any scene with Schwartzman) were the assembly of scouts, their dialogue with one another and their interaction with the adults. Can you imagine being on of them!!! Just casually on set with Bruce Willis, Edward Norton and Harvey Keitel…no biggy!

So what did I think of it? Look, it was pretty fantastic; you can’t deny it. Any Wes Anderson film, no matter how terrible, is usually one cut above the rest, and Moonrise Kingdom was by no means terrible. I would have to say that I still hail Rushmore as my personal favourite, but by golly gee wiz… this bad boy comes a strikingly close second. The framing, colour, lighting and sound are all as beautiful and perfect and enchanting and exciting as you would expect. The script is honest and cringeworthy (just how we like it), and the performances are all bang on! The only thing I can fault, and its not really all that terrible, is the duo of Hayward and Gilman as a couple on screen. I understand that they are both fresh onto the big screen, but I couldn’t escape the awkwardness I picked up on whilst watching the film. Both respectively played a perfect role, but as a duo, I just couldn’t believe it. 

Moonrise Kingdom has been on my ‘to watch list’ for a damn long time, so when I sat in my big red chair at Nova I was utterly bursting at the seams with excitement. This film lived up to all my expectations and I don’t think I will ever see Edward Norton the same way again that’s for damn sure. Wes Anderson is at the top of his game, and with each film outdoing the next I wait on tenterhooks for what this guy can come up with next.

damn....i'm really lazy

I have recently discovered that I live my day-to-day not by the hours on the clock but by the number of episodes of Game of Thrones I can get through from the moment I wake, to the moment I sleep.

           
 I hadn’t realized until now that the majority of short-term goals I have set myself are based solely around the consumption of screen culture; the only things I wish to achieve by the end of the day/week/month is to have completed a television series or a director’s filmography. Now either I am slightly more abnormal than most, or the convenience of downloadable media (i.e. TV and movies) its progressively diminishing our ability to achieve things we might otherwise be inclined to achieve. Honestly…. what were we all doing before the advent of DVDs, computers/laptops, flat screens and IMAX theatres? I have nearly forgotten what a person can do with their spare time without the use of these things. I hate to say it, but I think I would be a whole lot more productive Uni-wise, maybe even take up recreational reading, or teach myself to knit.

         
   My laptop has found a home on my bedside table (along with my IPhone), and is ALWAYS, without fail, the last thing I use before I endeavor to sleep. Watching movies and/or television on my laptop has become a fundamental part of my everyday, and I fear that without the intake of some sort of media at the end of my day I will become knowingly aware and upset over the situation. The worst part of this realization is that now, having learnt this horrible trait, I don’t even feel compelled to change it; I don’t believe any concerted effort will be made on my part to instill a change of ways.