Category Archives: directors

Skip’s Quips: Condemning Flashy Filmmaking

~

Blog Sketch 082813What is it these days with cinema pyrotechnics?

I see it all the time, most recently in Darren Aronofsky’s nearly unwatchable Requiem for a Dream. Quick cuts, splashy close-ups of eyes and drug paraphernalia, sped-up photography and so on.

Couldn’t stand it. Had to turn it off.

No, I’m not going to blame this kind of filmmaking on MTV. Fast edits have been around for a long time. Rather, I think it’s a product of directors not trusting their audiences. It’s about adding flash to a recipe in the hopes of making it palatable.

I prefer a more traditional approach. That doesn’t necessarily mean I want to see more irises and wipes, though. Instead, I’d like to see a focus more on story, on telling a tale in a linear manner, without blatant showmanship. That just calls attention to the filmmaking process, and enjoyment of a movie should be organic. It should immerse you, not alienate you. Too many flicks today do the latter.

I like Aronofsky; I think he’s very talented. But I believe RfaD isn’t a success. Too much demonstration of cinematic prowess, not enough straightforward storytelling. Can we have a little more of that, please, in the future? Special request, from me.

Skip’s Quips: Why ‘Big’ Really Grows on You

~

Blog Sketch 082813The first time I saw the Penny Marshall film Big was in Los Angeles as part of a double feature. The other flick on the bill: Everybody’s All-American.

Needless to say, I appreciated the former movie a lot more after I saw both in one day.

Recently, I watched Big again, and I have to say it has aged well. It’s still charming, with wonderful dialogue, sharp cinematography and terrific performances – notably by Tom Hanks as the child who magically grows up overnight. Marshall has a light touch with the direction, and it never becomes plodding.

Why can’t more comedies today be like this? Big never seems to take the easy way out, and it wraps up everything nicely, even credibly, despite the fantastic aspect of the whole thing. It’s low-key, but I think it’s one of the best things Hanks has done.

It’s always the ones that fly under the radar, right?

Setter’s ‘Spectives: On Israel, ‘Genocide’ and Celebrity Politics

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613I was not delighted to read the recent news report about Penelope Cruz, Javier Bardem, Pedro Almodovar calling Israel’s ongoing Gaza Strip initiative a “genocide.”

These are very talented people, especially Almodovar, whose films I like very much. Unfortunately, calling Israel’s operation a genocide smacks to me of ignorance and anti-Semitism. It’s a way of turning around Jews’ experience in the Holocaust to suggest the victims of that era are now the perpetrators of an operation that seeks the extermination of a population, and that’s just not the case.

Full disclosure: I’m Jewish. I have positive feelings for Israel in my blood – my mother raised money for the country when I was an infant – and although I don’t agree with all of its policies, I support its right to exist. I also support the right of celebrities to say any ludicrous thing that comes to their minds, as everyone should have freedom of speech. Sadly, it has become fashionable to single out Israel as a “fascist” or “Nazi”-like state effecting a genocide in the Gaza Strip, despite the fact that Israel’s activities bear no resemblance to the Nazis’ attempt to eradicate Jews in the early part of the last century.

There’s no comparison. I know. I interviewed two Holocaust survivors when I was in seventh grade, and I’ll never forget the horrors they recounted to me. It’s not the same thing. The Nazis were a different animal. They sought the systematic destruction of the Jews, both physically and psychologically. They sought genocide. The two people I interviewed were witnesses.

I don’t believe in violence as a solution to the problems of living in this world. But I also don’t believe in the misuse of words to address political sentiments. Those who argue that Israel is committing genocide should reexamine their claims in light of actual attempts at genocide in recent history – including the Holocaust, the Turkish genocide of Armenians in the early 20th century and the Rwandan genocide in the 1990s. I encourage Cruz, Bardem, Almodovar and others to think further on these events, study them, before making a determination. Hopefully, they’ll come to a more educated conclusion.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Just Say ‘Ewww’ to ‘The V.I.P.s’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Normally, I don’t care for movies with Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. So I wasn’t surprised to find that The V.I.P.s, their 1963 film under Anthony Asquith’s direction, was awful. And I mean awful.

Soapy, too. In a bad way, not in an I, Claudius fun way. This was soap without a lot of bubbles. Deadly dull, unperfumed, lather-free soap.

And trashy. The tale of a group of high-end passengers who get stuck in a London airport due to fog, The V.I.P.s went from one dreary relationship to another, from Burton and Taylor’s married-couple-on-the-outs to Rod Taylor’s nice-guy businessman whose secretary, played by Maggie Smith, has fallen in love with him. I didn’t find any of these situations credible, and they just got more tedious as the film rolled along. Plus, the cinematography didn’t help, either. Strange compositions seemed to include lamps or some kind of bizarre light fixture in many shots, leading them to be jarring. And the score by the normally reliable Miklós Rózsa was awfully syrupy. Not good, Miklós. Not good.

So what are the takeaways from this? Well, I still don’t like Burton-Taylor movies. I also don’t like bad movies. And I love I, Claudius.

If you can find meaning in that, you’re a better man (or woman) than I.

Skip’s Quips: What’s Lovely and Amazing About ‘Lovely & Amazing’

~

Blog Sketch 082813There’s a lot of really good stuff in Nicole Holofcener’s bittersweet flick Lovely & Amazing. An introspective script. Strong subject matter. Good performances.

There are also many annoying things about the film, particularly the fact that it meanders and doesn’t seem to come to a resolution. That’s sad, because it otherwise has a lot going for it, including yet another fine turn by Catherine Keener as one of three sisters with dealing with the problems of life.

I lost interest, however, after what seemed like the eighth reel. It went on a bit too long and could’ve used more editing, as well as significant tightening.

Still, it has some interest value, and it tackles an issue that’s rarely dealt with sensitively or truthfully: how women view themselves. Kudos to the film for that – you don’t see such subject matter in the theaters often.

What will my next movie be? Let’s see …

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Could ‘Philomena’ Have Been Any More Upsetting?

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613I remember watching the trailers for Philomena and thinking that it seemed like a syrupy, sentimental movie.

We watched it last night. Boy, was it not that at all.

Pretty serious, disturbing flick, with some light touches. But the advertising for it was all wrong. This was an attack on social injustice, centering on a woman whose child was basically taken away from her for adoption in the United States … and it was based on a true story, too. It was not a “feel-good” movie.

Direction, by the reliable Stephen Frears, was expert, getting fine performances from Judi Dench (I know, as usual) and Steve Coogan. And although there was some humor, it focused on memories and the sadness of one who lost something important. I think we’ve all experienced that in some way.

Good movie. Not a “feel-good” one, though.

Skip’s Quips: Give ‘To Be or Not to Be’ a Medal

~

Blog Sketch 082813I love Ernst Lubitsch’s To Be or Not to Be.

Brilliant script. Terrific performances by Jack Benny, Carole Lombard, Sig Ruman and the rest of the brilliant cast. And of course perfect, sly direction by the immortal Lubitsch.

Sure it’s in questionable taste – what with a story concerning a company of Polish actors and their wartime efforts to foil a Nazi plan – and even now some of the material seems iffy. But it remains razor-sharp, as well as still topical to this day. I watched this film again last night for what may have been the 45th time, and it’s still fresh. That’s the mark of a great movie. It just doesn’t get old.

I’ve seen the remake with Mel Brooks, too, and it’s just not the same. The Lubitsch version is tops; there’s no comparison. I’m giving the medal to that one for quality.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Thinking About ‘Ugetsu’ and Other Flicks

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613I like Kenji Mizoguchi’s films. I think he’s a top-class director.

Is he greater than Akira Kurosawa, though? I’m not sure. I will admit, I’ve been thinking about Ugetsu more than The Seven Samurai recently, and I don’t know why.

There’s a haunting moment in the former flick that has stuck in my mind. After the potter Genjuro escapes from the clutches of the ghost of Lady Wakasa, he finds himself in a field bestrewn with the ruins of her mansion. A song she once sang for him is played as he wanders, stunned, among the skeleton of the house.

What a sad, wonderful, evocative moment. So eerie. It’s part of what makes Ugetsu the best ghost story put on film … next to Masaki Kobayashi’s Kwaidan. But where the latter movie was daring in its use of color and sound, Ugetsu is relatively conservative, using stately, composed shots and wistful music to move the action, as well as provide tangible atmosphere.

I’ll be debating for a long time whether Mizoguchi is better than Kurosawa. With pictures such as Ugetsu, however, I wonder if there really is any debate.

Skip’s Quips: Picking Apart ‘The Oranges’

~

Blog Sketch 082813There’s a lot of good stuff in The Oranges – so much that I wonder why it got such a low rating on IMDb.

This tale of adultery with your New Jersey neighbor has a pretty tight script, some good direction by Julian Farino and fine casting that results in sparkling turns by the likes of Hugh Laurie, Oliver Platt, Alia Shawkat, Catherine Keener and Allison Janney. The plot features some not-so-credible points, and I feel everything wrapped up in an all-too-pat manner, but there’s humor and drama in hefty amounts along the way, plus sensitive treatment of a familiar subject.

And no, I didn’t turn it off halfway through. That’s something in itself.

OK, it’s not a great film. I don’t think it tries to be, though. Surprisingly, it’s quite unpretentious; I think that’s partly why I enjoyed much of it.

Director Farino has done a lot of TV work in the past. Perhaps that’s one reason why it felt so crisp. Maybe the ending was a little TV-esque, too, but there’s potential here.

Good show.

Skip’s Quips: Disliking ‘The Comedians’ Is No Laughing Matter

~

Blog Sketch 082813Well, I tried to watch The Comedians. It was a valiant effort.

Unfortunately, it failed.

I’m not sure what the issue was. The pacing seemed off. Direction, by Peter Glenville, was a bit plodding, especially during the scenes involving Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor, who have never been my favorite acting team. It certainly was a powerful subject – Haiti during the reign of “Papa Doc” Duvalier – and it had some terrific performers, including Alec Guinness, Peter Ustinov, James Earl Jones and Lilian Gish, but the components didn’t really fit together. The movie felt like an unfinished jigsaw puzzle with inaccurately measured pieces.

Oh, well. I do like trying new things, but this picture didn’t grab me. Perhaps it’s one of those films that deserves to be remade. Better direction and a tighter script might serve it well.