Coming Soon

Hello readers,

Apologies for the lengthy hiatus. I assure you this was only temporary. Coming soon I will have four analyses published, hopefully sometime later this week. The analyses will be in this order: Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas, Kill Bill, and The Big Lebowski. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience, but you should see new content very soon.

Analysis: "Inglourious Basterds"

In my analysis of The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, I touched on the fact that war, while an unfortunate fact of the human existence, is indeed hell, and how it will force either side to brutality and grey morality, no matter how honorable they are perceived to be. This has been a persistent topic in literature, such as in Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five, and films like Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory and Full Metal Jacket, along with countless others, many based around the Vietnam War. However, such films focus almost entirely on the epigram "war is hell," but I feel that not enough cinema focuses on another, less glorified statement about war: "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it," a line attributed to Union Army General William T. Sherman. 2009's Inglourious Basterds, though, does analyze this quote, and does it quite well. Set against the backdrop of a very fictionalized World War II, it shows the story of two separate plots to assassinate the Nazi high command, including Adolf Hitler, by two Jewish entities: the American Special forces known as the "Basterds," led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), and including Sgt. Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz (Eli Roth) and German rogue Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz, well-known for assassinating thirteen Gestapo officers and being freed from prison by the Basterds, and another plot formulated by French cinema proprietor Emmanuelle Mimieux, really Shosanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), a Jew whose family was massacred by the SS, under the orders of Colonel Hans Landa, "the Jew Hunter" (Christoph Waltz in his first Oscar-winning role). Shosanna's theater was chosen as the premiere for a German propaganda film, Stolz der Nation (Nation's Pride in German), starring sniper Frederick Zoller (Daniel Brühl). She plans to burn her cinema to the ground, whereas the Basterds plan to rendezvous with their mole, German film starlet Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger), and kill the High Command with dynamite. Things become even tenser for Shosanna when she realizes Col. Landa will be managing security for the premiere, making her absolutely furious. In a sense, it is also a story of revenge, one of Tarantino's favorite subjects, which he has explored many times, most notably in Kill Bill and Django Unchained. However, this movie involves the revenge of a woman who is angry about the death of her family, avenging loved ones, much like Django, where the main character enacts revenge on his wife's captors by killing them in one of the most stylized ways possible. The stylization cake, however, is taken by Kill Bill, which focuses on the Bride avenging the supposed death of her daughter, who was revealed to be alive at the end of Volume I, and Bill's revenge on the Bride for breaking his heart, both tragedies of love. Really, I could go on about this, but I'll save this material for future articles; I have to keep you readers entertained somehow. Back to the main subject: the cruelty of war, on both sides. The Germans have been ruthlessly massacring Jews simply out of prejudice and xenophobia, forcing millions to die by execution or other horrific methods in the death camps. In the opening, Landa himself interrogates a French dairy farmer and threatens his life and livelihood, forcing him to give up the location of the Dreyfus family, resulting in their death. However, in the context of the film and the film only, could it be said that the Allies are fighting fire with fire to an excessive extent? Watch the above videos again, and notice the cruel pleasure the Basterds take in murdering the Germans. Also, Lt. Raine states in the beginning of the film that each of his eight soldiers owe him 100 Nazi Scalps, and he wants his scalps. He carves swastikas into the heads of captured Germans to brand them forever as Nazis (possibly a reference to a moment in the Robert Rodriguez short film, Bedhead), and sends one survivor back each time to tell the tale. Also, towards the end of the film, Donowitz and fellow Basterd Omar (Omar Doom) go inside Shosanna's theater, as it burns to the ground, and into an opera box. They procede to pump Hitler full of lead with submachine guns, the film's crowning moment of awesome and the catalyst for Tarantino's alternate universe he sets all of his movies in. It, awesome and justifiable as it was for a group of Jewish soldiers (Roth's parents cried tears of joy when they fist saw it), was still cruel and brutal, no matter what. It is not a comment on World War II itself as much as war in general. Each side, regardless of their alignment, fights for a cause, oftentimes passionately. They are willing to put their lives on the line for the sake of their country, and that is their duty as soldiers; it is patriotism in the most literal sense. However, occasionally, when a side fights dirty, like the Germans or Japanese did during World War II, the opponents must occasionally do the same. Does it go to far at times? Yes, certainly. It  is a mistake that happens to many countries, ranging from US waterboarding of detainees to the sickening massacre of innocent Vietnamese at the My Lai Massacre. In works of fiction, we see it in The Dirty Dozen and Inglourious Basterds. They fight cruelty with cruelty, out of their own rage. No fighter in war is immune to this; it's called bloodlust, and while some escape it, it cannot be completely escaped. Sometimes we don't hear these stories of poor men losing their sanity because of their situation; in the case of the Basterds, they fought out of defense for their Jewish heritage, and the Germans oftentimes deserved such retribution, even though in real life, not every German was a Nazi (for a cinematic example, watch a German film about "die Weisse Rose," or the White Rose, released in 2005. It's called Sophie Scholl: Die Ietzten Tage). In the case of other, real-life examples, men killed and committed other despicable acts, such as in My Lai, without reason or logic, only out of irrational thinking. Yes, war is truly cruelty, and you cannot refine it.

NOTE: After I wrote this article, I perused the TV Tropes page on Inglourious Basterds and found some interesting tropes relevant to this article. Read here for more.

Analysis: "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly"

Musical Bonus
As you may have noticed in my series of Oscar Reaction articles, in each of the entry's titles I referenced Italian director Sergio Leone's famed Dollars trilogy, which includes A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More (spoofed by NBC's Community in the episodes "A Fistful of Paintballs" and "For a Few Paintballs More"), and the final "prequel" film, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly. The movie's title has entered the public lexicon, and has given birth to some truly awful offspring sayings, predating the internet meme by at least twenty-seven years. Despite the fact it is such a well-known saying, I have found in my own experience that not a great deal of people know the plot of this excellent film, and it's pretty straightforward. Three men, "Blondie" or "The Man with No Name" (Clint Eastwood)- the good, "Angel Eyes" (Lee Van Cleef)- the bad, and "Tuco" (Eli Wallach)- the ugly. Set during the American Civil War, it follows each man as they attempt to find a fortune in Confederate gold. The film is also known for being incredibly long, clocking in at nearly three hours, and influencing a variety of future directors, including Eastwood as he became a director and one of my personal favorites, Quentin Tarantino, who hails the film as being "one of cinema's greatest achievements." Even though it looks like some sort of dime-store exploitation flick, it actually goes significantly deeper than it appears. Leone was an avid history buff and a perfectionist- all important qualities to a filmmaker. It even goes deeper than some modern day films, by analyzing basic human tendencies. Most so-called Spaghetti Westerns are actually revenge flicks, such as Leone's earlier work, specifically For A Few Dollars More, The Outlaw Josey Wales, and homages like Kill Bill, Vol II, Django Unchained, and Unforgiven all deal in revenge of some sort. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, however, focuses on human greed and deceit. Each one of these men are not particularly "good" men; the closest is Blondie, and he just shoots bad guys, when you get right down to it. Each of them is willing to result to trickery, torture, murder, and backstabbing just so they can get their hands on some gold. Angel Eyes kills a poor farmer just so he can gather some intel on the location of the gold, and Tuco tortures Blondie in the desert by starving him and drinking water in front of Blondie, tantalizing him. Angel Eyes even disguises himself as a Union officer during a battle, all so he can, yet again, get intel on the gold's location. The three participate in Civil War battles, switching sides at their convenience, and engage in gunfights, so they can get closer to the gold. And who can forget the final Mexican standoff in the graveyard where the gold is located, leading to the death of Angel Eyes and Blondie's escape with a share of the loot, leaving Tuco restrained and tantalized by the gold. I believe Leone had two goals in mind here: he wanted to satirize the popular, American view of the Old West, and to show the lengths man will go to for material possession, culminating in crime and greed. The Old West has been romanticized in American culture to the point where the actual plight of the settler has been so diluted that we seem to care only for the widespread tales of heroic gunslingers and cattlemen that we ignore the disease that afflicted travelers and the widespread crime in the region, primarily robbery, gambling, and other unsavory deeds. We also tend to forget that the Union side during the American Civil War was not the perfect defender of liberty we picture it as. They also ran horrific prison camps and committed just as many atrocities as the Confederated States of America, it's just that the winner writes the history books. War fosters brutality on both sides (Inglourious Basterds deconstructs this trope surprisingly well), and we tend to ignore that. But I'm getting off-track, back to the film at hand. Leone decides to take the common American Western, take out the false heroic elements, and show what conniving rats these assorted bounty hunters and criminals were. They were greedy, like the California settlers who were looking for gold, who sparked the era of the West in America (perhaps an unintentional allegory), and took advantage of others and their situation so they could get rich and live out the rest of their lives without a care. Here is where Community becomes important. In the episode "A Fistful of Paintballs," the students are competing for $100,000 dollars in a paintball tournament sponsored by Pistol Patty's Cowboy Creamery, tapping into their innate greed. Of course, it turns out to be a plot by City College to destroy Greendale Community College, the show's main setting. Though it transitions from a Western to Star Wars scenario, it still shows a human's innate desire for material possessions and success at all costs, be it through a real or paintball shootout. Of course, I might be overanalyzing this. Either way, be sure to check out next week's column on why Smokey and the Bandit is secretly about chauvinism and the male ego.

All movies have themes, even bad movies like Plan Nine from Outer Space, and while they may not necessarily be good themes, they, the themes, are there. While my tastes are very eclectic, most of my favorite films dig into the darker side of the human mind, be it The Dark Knight, Death Proof, or Vertigo. The best ones out of this bunch are the ones that actually appear shallow but dig deep regardless. This is what makes The Good, The Bad and The Ugly so fantastic. It appears to be nothing but a shoot 'em up, but really analyzes deeper issues regarding man's own basic desires and satirizes the cultural foolishness of the West.

Popcorn Talk Oscar Reactions, Vol. III: Best Picture- The Good, The Bad and the "Gigli"

Finally, we have arrived at the biggest award of the night of the Awards: yes folks, I'm talking about costume design! I kid, of course, the main attraction is obviously the Academy Award for Best Picture. The nominees were Amour, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Django Unchained, Les Miserables, Life of Pi, Lincoln, my personal favorite Zero Dark Thirty, and the winner, Ben Affleck's Argo. This year has a wonderful selection of films, but it is actually very obvious why Argo won, underneath all the fluff. Both Django Unchained and Les Mis are, as I have mentioned before, niche films. Despite their acclaim, each has a target audience that loves the movie through thick and thin; I consider myself to be a member of the Tarantino fanbase myself. However, niche and cult films are often losers, despite all acclaim, such as with Looper. Amour also lost in a similar fashion to the two aforementioned films. It was a foreign film that, while it was acclaimed, failed to achieve widespread exposure due to the fact it did not boast anything special enough, as a foreign film, to interest the filmgoing masses in the United States. Beasts of the Southern Wild is something of a curious case. It was Benh Zeitlen's directorial debut and an unexpected hit, but the director (and cast's) youth prevented its success at the awards. Life of Pi, despite featuring a moving story and masterful direction by Ang Lee (who earned the Oscar for Best Director this year), I personally feel the film relied too much on cinematography and computer generated imagery than its story, detracting it like a PowerPoint with one too many effects. Lincoln's biggest attraction was Day-Lewis's excellent acting and the star power of Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt in attracting audiences. However, it does't do it in a corny or callous fashion; it, like Les Mis, uses it star power in good measure and excellent choice by the casters and directors, unlike the cornucopia of films who abuse star power into being their main and only attraction.  Otherwise, it's a roughly strait-forward film that presents its topic excellently, but not Oscar-worthy. Now to the final films: Argo and Zero Dark Thirty. Why I thought the latter would win was multifaceted: it was visceral, thought-provoking, allegorical, brilliant, and, overall, relevant. More relevant than Argo. Both films possessed a thrilling story, superb acting choice, and excellent direction. But that's what differentiates Argo from Zero Dark Thirty: Ben Affleck is an absolutely incredible director. He's long since abandoned flops like Jersey Girl, Daredevil, and his barely forgivable Gigli, and broken into the upper echelon of filmmaking with Gone Baby Gone, The Town, and his period piece opus, Argo. It's even more impressive than Kathryn Bigelow's career, and it is his historic comeback that earned him this award. 

Popcorn Talk Oscar Reactions, Vol. II: Best Actor- For a Few Analyses More

For the second entry in the Popcorn Talk Oscar Reactions, I'll be dissecting the choices in the Best Actor category. The nominees were Denzel Washington (Flight), Joaquin Phoenix (The Master), Hugh Jackman (Les Miserables), Bradley Cooper (Silver Linings Playbook), and the winner, Daniel Day-Lewis, for his portrayal of Abraham Lincoln in Steven Spielberg's Lincoln. Phoenix, whose most famous role was Johnny Cash in 2005's Walk the Line, failed to generate enough publicity for Paul Thomas Anderson's superb film The Master, which admittedly was a more intellectual film, something not commonly enjoyed by the average American filmgoer (summed up here beautifully by Peter Travers). Jackman, on the other hand, was magnificent as Jean Valjean in Les Mis, and also managed to achieve a high degree of publicity for the direction, ensemble cast, and singing, but also acted in something of a niche film, reserved almost entirely for musical lovers. That said, it was wonderful, but unfortunately not "mainstream" enough for the voters of the Academy. Bradley Cooper had excellent chemistry with his costar Ms. Lawrence, and also portrayed a character with a never-failing sense of optimism despite his condition, simply failed to compare to his fellow nominees, though I am thankful he has expanded from raunchy comedies like The Hangover and is making his migration to more sensitive films. Day-Lewis's closest competitor in the race was undoubtedly Denzel Washington in Flight. He also portrayed a deeply flawed character (something of a theme this year, no?) who is inherently good in is heart, but struggles with addiction to the point where it cripples his career but follows him during his trial for drinking while flying, but saving the passengers from dying a fiery death in a crash, all while his fate hangs in the balance. However, Washington's excellent acting ability pales in comparison to Day-Lewis's Lincoln. A well-known method actor, he takes his own reputation and expands it beyond his wildest beliefs. He nailed the voice and character of Lincoln, who worked hard to unite a divided Congress and cabinet through the power of persuasion and his unparalleled gift of gab. In short, Daniel Day-Lewis deserved that award more than he deserved it for his role as Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood.

Popcorn Talk Oscar Reactions Vol. I: Best Actress- A Fistfull of Analyses

The Academy Awards were last night, and I will be the first to admit that a good amount of my predictions were actually incorrect, ranging from not so incorrect (Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz versus Phillip Seymour Hoffman) to terribly incorrect (Best Cinematography: Life of Pi won, contrary to my prediction of Django Unchained). However, this will not be an article focusing on the lesser Academy Awards, such as sound mixing, but rather the core group of three, Best Actor, Best Actress, and the ubiquitous Best Picture (I am eschewing other prestigious awards, such as Best Director and Best Screenplay, due to length concerns, despite the fact that I hold the recipients in the highest regard). Of course, they will not be presented in a series of rants that describe my pleasure or displeasure with the Academy's choices, but rather a series of in-depth critical analyses describing why the actors and films won the award, regardless of my position. I'll be sharing each volume in three days, beginning with Best Actress and concluding with Best Picture. First, here were the winners: Jennifer Lawrence won Best Actress for Silver Linings Playbook, Daniel Day-Lewis won Best Actor for his portrayal of Abraham Lincoln in Lincoln, and the winner for Best Picture was Argo. We'll begin with Best Actress. The nominees were Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty), Emmanuelle Riva (Amour), Quvenzhané Wallis (Beasts of the Southern Wild), Naomi Watts (The Impossible), and of course the winner, Ms. Lawrence. Perhaps one of the most-hyped nominees was Ms. Wallis, who, at nine years old, is the youngest nominee for Best Actress in the history of the Academy Awards. While it is a proud moment for film historians, critics, and bloggers alike, it should be remembered that she is still but a child; a talented child, but a child nonetheless. She is not yet ready to compete with such high-caliber actresses like Jessica Chastain, Jennifer Lawrence, and Naomi Watts. Then there was Ms. Riva, who was nominated for the French film Amour, which surprised critics and audiences alike by scoring a high amount of nominations for a foreign film, much like The Artist, last year's winner for Best Picture. However, Riva and Amour in general did not receive as much publicity as their American counterparts, which some might say is unfair. Of course, it should be expected, as the average filmgoer in the states doesn't care much for foreign films, unless the boast something incredible, such as the German Das Boot (one of the most expensive films ever made), or The Artist, which was a silent film, something oft unheard of in today's day and age (The Artist also boasted an adorable dog actor named Uggie. Everyone loves puppies). Jessica Chastain, despite starring in one of the most acclaimed films of the year, failed to secure the award, perhaps due to the character she portrayed. Yes, she was a shoo-in, but her character was a type of allegory for the United States post 9/11, which is a touchy subject within itself. While I applaud this trait, the award deserves to go to someone who plays a riveting character, not a symbol. That said, I really did expect Naomi Watts to be taken a little more seriously. In The Impossible, she plays the exact type of riveting, tragic woman that is so often Oscar-bait, but there is one small problem. She was playing a woman who is still alive, and this may have been a contributor. By playing a living human, you have a high standard to uphold, and so much as a single side-by-side interview may disrupt this delicate balance. It's not believable to have a blonde bombshell like Watts play a humble Spaniard woman who was scarred by a tsunami. Should Watts have taken an approach similar to a character actor, like Daniel Day-Lewis or Robert de Nero, she may have won the award. Now, Jennifer Lawrence was the riveting, tragic woman that the Academy was looking for. She played a recovering sex addict with deeper issues that truly committed herself to the performance. Her character, in some ways, reminded me of April Ludgate (Aubrey Plaza) of Parks and Recreation: facetious and deadpan, though Lawrence adds the emotional side masterfully. She even possessed incredible chemistry with costar Bradley Cooper. She is an incredible actress who should perform excellently in the future. 

Review: "Identity Thief"

Identity Thief is the latest film from director Seth Gordon (whose filmography includes 2011's Horrible Bosses, which also featured Jason Bateman) and stars Jason Bateman and Melissa McCarthy. The story is fairly straightforward; Bateman plays a Denver native and accounts executive Sandy Bigelow Patterson, who was named after baseball legend Sandy Koufax by his late father. He is working at a firm run by cinema's 2,789th horrible boss, Harold Cornish (Jon Favreau), and leaves the firm at the beginning of the film to work as a VP at a new firm set up by coworker Daniel Casey. His identity is stolen by Diana (McCarthy), an identity thief living in Winter Park, Florida. She uses his credit cards to make outrageous purchases, including massive amounts of alcohol at local bars, a Fiat 500 with a custom paint job, and numerous appointments at a local salon. When a Denver detective tells him he missed a court date in Florida, he realizes his identity has been stolen. His credit score has been ruined, and Daniel mentions that it will deter possible clients. Patterson realizes who the thief is, and travels to Florida to apprehend Diana and bring her to justice in Denver, because apparently the Denver police force is incredibly inept and cannot afford to expend a single detective to catch an identity thief. Patterson arrives in FLorida and promptly finds Diana, and he takes her on a road trip to Denver, as his plane ticket sare rendered invalid by the identity crisis and Diana secretly owes debts to a drug dealer who is now in prison, and the duo is pursued by his enforcers Marisol (Genesis Rodríguez) and Julian (T.I.). From that point on, "hilarity" ensues on their road trip throughout the country. I use the term "hilarity" loosely here because it really doesn't apply. When watching the film, I couldn't help but notice the numerous corners director Gordon had cut when making his film, and it shows in the final product. The movie felt so... cliché, to say the least. Favreau's character seems as if he was made from the same cookiecutter as Kevin Spacey's character in Horrible Bosses, who also happened to play the role of Bateman's boss. The police force is so inept that it makes them look like they come out of a superhero film, as they cannot even expend a single officer to apprehend a criminal, preferring to send the victim and risk his life. There is also massive amounts of typecasting in the roles of the lead characters. Bateman has, unfortunately, often been thrust into the role of the imperiled everyman, when in fact he has more talents as an actor. We appreciated this in Arrested Development, but from there it goes downhill. There's The Switch, Horrible Bosses (which is the most forgivable of these films), and, worst of all, The Change-Up. He almost always plays an upper-middle class office worker who is being screwed over at work and has to go to extreme measures to solve his unusual problems. As for McCarthy, her character feels like a criminal variation of Megan, her character from Bridesmaids, one of her first major successes as an actress. It is from here on out that her films have been loaded with crude humor that has started to become unappealing. Yes, it can be funny in small doses, but only when coupled with decent jokes of another nature. Unfortunately, this film had a high density of shock humor and nothing to back it up, resulting in a failure of a film. That said, Bateman and McCarthy has excellent onscreen chemistry; their scenes that show their evolution as friends is good, aside from the obvious fact that jokes have been crammed into their dialogue, much as a squirrel would cram nuts into its cheeks. John Cho's role actually avoided being typecast, with his Harold & Kumar past, and he has evolved into a fine actor who can play a comedic strait man.

Consensus: Identity Thief is a below-average comedy film that takes road/buddy film clichés and amplifies the typecasting of its actors to create this monstrosity, only redeemed by the lead actors' chemistry.

Rating: 2/5