The 2008 Presidential Debates, Round One

The 2008 Presidential Debates, Round One
Oxford, Mississippi, 26 September 2008

Tonight, I watched the first Presidential Debate between Barack Obama and John McCain. I'm glad that I took an hour and a half out of my night to watch the exchange, though, by the end of it, I felt unusually worn out. It's not because of Obama, who did an admirable job enumerating his points in a logical manner, and who made a concerted effort to look at the camera, directly at us viewers at home. I think that some of it stemmed from the moderator, Jim Lehrer, who didn't inject much life into the proceedings, and whose questions were rather colorless.

Most of it stemmed from McCain who, instead of answering questions intelligently, relied on blatant lies – all of which Obama immediately refuted – and reverted to his now-hackneyed rhetoric. He invoked Obama's lack of experience, repeatedly stating that “Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand. . . .” McCain occasionally rose above such muck and spoke rather well; but he almost always came across as rambling, and he didn't look incredibly comfortable at the podium. Obama, on the other hand, looked, acted, and sounded like a President.

I admit that McCain, who is a politician that I used to respect before he made Sarah Palin his Vice Presidential nominee, held his own; for some desperate Republicans, this may be enough for them to say that he beat Obama in this round. Neither candidate made any major gaffes, nor did Obama clearly beat McCain – his responses were too nuanced for that to be clear to the average voter. But the Republican candidate's constant attacks on Obama – who acted more relaxed and explained issues much more rationally – felt superfluous and needlessly harsh, and they reveal a cynical, and desperate, side of McCain. Sadly, his baseless attacks put Obama on the defensive, and his churlish performance will probably win over some unfortunate, stupid voters. I can only hope that Americans are better, and smarter, than that come November 4th.

Tim Burton Double Feature! Sweeney Todd and Sleepy Hollow

Tim Burton Double Feature!

"Sweeney Todd" and "Sleepy Hollow"

On Thursday night, my friend and I made an excursion into San Francisco to watch consecutive screenings of "Sweeney Todd" (2007) and "Sleepy Hollow" (1999) at the Castro Theatre. I am taking a course on Hitchcock, and in that class we are learning how each film that is made by an auteur, or director, presents common themes and obsessions that are prevalent in all of his work. Auteur theory also delves into how the artist's biography intersects with his films, but I'm too lazy to look into Tim Burton's biography. Instead, I'll try to review both films within the framework that they each share common themes, styles, and obsessions.

Let's start off with the obvious: both films star Johnny Depp, feature gloomy atmospheres, and have a great deal of blood. Good. Now that that is out of the way, let's talk about "Sweeney Todd."

This film, which is an adaptation of the macabre Broadway musical that is written by Stephen Sondheim - which I have not seen - opens with an animated sequence. Streams of blood drip through crevices and drive a series of gears until, upon pervading every aspect of the scenery, the film finally begins. But instead of witnessing the all-too-vivid red of animated blood, we see a world that has been entirely drained of color. And then there is Sweeney Todd (Johnny Depp), a demented barber, whose shockingly pallid visage peers out at Burton's vision of a dilapidated London. Only one thing is on his mind – revenge. The object of his malice: an evil judge (Alan Rickman) who has stolen his wife and child. So, Todd returns to his barbershop, which has been maintained for years by the even-more-eccentric pie shop owner, Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter), to plot his revenge.

Burton, in all of his films, tries to strike a perfect balance in depicting bizarre, gruesome events and the darkly comical nature that arises from them. In “Sweeney Todd,” his atmosphere is appropriately dreary, and the songs are all outstanding – of particular note is a hilarious sequence in which Todd and Mrs. Lovett sing about cooking priests into pies. But that's mostly due to Sondheim's writing. With regards to the performances, we get a disappointingly stoic Johnny Depp, who, despite sporting some very wild makeup and hair, fails to spark much intensity in the film. He serves as nothing more than a ballast, a relatively calm center amidst the other actors and the bloody environs. Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen, who plays a rather crazy Italian barber, understand how simultaneously disturbing and silly the entire affair is, and they ham up their performances to memorable effect. Even better is Alan Rickman's chilling performance, as a purely corrupt, though erudite, man who uses his powerful position to ruin the lives of others – he is a sadist, like Todd, but he lurks, instead, within the bureaucracy.

There is a sequence, early on, in which the film enters a computer-generated whirlwind tour of the streets of London. It is an example of what I'll call the “Tim Burton effect,” a unique, ostentatious and over-the-top approach that he arbitrarily switches on whenever he feels like doing so. I hate the sequence because it takes me out of the film, and it makes me aware of who is turning the switches. My friend, probably for the reasons I cited above, loves it. But it is difficult to excuse Burton for some of his other ill-advised excesses. He obviously loves blood; whenever Todd slices the throat of one of his victims, blood spurts everywhere, even on the camera – and thus on us, the audience – "Kill Bill" style. But Burton manages to overdo it; he shows, to an excessive and sadistic extent, how heads split apart when Todd drops his victims' bodies down a conveniently placed chute. And then there is the completely unnecessary, and terribly-rendered, computer-generated shot of a character burning to death in an oven.

I suppose this is Burton's point: that we are all just as culpable as Todd for witnessing, and even enjoying, these murders. To a certain extent, I am sure this is true. But I won't be able to join in on the “fun” until the director manages to reign in his excesses and sadism. This will probably never happen, though; after all, it is this “Tim Burton Effect” that makes his films so very unique.

I have seen “Sleepy Hollow” three times. The first time I saw it when I was ten years old. It scared the crap out of me. I watched it a second time last year, over winter break, on DVD, and I actually enjoyed it quite a bit. I was curious as to how it would hold up on a third viewing, especially on the heels of “Sweeney Todd.” The answer, surprisingly, is “not very well at all.”

I think that Burton made this film because he simply wanted to craft amazing sets and a very cool atmosphere, especially when the story ostensibly involves the headless horseman of Sleepy hollow. Indeed, the art direction is amazing, the atmosphere is amazing, and the brilliant cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki impeccably shoots the entire affair with gorgeous – and equally creepy – diffuse light. The film is an even bigger disappointment considering how tantalizingly good the first half hour of the film is. Ichabad Crane (Johnny Depp) is a nerdy murder investigator who has been sent by annoyed magistrates in New York City to investigate a series of beheadings in the town of Sleepy Hollow.

I love one little moment, in particular. Crane enters one of the town's huge manors – which Burton introduces with a wonderfully bleak establishing shot – where he unwittingly enters a kissing game with a group of men, who are circling around the story's love interest, who is played by Christina Ricci. She is blindfolded and accidentally latches onto Crane, who she then kisses. The kiss is shot with a telephoto lens; after the couple breaks apart, we see, behind them, a man looking at Crane with extreme hatred and jealousy. The sequence is, in the scheme of things, entirely unnecessary. But I love the way that Burton and Lubezki establish this burgeoning love – and the distrust that is rampant within the community – in a thoroughly visual manner.

Here, we see Burton, again, trying to strike a perfect balance between horror and black comedy. For a time, he actually succeeds, because he appears to recognize how silly the story is, and how over-the-top some of the visuals are supposed to be. It is unfortunate that Burton has to deal with a terribly boring plot – it has something to do with witches and inter-family rivalries – and a good deal of terrible writing. The narrative structure, after the first half hour, turns out to be a complete mess; it devolves into moments of randomly placed horror mixed in with needlessly lengthy monologues by Crane. A climatic fight on a run-away stagecoach is uninspired and edited in such a way as to be entirely incomprehensible. Even Danny Elfman's score sounds tired by the end of the film; it is a series of repetitive notes that keeps pounding us over and over until we cow in submission.

Amongst the brilliant and the terrible moments, we still witness the occasional “Tim Burton Effect.” Laughable computer-generated eyes pop out of a witch's skull, for example. But even these moments grow dull – we can only see a beheading so many times before they all look the same. And all of them result in the same bizarre occurrence; the victim's head lands on the ground, upright, with his eyes looking right at us. It's a practical joke on the audience, and a statement about how we get a perverse pleasure by witnessing all of these deaths. It's a joke that grows old very quickly. But to be fair, Tim Burton certainly knows how to craft a fascinating, dour atmosphere, and for that, I think that we should all be thankful.

I gave Sweeney Todd a second viewing on 9/18/08, in 35 mm projection - IMDb
I gave Sleepy Hollow a third viewing on 9/18/08, in 35 mm projection - IMDB

Burn After Reading

"Burn After Reading"
Joel and Ethan Coen, 2008

"Burn After Reading," the latest film by the Coen Brothers, opens with a tongue-in-cheek, Google-maps-like zoom-in on CIA headquarters, in Washington, D.C. Thus the filmmakers, from the get-go, present their film as a cartoon; and its zany plot and characters follow suit. Osbourne Cox, who is played by John Malkovich, is a foul-mouthed, low-level CIA operative who has just been fired by his incompetent superiors; they cite, to hilarious effect, the fact that he drinks alcohol as the primary reason for his being sacked. Cox decides to publish a memoir in retaliation, but things inevitably spiral out of control. His wife, Linda (Frances McDormand), is an aloof pediatrician who is having an affair with an endearingly uncouth agent named Harry (a hilarious George Clooney). She is also getting a divorce from Cox, so she burns all of his information – and, unwittingly, his memoir – onto a CD. The CD, though, gets left behind at a gym, which is found by two moronic employees, Linda (Frances McDormand) and Chad (Brad Pitt), who foolishly decide to blackmail Cox.

The plot ventures into even wilder territory, and from there, we assume that the purpose of the film, especially coming on the heels of their most recent, and difficult, film, “No Country For Old Men,” is to simply provide pure entertainment. We witness the Coens' trademark visual style, with its unusual, playful perspectives and low angle shots. (The film is beautifully photographed by the cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, instead of their longtime collaborator – and equally capable – Roger Deakins.)

But this apparent lack of substance is deceiving: underneath Lubezki's luminous cinematography and the characters' amusing idiosyncrasies lies a dark undercurrent. The humor, which elicits nervous chuckles from its viewers, stems more from the awkward nature of the situations than on the guffaw-inducing – and better-written – characters in “The Big Lebowski.” The characters recklessly sleep with each another, betray one other, and kill each other in shockingly violent ways.

All of this makes for a black comedy that resonates with its audience, but it doesn't result in a focused film. “Burn After Reading” feels like a mish-mash of moods, arbitrarily swinging from the hilarious to the shockingly frigid. There is a pessimistic outlook at play here, a disillusionment with incompetent authority figures, and with stupid people who are more successful than they deserve.

The primary focus, then, is not on the humorous nature of the characters, but on how people's failure to maintain healthy relationships with each other results in very dangerous circumstances. This is familiar territory for the Coens, but it feels like they are simultaneously embracing the nihilistic principles of their characters in “No Country For Old Men,” and trying to escape from those very dark themes. The message is conflicted and difficult to enumerate, but the filmmakers, with “Burn After Reading,” seem to be saying that when things, inevitably, take a turn for the worst, all we can do is laugh at the ridiculous nature of it all. With such a disillusioned outlook, “Burn After Reading” is an entertaining and, ultimately, disheartening experience.

First Viewed: 9/13/08, in 35 mm projection - IMDb

Rant: Proposition 8 Inqiuisitors!

Rant: Proposition 8 Inquisitors!

Today, on Sproul Plaza, there was a group of gay activists encouraging people to vote no on Prop. 8, which is an initiative that bans gay marriage in California. Then, these crazy people appeared and stood alongside the No On 8 members.



They looked like the guys in the picture above, except that the members I witnessed wore red capes, which, ironically, screams gay - the hypocritical bastards. Yes, they belonged to...

The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property

Apparently, this Pennsylvania-based organization is on a 30-day whirlwind tour through California, handing out pamphlets that explain the evils of homosexuality to passerbyes. Yes, they seem like a pretty cool group of people. They also have a website that's trapped in the late 1990s: http://www.tfp.org/

During their excursion, they are maintaining a blog, which occasionally provides comedic gems such as this:

"But don’t expect civility from same-sex advocates. One woman approached a TFP volunteer and bluntly stated: “You should be killed for your opinion on marriage. I’m not joking you should all be shot.” A few other passing cars attempted to inflict harm. A moving car launched a full coke can at Mr. Thomas Schneider and another car containing a group of screaming girls threw a cup of ice coffee at him as well. Fortunately, both flying objects missed our dedicated volunteers. Saint Joseph, our caravan patron, is indeed protecting us."

This account is actually pretty hilarious. But it illustrates how far some people are willing to go to deprive an entire group of people of basic rights based off of one set of criteria. It is analogous, I think, to the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s, where blacks fought against widespread social and employment discrimination, which was based entirely on skin color. Gays in the U.S. don't have those basic rights that most Americans take for granted: we can be fired based off of real or perceived sexual orientation, and we can't even call a wedding with someone we love a "marriage" because it's different from traditional notions of heterosexual love.

What that excerpt also shows, though, is how religion can be used as an instrument of evil. These inquisitors need only invoke St. Joseph in order to justify their discriminatory actions. Here is another excerpt from their website: "As the homosexual revolution’s anti-Christian intolerance makes itself felt through increasingly persecutory measures, a terrible problem of conscience arises in any who resist: Should we follow our consciences? Should we give in?"

Oh, please. Here, they put the blame on pro-gay supporters for being intolerant of their beliefs. Now, I am going to take a perfunctory, and probably ill-advised, look at religion. At its core, it is an institution that asks us to believe in something that can't be explained by rational argument. It can be used as a positive force in people's lives - forming supportive communities, for example - or as a negative force that hurts others. Most anti-gay groups refer to one source - the Bible. I hope that many, if not most, observant people in America view the Bible as a guideline for leading a better life. It's a collection of documents that shouldn't be taken literally; the ultimate message, particularly in the Christian testament, is that people should love one another.

As an illustration of this group's ridiculous message, imagine someone telling you, a passerby, that people who are black shouldn't marry because the Bible says it's wrong. There's no rational reason to explain this outlook; such a marriage is simply immoral and a threat to our culture. Would you be tolerant of these people, who were actively working to prevent others from retaining their rights? I think not.

The U.S. has come a long way since the 1970s, and it's great to see more Americans, especially within the last few years, accepting gays. Even though the TFP represents a very radical side of conservative America, the organization serves as an important reminder: we have a long way to go before we can achieve equality; and we'll have to fight for our rights every step of the way.

~Max~

Snatch

"Snatch"

Guy Ritchie, 2000

Guy Ritchie's film "Snatch" has a plot that is essentially identical to that of his earlier film "Lock, Stock And Two Smoking Barrels" - in both films, we witness many cool, foul-mouthed criminals fight for a prize. The prize, of course, isn't the primary focus; it merely serves as an excuse for us to witness these characters as they, in turn, mock and murder one other. Jason Statham, who is an operative for a ruthless crime lord, hires Brad Pitt - er, a wild-haired gypsy - to fight in rigged boxing matches. Meanwhile, a Jewish crime lord in New York is expecting the shipment of a huge diamond from his henchman, Franky Four Fingers (Benicio Del Toro). But an ex-KGB Russian mobster in London intercepts Four Fingers with the help of a trio of hapless robbers.

There are a lot of characters to juggle, so it comes as no surprise that "Snatch" sometimes verges on the incomprehensible. To make up for all the gunplay and quips, Ritchie unwisely includes a "serious" moment, in which mobsters burn Pitt's mother's trailer to the ground - then this dramatic turn is strangely and abrpubtly dropped. But whatever. "Snatch" is here solely for its audience's - and its filmmakers' - amusement. It is a "cool," high-energy, and ultimately self-indulgent film that, for better or for worse, constantly strives to entertain.

First Viewed: 9/6/08, on DVD - IMDb

September Films

September Films

This is the time of year when many good films start to roll out. I'd like to draw attention to a few new releases that I'm particularly interested in. I will rank my choices chronologically, not by personal preference.

September 12th

"Burn After Reading"
This is the new Coen Brothers movie, and based off of the trailers, it looks like one of their dark comedies. The premise concerns a CIA agent who accidentally leaves his top-secret memoir, which is on a CD, in a gym. The moronic gym manager and his wife find the CD and blackmail the operative; and naturally, havoc ensues. I'm really interested in this for three reasons: one, it's made by the Coen Brothers; two, it has a great cast, including John Malkovich, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Tilda Swinton, and Frances McDormand; three, Emmanuel Lubezki is the cinematographer, rather than the Coens' normal collaborator - and equally excellent - Roger Deakins. He shot the film with a new line of very high-resolution digital cameras, so I'm curious to see how he uses that technology and how well he collaborates with the Coens.


"Towelhead"
This is a film that's directed by Alan Ball, the writer for "American Beauty" and "Six Feet Under," and it focuses on suburban disgruntlement from the perspective of an Arab-American girl. Aaron Eckhart ("The Dark Knight") plays an older, bigoted soldier who, from what I can gather in the trailer, has an obsession with the girl. "Towelhead" will probably be good, if a touch heavy-handed in its exploration of such tensions.

September 19

"Appaloosa"
This is an Ed Harris-directed western starring Jeremy Irons and Viggo Mortensen. Color me interested.

September 26

"Miracle at St. Anna"
This is a potentially fascinating film about four black soldiers stationed in Italy during World War II. It's directed by Spike Lee, too, so I have high expectations.


"Choke"
I have very mixed feelings regarding "Choke," the Chuck Palahniuk novel, which is about a sexaholic who pays for his mother's medical bills by choking in restaurants, and receiving sympathy checks from fellow eaters. Sam Rockwell plays the protagonist, which should be interesting since Rockwell has played a wide variety of roles, from the hilarious character "the guy" in "Galaxy Quest" to one of the solemn Ford Brothers in "The Assassination of Jesse James." The film could be good, or it could be bad; I think it will be just O.K.

Hitchcock Journal Entry #1: Easy Virtue

Hitchcock Journal Entry #1
“Easy Virtue” (1928)

Prelude: I'm taking a course on Hitchcock, and every Wednesday we have a screening of one of his films. Then we write our thoughts in a "journal," which we turn in the next day. These definitely won't be very well-written essays, but I thought that I'd share them anyway.

There are some minor spoilers, and a major one concerning "Psycho," below.

“Easy Virtue” (1928) is a very flawed, early Hitchcock film that encompasses a number of aspects that I have noticed in his later work. There is his brief, trademark cameo. There are a number of point-of-view, or subjective, shots, particularly in the memorable opening sequence, in which a bored magistrate needs to put on his monocle to clearly see his courtroom. Which leads me to the topic of Hitchcock's portrayal of authority figures. They scared Hitchcock, so he dealt with his fear by either ridiculing them – as seen in the grotesque close-up of the near-sighted magistrate – or by crafting incredibly terrifying figures, like the police officer in “Psycho.”

In this film, there is a suspicious, jealous mother figure who has an unusually large presence – she is much taller than our protagonist, Larita, and nearly as tall as her new husband; and she, through bullying and innumerable cold stares, manages to convince her son that Larita isn't the right woman for him. This very controlling maternal figure, who is very similar to Hitchcock's real-life wife, is a character that appears in “Notorious” and “Psycho.” (SPOILER: On a parenthetical note, I just realized that in “Psycho,” the mother turns out to be a skeleton, which is perhaps Hitchcock's grim outlook on what lies beneath this controlling figure – a rotten soul. But that's just my guess.)

Anyways, there are two other interesting aspect here that I also noticed in “Notorious.” One: Hitchcock's focus on important objects. In “Easy Virtue,” a champagne bottle is presented as evidence in the court, and then used to provide a smooth match cut to the scene of the crime. Larita's abusive husband is an alcoholic; so the bottle serves as both a narrative tool and a defining, harmful feature in Larita's life. Two: We see how Hitchcock tended to “torture” his women protagonists. According to Spotto, “the idea of rehearsing and transforming a woman so that she takes another social identity is central to the films of Alfred Hitchcock.” (283) In “Easy Virtue,” Larita tries to run away from her notorious past by marrying an unsuspecting young man – she tries to transform herself into a new individual. But ultimately, she can't escape from her past.

As for the the film itself, the overall quality leaves much to be desired. The acting can be terrible; it reaches surprising levels of unintentional hilarity during the sequence where the painter murders Larita's husband. The second half of the film is very dull. The dwindling love between Larita and her new husband feels undeveloped and predictable. Even though there are some interesting aspects at play here, and some similar techniques and themes that are better tackled in his later work, this is far from Hitchcock's best film.