True Grit (2010)

True Grit (2010) by the Coen Brothers

This is my favorite "serious" film from 2010. Hands down. Practically everything about this film is absolutely perfect, and it couldn't possibly get too much praise. After the misstep that was Burn After Reading (an anarchic, misanthropic mess that I absolutely hate with a passion), Joel and Ethan Coen return to the American West, the setting of some of their more exciting and interesting works. Like their last Western, the contemporary, apocalyptic No Country For Old Men, the Coens adapted a novel (the misanthropic Cormac McCarthy wrote the aforementioned novel). Here, the Coens work not so much as to remake the 1969 Henry Hathaway-directed John Wayne vehicle (which garnered him his only Oscar) as to retell the novel by Charles Portis, which veers from scene to scene (and almost from line to line) into the realms of comedy, tragedy, and action.
The film starts with the murder of the father of protagonist Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) by the dim-witted Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). Jumping several years later, Mattie has grown into a strong-willed, quick-witted young woman determined to avenge her father's murder. To do so, she seeks out US Marshall Reuben "Rooster" Cogburn (Jeff Bridges, quite possibly outdoing John Wayne in his iconic role), a tough-as-nails one-eyed lawman not afraid to get his hands dirty, a man she describes as "having true grit". In true Coen fashion, she first solicits his skills while he's inside an outhouse. Begrudgingly, she convinces him to take up her cause, eventually accompanying him on his trek, along with the uptight, well-spoken LaBeouf (Matt Damon) an Army Ranger also on Chaney's trail, along with the gang in which Chaney's a member, Lucky Ned Pepper's gang.
The language of this iteration feels much closer to being out of a novel, unlike the original film, which felt considerably like a staged reading (different acting and directing styles). The romanticized notion of the American West has likewise been stripped away, and now what is presented is something at once alien and familiar, cold and yet homely. The characters understand the stakes one needs to take to survive in the wilderness, and the Coens neither romanticize nor gloss over what it takes to survive. The West is the West, both beautiful and unnerving. A vacuum of civilization with flourishes of animated life (just around the corner, in the middle of a mountain pass, one can find a doctor. In the middle of a forest the characters encounter what is only credited as the "Bear Man").
The utter futility of a civilized life is explored here, as Mattie eventually does encounter Chaney, and yet, when she is captured by Lucky Ned (Barry Pepper), is treated with an outdated, genteel sort of respect. It's quaint, the notion of bad guys still having enough morals to not mistreat a 16-year-old girl, and that's a shame. The notion of virtuous villains, and codes of conduct between enemies, during a period of life that was comparatively much more dangerous than any of us reading this would ever have to face, should not be confined to motion pictures. The futility of maintaining a proper decorum during trying times is one of the constant themes of this film.
The banality of human existence, too, seems one of the core points of exploration. For me, the most beautiful scene in the film is a sequence in which Rooster rushes to bring Mattie to a doctor. He runs the horse upon which they're riding to the ground, to the point it collapses in exhaustion, shoots it, and continues on foot, carrying her for miles in the middle of the night, in the middle of the desert. The sequence is shot in the exact same way: Rooster carrying Mattie is shot with the exact same angles in which the horse carrying Rooster is shot. This is the American West; life is a means of getting from one place to the other, nothing more. A man is as replaceable a commodity as a horse is.
As an adventure yarn, this is a great film. As mentioned,the film is fun and funny in equal turns, rich in its language, and gorgeously shot (by the ever amazing Roger Deakins), this is one of the better films of 2010, one of my favorites of the year (on the list with films like Scott Pilgrim, The Expendables, and Kick-Ass, so it's pretty eclectic). This might just also be my favorite modern Coens' film, a perfect companion piece to No Country For Old Men, and visual proof that an adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian is entirely possible to complete faithfully.

Tron: Legacy

Tron: Legacy (2010) Joseph Kosinski

I fucking hate this movie. Alright, so I never saw the original Tron, Disney's 1982 psuedo-experimental sci-fi film starring Jeff Bridges, but I understand enough of the plot to appreciate it for its stylistic approach: Jeff Bridges' Kevin Flynn gets sucked into a computer program he's created, and must survive long enough to find a way to escape. The film was the first to make extensive use of computer effects and is largely memorable for that (the effects which were used for the Disc Games: competitions where two people must fight for survival in a variety of lethal games, including the ever-popular light-cycle race), and for its visual style (characters are shot in video, with their faces filmed in black-and-white film. Looks great...but apparently has a plodding, slow-as-molasses plot and is revered as a cult classic merely for the sense of nostalgia it imparts. But it looks like this:



However, Disney still has yet to make it available for purchase. After this sequel, I can imagine why.

I had hope that knowing nothing about the previous film would make me impartial, and I had hoped that this film would also fill in all the blanks that I would inevitably have. The film does answer some questions, but not in any way that is exciting; the characters talk about the events in the previous film, and occasionally there is a flashback. But a lot of the time the characters just talk. They just fucking talk. They sit and talk. Like it was the fucking Star Wars prequels they sit down and talk.

I'll actually talk about the stuff I like first. This movie showcases Daft Punk and it really is their movie (even throwing them in for a cameo); if it weren't for their incredible score, I would have completely hated the film. The score was hypnotic, and almost constantly played in the background, and for that reason alone I found something to enjoy. Second, I also admired the production design of the Grid (the world of Tron): the cold, mechanical whites, blacks, oranges and blues were beautiful, and in 3D, really were an impressive sight (although it got a bit tired near the third act). The updating of the Games (3-dimensional multi-level light-cycle races; anti-gravity disc combat) were fun and exciting to watch. Um...Olivia Wilde was attractive...I guess? Now, on to all the stuff that made this film an agonizing ordeal. First off: what I can only jokingly call the plot.

The film opens with Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund)---the 27-year-old son of the long-lost Encom founder and computer wizard Kevin Flynn---breaking into Encom headquarters and leaking a copy of its latest operating program (which, the corporate head explains, was designed with flaws purposely built in). He gets cornered by security, and, right when he is about to be captured, jumps off the roof and parachutes to safety, and then drives off to his home (which happens to be a renovated storage container...it actually looked pretty cozy). Right off the bat, I had problems with this scene. The Encom executives react to the leaking of the software as if it would legitimately destroy their very existence; movies have yet to truly grasp the fact that leaking software (even operating software) really doesn't affect profit margin for computer companies, at least not in a crushingly catastrophic way. It happens literally every day. I'll let that one slide though, since I feel that most movie writers are still playing catch-up with the increasing rate of technological evolution. So, that being said, the scene also establishes Sam as being reckless, brash, and carrying a chip on his shoulder. That also wouldn't be a problem, except that is all he is. There is no more development to his character after this opening scene: he is established as an Archetype. You know, the reluctant hero! Joseph Campbell stuff! (WRITER: "You know, reckless! Like, he rides a motorcycle, and is angry with authority and fucks stuff up just because! An adrenaline junkie!" PRODUCER: "But...who is he? You're just saying adjectives, but not really telling me who this person is as a person." WRITER: "....a who?") This film has no less than FOUR credited writers, and has had 28 years to develop a story with relateable, interesting characters (fuck, I'm not looking for Sam Lowman or Charles Foster Kane...fucking R2D2 is more interesting than anyone in this film. At least give me a mobile, whistling garbage can), instead the main character is Reluctant Hero Version 2.

Now, through a series of events, Sam gets summoned to his father's abandoned Arcade, where the Tron game resides. He activates his father's old computer, and gets sucked into the Grid. Once there, he gets captured by a security program, and thrown into the Disc War games, where he must fight for survival. He undergoes the hand-to-hand disc game, and the multi-level light cycle race. These were easily the best scenes of the entire film. The film's villain, CLU (also played by Jeff Bridges, horribly rendered to look 28 years younger) is made aware of Sam's capture, and personally tries his hand at trying to kill him during the light cycle race after Rinzler (the star performer in the Disc War games) fails to do him in.

Then, Sam is saved by Quorra (Olivia Wilde), and eventually brought to Kevin Flynn, who is living in the outskirts of the Grid (off the grid. Clever.), apparently meditating or some shit for nearly 30 years. Through a series of events so boring I can't even really describe them because it's such a jumbled mess I can't remember what scenes happened in what order, Kevin gets his identity disc stolen, and this is a big deal because with the identity disc, CLU can leave the Grid and enter the real world, along with an army of programs designed to...do...stuff? Also, Quorra is a program who may or may not aid mankind somehow. Then the movie ends. Oh, and at some point Rinzler switches allegiances and helps the Flynns after a change of heart that is never-the-fuck explained.

Okay, so that's the story. I gave it away, and I don't give a shit. There's a lot there that doesn't make any sense. First off, CLU is horribly rendered, and it wouldn't be a problem (or so creepy in an uncanny valley sort of way) if the film didn't go out of its way to place him in the most brightly-lit scenes, thus accentuating how dead-eyed and fucking creepy he is (which may be the point? Since CLU is an un-aging program based on Kevin Flynn's younger self? And he should look like a program? Even though all the other programs---essentially everyone else in the movie---are played by normal human beings?) Anyway, the creepy-eyed CLU needs to find Kevin, and to do this he sucks Sam into the Grid in the hopes that Sam's appearance will cause Kevin to reveal himself. That makes sense...but then CLU actively tries to knowingly kill Sam during the Disc War games. In fact, it is literally the first thing he does, literally going out of his way to do so. CLU even explains how important both Kevin AND Sam are, to their faces...so why the fuck try to kill them the second they show up? Yeah, it makes for an exciting scene (the best, actually. Too bad they're all within the first 30 minutes of the film), but it doesn't make any fucking sense.

Next up: the ISOs. Isomorphic something-or-others. Essentially, they're living, self-conscious, aware programs that are basically living beings in a purely digital realm. Kevin explains their origins, and then goes on to explain how important they are. I'm paraphrasing, but he says they'll change religion, biology, medicine, etc. Except...we don't really know how. The ISOs don't really do anything, even within the context of the Grid. He just says they'll change the world.

The Grid: is it a city or an entire world? If it's a city, why is it always empty, except for security ships hovering around capturing rogue programs (who are basically just ISOs hunted for extermination)? There is NO ONE in any of the scenes set in the city streets, yet when Sam and Quorra go to see Zuse (an obnoxiously flamboyant Michael Sheen) in his club (club? Right? It was a club?), the place is packed, and when CLU needs to reveal his "army", there are fucking millions of them. From the few scenes I could piece together of the original Tron, the programs were like people, and had foibles and personalities. Here, the few programs we do meet are set up with the most basic of characterizations and show up only as needed by the plot.

What is CLU's intention? I understand that CLU wants to leave the Grid and get into the real world and continue his stated goal of ridding the world of what he sees as imperfections (in essence, wipe out humanity). But once in the real world, he ceases to be a threat. His army is armed with discs and poles. They wouldn't be able to do much damage to anyone out here in the world of guns and knives and nails-in-wooden-boards. And the mechanics of escaping the Grid aren't entirely clear...Sam and Quorra escape by standing on a tiny platform and holding onto each other as they are sucked up into the portal leading to the real world. Would CLU's army have to hold his hand and stand on the tiny platform too? Would they even be able to leave because they're not the fuck real people, but programs (Quorra could leave because she's an ISO and thus, effectively, a living creature)?

TRON. The original Tron was called Tron because it featured a character named Tron, who was apparently a pretty important character in that film. Tron is not in this movie. At all. (Rinzler is apparently Tron...but it is never explicitly stated, merely implied, and I think that's why Rinzler suddenly decides in the middle of a fucking mid-air dogfight to change sides...but I don't know. I'm just the audience member who didn't see the original film because it's not available on DVD or VHS. The characters never go out and say, "Hey! Rinzler is definitely Tron! And remember all that shit Tron did that was a big deal? Man, we need to get him back to our side! That'd be exciting and add some emotional weight to our adventure!...eh, fuck it. Let's do that in part 3.")

I understand and appreciate the subtext of the film: CLU represents the hacker ethos of free information; Sam and Kevin represent privatization and the desire for privacy and an identity that is unique, and how the contradiction of unfettered information and privacy leads to conflict. CLU can't even really be considered a true villain, since he is merely fulfilling the parameters of his programming, and once Kevin leaves the Grid...which is an active choice fueled by the realization that by creating CLU, he'd unleashed an unintentionally aggressive aspect of his personality, one fueled by the quest for all knowledge...and it's only when he and Kevin merge into one being that either of them can be at peace. In an age of an internet where one can literally get any piece of entertainment or knowledge or program right now, this is a pretty topical discussion to throw into a blockbuster film. For approaching that touchy subject, I give the film props. However, the film fails as a film, with too many plot holes and lapses in logic (even by its own standards) to really be purely entertaining. When the action kicks in, the film is delicious to look at, but when it comes to adding weight, pathos, and personality to the characters (or even originality or interest), director Kosinski fails. It's almost as if he can't be bothered, not when there's light cycles and light-sails and Olivia Wilde to look at!

It's a shame, because I went from being indifferent prior to the film's release, to being excited to see it, to being horribly disappointed in it (and actually pissed that it's taken up so much time for me to write this). There was so much that this film had going for it to make it great, and it looked great, and had an amazing score and utilized 3-D extremely well. But it had a shit story that killed all that potential. And that's the real pain of it all. This is another 3-D special effects extravaganza released in December that hopes audiences will be blown away by the effects to not notice that there is nothing at stake for any of the characters.

Look, I can enjoy a shitty movie just for fun (I gave Punisher:War Zone a glowing review, remember?) But that doesn't mean that I should have to shut my mind off completely just for the sake of bright lights and pretty production design. Even shitty movies I enjoy (Punisher: War Zone. Billy Madison. The Musketeer. Live Free Or Die Hard) have stakes and have a plot and have a story that push the characters and forces them to experience some sort of change. There are clear stakes, and there is a logic at play that is upheld throughout the film's runtime. I can get behind a bad movie if there is a story that makes sense, and if it is at least fun. Here, the characters are archetypes, pure and simple (Sam especially. It doesn't help that Garrett Hedlund didn't really do much with what he was given), and the plot doesn't make a lick of sense, and it is unashamed about that fact. The movie is lights and sounds and an incredible score and Jeff Bridges, dead-eyed Jeff Bridges, Olivia Wilde, and Jesus-Michael-Sheen!-What-are-you-doing?

I wanted to get behind this film, but couldn't. Four writers and nearly three decades should have done something to make this better than what it was, or at least original (even Tron, as plodding and boring as it apparently is, is still remembered and original and at least tried something new, even if it did apparently fail). And it's a shame.

Oh, and one last thing: the use of hallucinogenic substances made this film (and the score, especially) bearable.

P.S. - in the theatre there were teenagers on their phones, talking loudly and fucking taking pictures. One teenager was apparently completely perplexed as to why Kevin Flynn didn't wear shoes at his home, and talked loudly about that fact for FIVE MINUTES. I fucking hate going to the movies sometimes.

The Social Network

The Social Network (2010) David Fincher

This is, by no stretch, director David Fincher's best film, nor is it the best film of the year (ahem, True Grit is probably the best film of the past two or three years). However, being a David Fincher film, it is incredibly precise, technically astounding, with an amazing score by Trent Reznor, an impossibly slick script by Aaron Sorkin, beautifully muted cinematography by longtime Fincher collaborator Jeff Cronenweth, and magnetic acting by everyone involved (except for Justin Timberlake). Also, this movie is not about the founding of Facebook. That is, it is about the founding of Facebook, but that's not what it's about. I'll get to that in a minute.

I'll get the technical stuff out of the way first. After the misstep that was The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button (a gorgeous, at times marvelous film bogged down by a maudlin, trite, ploddingly meandering plot and a plot device that ultimately was never really explored) David Fincher reigned it in considerably. Gone is any of his trademarks (high contract lighting; CGI-augmented camerawork (and performances); desaturated colors; single-frame shots), and instead the palette is a cold, mechanical metallic gray. His characters, being college students, are considerably more fun than his previous characters (with the exception of Bob or Tyler Durden...but even then there was a darkness to them).

Aaron Sorkin's script, as noted before, would be quotable if one could follow the whiplash-fast delivery provided by the actors (not at all a negative comment, don't get me wrong). Sorkin's script bounces around from the building of the site, and intercuts it with the settlement cases, wherein Zuckerberg gets all the juiciest lines. Trent Reznor's gorgeous score merely hints (early on) at the dark intensity hidden behind not only film-Zuckerberg, but also the plot (and, to an extent, every one of us); there's something animal and primal about it (seemingly-random piano chords repeating themselves to a brooding theme that is counterpoint to persistent low percussion, like approaching footsteps). One could imagine a collision about to occur. His arrangement of “The Madness Of King George” during a Yale crew meet was brilliant, playing against low-depth-of-field, slightly undercranked footage of the competing crew teams. Beautiful. Technically, this film is absolutely gorgeous, restrained, and engaging. Now, on to the nitty-gritty...

The film opens with with Mark Zukerberg (Jesse Eisenberg)getting dumped by his then-girlfriend Erica Albright (Mara Rooney) in 2003, getting drunk, and blogging about his breakup while simultaenously building a website to spite not only Erica, but also every girl within the area of Harvard University. This stunt arouses the attention of not only the Harvard faculty, but also the Winklevoss twins (both played by Armie Hammer) in Yale, who were hoping to build an exclusive website to connect the Yale and Harvard students online. As we all know (apparently) Zuckerberg agrees to help the Winklevoss twins, but instead, with the financial help of his friend and roommate Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), steals the idea, creating Facebook (with the advice and support of Napster founder Sean Parker, played pretty terribly by Justin Timberlake, who looks, sounds, and acts as if he belongs in high school...that is, I've seen and worked with high school actors who knew better than to “act” while acting) and ultimately winding up the world's youngest billionaire...who has lost all of his friends in the process.

The film is not accurate, glossing over many fine details (such as the fact that Zuckerberg had a steady girlfriend throughout the founding of Facebook in real life), and fabricating others (it is suggested that Zuckerberg created Facebook to attract the attention of Erica, and, in a way, win her back). Up to the release of the film, the real Mark Zuckerberg gave interviews downplaying the implications made in the film, and deriding it as being inaccurate. His real motive, he's said, for creating Facebook is that he “wanted to create something...that's what these guys don't get: sometimes you just want to create something.” That's true, but also doesn't make for very good cinema.

And this is what the film is truly about: the romanticizing of our lives in a digital realm. Comparing real-life footage of Zuckerberg with the film's interpretation of him, one can't help but notice how tongue-tied, clumsy, and devoid of charm Zuckerberg is; Eisenberg's interpretation, however, dominates every scene he's in, and can barely stand the fact that he's smarter than everyone in his presence, nor can he conceal that fact. There is a charm to his pompous conceit, one which makes you loathe him and watch every move he makes: it's a delicate balance, one that a lesser actor would be unable to portray. Yes, film-Zuckerberg is a self-centered, narcissistic asshole, but there's a pity and brilliance to him, a youthful rebellion that transcends actions and makes him almost legendary (as his lawyer says at the end: “You're not an asshole. You're just trying really, really hard to be one”). And this is what we all do in social networking.

Those who deride the film (or laud it) for its handling of the founding of Facebook are missing the point. The film is not accurate, nor does it need to be so. It is a fictionalized account of a real-life event: just like JFK is, or Schindler's List. Or The Great Escape. Or...Die Hard. Yeah. What The Social Network does, however, is make visual all the digital histories we fabricate by building a profile on any number of social sites. One of the underlying philosophies behind Web 2.0 is the idea that we can get followers, fans, “likes”, hits, “friends”...whatever it is you want to call it...to follow our mundane lives. So how do we go about doing that? We create a version of ourselves that others would want to know and understand, or at least be interested in reading about. We don't talk about the uninteresting shit, nor about what we hope no one finds out about. We don't create digital selves to hurt our real selves. We romanticize our existence to make it something worthwhile, something meaningful and interesting.

No one wants to see the real Mark Zuckerberg in court for defrauding his friend, or the tedious court preceding, or sitting at a computer building code. While it is factual, it doesn't make for a very interesting film-going experience. One of the key moments in the film is when Zuckerberg realizes that adding a relationship tab is probably the most important thing he could add to the site, as people are interested in relationship statuses (or just relationships in general). The real Mark Zuckerberg said the relationship tab wasn't too big a deal, and the inspiration for it wasn't at all like it was in the film . Who cares? It's more exciting, more romantic, and more dramatic the way the film presents it (in the film, a classmate asks if Mark knows if a girl is dating someone, and he says “How should I know?” before getting the idea and running back to his dorm to add it to the site design).

The whole film is about relationships, and how they could be lost through passion, jealousy, or malice. In a larger sense, it's also about the relationship between the stories we tell ourselves through memory (“our” version of events, and others' version of events, to create Truth), and the relationships formed through fiction (how many “friends” do you have online? How many have you actually met? Talked to? Hung out with? Dated? How many have you lost? When you lost them, did it affect you? Or were they, truly, digital friends?) The Social Network is just another elaborate fiction created in a digital age to make life worth following. Doubt that explanation? Then realize that for the first time in almost a decade, Mark Zuckerberg is actually interesting to talk about, and is getting more interviews now than he has in the past. He derides the film, yet it has provided him with renewed publicity.

His fake self has made his real self that much more interesting.

Enter The Void

Enter The Void, (2009)

Director Gaspar Noe's Enter The Void is the first film by him that I've seen, and it is quite the introduction. Based somewhat on the Tibetan Book Of The Dead, the film begins with the main character, Oscar, being killed by Tokyo police after being set up in a drug-dealing sting. The “story”, as it were, revolves around those closest to Oscar, including his younger sister, Linda, and his best friend, Alex. As the repercussions of his death begin to resonate in their lives, Noe explores the themes of life, death, love, forgiveness, and honesty. Oh, and he also manages to do this by creating some of the best, trippiest visuals of any film I've ever seen, and by portraying the entire film in the first-person point-of-view. And also, the craziest title sequence you'll ever see.

The plot starts shortly after Oscar (Nathaniel Brown), a low-level drug dealer/user living in Tokyo with his sister, Linda (Paz De La Huerta) is shot and killed by police at the night club/bar The Void. Oscar's friend Alex (Cyril Roy), had accompanied him to the bar, but wanted nothing to do with the dealing, and managed to witness the police carrying out his friend's body; Alex's importance to the story is fixed both figuratively and immediately (Alex introduced Oscar to the supplier Bruno, who ultimately supplied Oscar with the load of drugs that got him killed), as well as having supplied Oscar with the Book Of The Dead that makes for the thematic core of the film. Oscar's death serves as the opening scene for what is essentially a treatise on life, love, hate, pain, anger, loneliness, friendship, loyalty, trust, and sex.

Lots and lots and lots of sex (I guess I know what void Noe was referring to! Ba-zing!).

The plot also serves the purpose of fully, completely immersing the audience in the lives of the characters: for the first thirty minutes or so, the camera is entirely in the first-person (something which has been attempted for the running time of a feature-length film only with Lady In The Lake, a film noir from the 1950's). The approach tends to fail, typically because without knowing the character's face, age, etc., the audience has trouble fully relating to characters (a lot can be learned about someone just by looking at their face). In the aforementioned film, the audience sees the main character's face only when he looks into a mirror; here, the same thing occurs: at one point Oscar looks into a mirror to rinse his face off, and we see his reflection. After Oscar's death, his spirit (or whatever it is the camera is supposed to represent) floats throughout Tokyo revisiting his friends and sister, and we never again see him (although we know, just by virtue of how the camera moves, in a very deliberate, hand-held manner, that Oscar is still present in some sense); other times, he relives and revisits his past life (he sees himself bathing with his mother and sister; he re-witnesses his parents' deaths during a head-on collision; he relives promising his younger sister he'd never leave her). His revisiting his past life is always shown from just behind his head (as if Oscar's spirit were watching from just of the shoulder of his past self).

Truth be told, this is a camera's film, one that redefines what one can do with a camera (and, also, where one can put a camera. The camera literally goes everywhere). The plot is largely inconsequential, as the film is more an affirmation of life, with all the ugliness, pain, and, ultimately, trippy beauty therein. It's a bold film, maddening in its repetition, and its apparent lack of taste (I never thought I'd watch a graphic abortion in a film...but, here we go...), and sporting performances that border on genius and heartrending and fearless (Paz de la Huerta; Emily Alyn Lind; Jesse Kuhn), to just...well...fucking bad (Nathaniel Brown. Truth be told, I'm glad he got shot early on. He was a bit charmless and extremely bland).

The real stars of the film, however, are the sound editors, scorer (Thomas Bangalter), and cinematographer (Benoit Debe). Especially the cinematographer. Damn. To essentially create a character out of something we never see, and to effortlessly fuse each image to create a narrative-long single shot deserves all the praise it could possibly ever get.

I might as well end this review here and say that this is a film that absolutely must be seen. It's maddening, it's not for everyone, it's overlong...but, ultimately, it is rewarding. It's emotional, it's sad, it's funny, it's trippy. It's beautiful. It's like. It's unlike anything you'll see.

You just have to be in a mood for it.

In Defense Of Levity (For Bond)

So, this post isn't going to be my typical review-tangent that I've devised for this blog. I've been away for a while, been thinking for a while, and been trying to keep up with film news. For those who don't really know or aren't aware, I'm a huge HUGE fan of the James Bond series (both the books and the movies). I'd recently completed the new Wii version of "GoldenEye", and I'm currently watching The World Is Not Enough and am in the mood to watch Quantum Of Solace immediately after that. I've essentially memorized both films by heart, but am here to make note of the most glaring difference between the previous films in the Bond series, and the markedly different (more "mature") version present by Daniel Craig.
I greatly enjoy Craig as Bond, and the two films have had their moments (well, to be fair, Casino Royale is one of the best in the series). However, with the recent swirl of casting rumors for the next Bond film (Javier Bardem? Ralph Fiennes? Both very fine, accomplished actors, don't get me wrong), and the surprising, intriguing choice of director and writer (Sam Mendes and John Logan respectively), the question I keep asking myself is: where'd all the fun go?
I understand that following 2002's wrong-headed and overblown effects-spectacle that was Die Another Day, the series needed to be toned down considerably (this happened throughout the history of the series: after You Only Live Twice came the unbelievably accomplished On Her Majesty's Secret Service; after the cartoonish Moonraker came the underrated For Your Eyes Only), so toning down the series was never something unheard of in the series. The difference, however, is that the latest three-picture arc seems to focus on the inner-demons and psychological turmoil of the character that is James Bond. To be honest...that's...slightly boring.
Look, Casino Royale was successful because we saw a version of Bond hitherto unseen: fragile, cold, single-minded, and, ultimately, naive. It was the first film in the series since On Her Majesty's Secret Service to actually treat "Bond the archetype" as "Bond the real life character", and the result was excitement in watching Bond get hurt, make mistakes, and grow as a character. It was bold, exciting, and fresh. And within this rebooted series was still the sense of flippant fun that characterized the series (a parkour chase in a construction site? Only in a Bond film!)
Quantum Of Solace (and, I fear, the next film in the series) treated Bond as just another tragic, tortured hero for the Millenials. In that film, he doesn't sleep, he drinks too much, and he kills without hesitation, and there is a real feel to the violence (when he kills Mr. Slate, he coldly waits until we see that character bleed out). He's tortured, yes, and when he dumps Mathis---his friend who was literally tortured for Bond's sake---in a dumpster and steals his money, you realize, "Wow. What an asshole."
And that's a line Bond always managed to deftly walk. He is chauvinistic, arrogant, sexist, and, essentially, a boy in a man's body. He's selfish, callous, possibly sociopathic, and a murderer. But he does it with such charm and assurance and grace that he's likable; although we know he'll always get out of a jam, we still enjoy watching his means of doing so. And have enjoyed his escapades for the past 49 years, 22 films, and 6 actors. Bond should enjoy being Bond; his existence is almost entirely materialistic, almost anal in the detail to class, high-living, and showing off money and elegance.
So why Bourne it up? Why choose directors who have almost no experience in the action genre (look, Marc Forster is a good director, but he was entirely the wrong choice to direct an action film...especially a Bond film. The same goes for Lee Tamahori and Michael Apted. These are good directors with some great films, but their movies rank in some of the blandest or worst of the series). I have hope that Sam Mendes will give the goods with his Bond film (he did direct the very accomplished Road To Perdition, which also featured Daniel Craig and had some atmospheric composition and at least decent action), but I for one am tired of "pushing the edge" with the Bond series.
Daniel Craig's serious take on Bond was predated by over 15 years by Timothy Dalton, who gets a lot of undo flak for his take on the character. Dalton's take was the best balance of film-Bond and novel-Bond, and he was badass (just look at the opening to his first Bond, The Living Daylights: he doesn't even talk until he's done some implausible stunt and exploded a living human being. It doesn't get more badass than that!) Craig and Dalton approach the character the same way and with the same gravitas; the difference, though is that the Dalton films still manage to incorporate the staples of the series (gadgets, outlandish set-pieces, beautiful locations, Moneypenny, Q) while giving a more "real-world" feel to the plot. It was an attempt to make Bond more realistic and gritty, but there was still the fantasy, still the wonder and excitement and, damnit, FUN that characterized the best of the series! (Want an example of where the Craig Bond films should go to keep that balance? Just watch the extremely underrated Licence To Kill.)
Maybe it's the state of modern action films. We want our heroes conflicted and tragic. We want our action gritty and dirty and confusing. We want everything grounded in a reality we can understand. But when we do that for every film, what do we lose? Maybe it's the same difference between 1989's Batman and The Dark Knight: The Dark Knight is by far a superior film, but it's just not as fun, it's not the film I would watch at 1 in the morning after drinking. It's the difference between 2004's Punisher (a film that takes itself much too seriously) and 2008's goofy, fun, violent Punisher: War Zone. It's the difference between Iron Man 2 (which spent too much of its over-produced runtime setting up The Avengers and throwing in geek references that won't pay off until films that come out at least a year later) and Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, which was just so damn buoyant and in love with itself you couldn't help but be charmed by its self-contained sense of fun. Why does "serious" mean "tragic"? Why does "realistic" mean "gritty and violent"? Why does "good" mean "down-to-earth"?
I want my Bond to enjoy being who he is, and not be a humorless dick. When Craig says to someone in Quantum Of Solace, in a scene right after an ultimately disappointing and confusing boat chase, "Here, take her. She's seasick.", he says it almost derisively, as if making a pun were a chore. His character can't enjoy himself, and I think Craig (the actor) is feeling it too. He's stated in interviews he'd wanted a fun romp to end his tenure. And I want that too. Bring back the gadgets and the machine-gun-toting cars. Make that balance between fantasy and topical events that were explored so well in From Russia With Love, and GoldenEye, and Casino Royale, and Licence To Kill. Have fun!
I'll end with this: I hope Mr. Mendes realizes that Bond is fantasy. He's the ultimate male fantasy. A "mantasy", if you will (my next article on sea mammals will also use that word). He's best enjoy on the big screen, with the loud music, and with his theme blaring in the background. The Wii game I just played does this balance well, and was more enjoyable than the last film.
The most memorable Bond films are the ones that are fantasy. Surely, the stunts of the modern version of Bond can do better than a confusing rooftop foot chase, or a dumb-as-shit boat chase. Or a confusing as shit car chase.
I'd want to be as blown away as I was watching the parkour chase five years ago.
Or go all out: upstage the parachute jump from The Spy Who Loved Me.
Make something as immaturely fun as the tank chase from GoldenEye!
Something memorable!
Whatever you do, just bring back the fun!