Film - 12 Monkeys

As I mentioned, we watched 12 Monkeys recently. I haven't seen it in probably five years, so there was a lot that I didn't remember. I mostly just remembered that I really liked it.

I really enjoy Terry Guilliam, and this is definitely my favorite Guilliam movie, with Brazil a somewhat close second. Both are dystopic films, which is pretty much my favorite genre whether we're talking TV, books or film, and Guilliam does a fantastic job of just making the viewer feel out-of-sorts, which makes the bizarre future he creates seem even more bizarre.





Dustin and I were discussing the film that 12 Monkeys is based on. It's a french short film called La Jete. It's kind of experimental, using still images for most of the film, except for one moment when a woman's eye blinks. I loved that film, even though it was more experimental than I usually go for. Dustin was far from impressed. But if nothing else, he still appreciates it for inspiring 12 Monkeys.

The reason I bring up La Jete is that that one eye blinking in the original film is supposed to highlight the main question posed by both films - how do we know what is real? In 12 Monkeys, John Cole thinks he knows what reality is, but because he travels back in time - and then tells everyone that he has traveled back in time - he's considered crazy and put in an asylum. Eventually, he convinces himself that he is crazy and that he's not from the future at all. But he does this more because the future he comes from is so bleak that he wants to believe that it's not real. He wants to believe that the past he keeps visiting is the only reality, because he's happier there than he is in the future. He loves a woman there, and the human race hasn't been all but wiped out. It's a better reality for him. But is it the real reality? The movie certainly takes the position that it isn't. But from the perspective of John Cole, there's no real proof that it's not. If people tell him that he's crazy, and he starts to believe it, then there's no real way for him to convince himself that the future is real. Kathryn, the psychiatrist, can prove to herself that he's actually time-travelling, because she sees the photo of him from WWI, and he just disappears when he gets brought back to the future. But even if she explains that to John, if he truly believed he was delusional, he might just believe that he was imagining her showing him the proof, because it aided his delusion. That's not really how the movie plays out, but it's interesting to consider.

It wouldn't be a blog post about 12 Monkeys without mentioning Brad Pitt's performance. I think that was the first time I was really impressed with him as an actor. That's not really fair, because he had already done Seven and Legends of the Fall - both great movies. You can make fun of me for Legends of the Fall, but I stand by my opinion. But this role was just different. He'd always been the pretty boy, love interest guy, and this movie was a departure from that. A brilliant departure.

Read more!

Book - Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

I'm re-reading "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince" in preparation for the movie. I'm back in the same mind-set I always get into when I watch the movies and read the HP books: it really sucks being a Muggle. Frown. That is all.

BTW: If you want to critique me for re-reading and re-watching so many different things, save yourself the time. Time spent gladly is never time wasted. Read more!

Film - 10 Best Picture Nominees

The Academy will nominate 10 films for this year's Best Picture category! Super exciting. I always love the Oscars and this will make the race even more interesting. Click HERE to read the LA Times article.

And here is the rest of it. Don't delete the line in between, as that is where the magic read more tag resides. Read more!

Film - The Departed

So, thanks to Flickchart Dustin and I have been re-watching some of our highly ranked movies that we haven't seen in awhile. I plan on keeping this going all summer long. There will probably be some Eternal Sunshine and some Children of Men coming up soon.

But so far, we've watched 12 Monkeys and The Departed. I'll post about 12 Monkeys later, but posting about The Departed can't wait. There are spoilers ahead, so proceed with caution.



Such an effing fantastic movie. I'm so glad that I watched it after recently watching Revolutionary Road (which was blogged about here by co-blogger Jenna). Revolutionary Road was, in my opinion, overacted and it kind of dulled my opinion of Leonardo DiCaprio. But watching The Departed brought him back to the top again. He dominates the movie. There are a thousand little moments where the camera catches him with a small eye movement or a fleeting facial expression that just makes his character a real person. I really almost forget that he's acting when I watch this movie.

Another great thing about rewatching this movie is that I would remember things that I loved about the movie shortly before they happened, so I was like a little kid, on the edge of my seat waiting for all of my favorite moments - like almost every line out of Mark Wahlberg's mouth.

But, best of all for me was that I had the exact same reaction to the end of the film that I had the first time I saw it. The first time I watched the movie, I was completely shocked when Costigan gets shot coming out of the elevator. Immediately following the shock though, I felt almost physically ill. Now, you may think that sounds like a bad thing, but just about my favorite thing about movies is that they are able to make me experience emotions that I wouldn't normally (and really wouldn't want to) experience in real life. So, I relish the fact that the movie is able to make me feel, even for only a few minutes, that kind of physical pain over not over the death of a particular character, but over the injustice of a world where that character dies. And even better than that is the moment when Sullivan walks into his apartment, and sees Dignum there. The shot revealing Dignum pans up from his feet, which are covered in plastic, up his jumpsuit and gloved hands to his face. Because the shot is like that, you have some confusion for a moment. You know there's someone in the apartment who shouldn't be there, and you know that they are up to something sketchy, since people don't generally walk around with plastic covered feet. But you don't know that it's Dignum right away, and the movie has done a pretty good job of making you forget about Dignum for the last half hour or so, and you're pretty much convinced that there's no one who could avenge Costigan's death. So, when that camera gets up to Dignum's face, you want to jump out of your chair. Sullivan starts to talk, and for a split second, you think that maybe he's going to get out of this, too, but the movie gets rid of that possibility very quickly. The point here, is that I thought that since I already knew that these things were going to happen, that I wouldn't have such a strong reaction watching them this time. But, when Costigan got shot, I writhed around on the couch, mumbling, "No, no, no!" And when Dignum blew Sullivan's brains out, I clenched my fists, like it was somehow my victory. But seriously, after that whole movie about crime and violence and the injustice of Costigan's death, somehow Dignum murdering Sullivan (and it most certainly is murder, planned, pre-meditated murder) makes you feel like all is right with the world.
Read more!

Film - flickchart.com

If you are starting to feel like may you aren't dedicating enough hours to the internet, you might want to visit flickchart.com. This site has you choose between two movies to generate a list of your favorite films of all time. There are some weird issues with the site. One being the distractingly obtuse posters they present for some of the movies. Read the titles below to posters to make sure you know which movie you are selecting. Also, it's incredibly difficult to compare certain films. How can I compare "Kindergarten Cop" to "Taxi Driver" ?! And then there's the issue of the shame you feel based on some selections: yes, so sue me, I picked "Robin Hood" over "Ghandi". But perhaps the biggest glitch is this site has a hard time letting go of certain films that make it too high on your list. For some reason it thought "The Count of Monte Cristo" was my second favorite movie EVER and would not change its mind, nor would it present me with the proper battles between films to set the record straight. Thankfully you can kill the film off of your list and start again. Read on for my current top 20 picks, as generated by the site, in a debatable order. Hopefully Metta will post hers in the comments!

1. Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
2. The Godfather
3. Rain Man
4. Love Actually
5. Little Miss Sunshine
6. Wall - E
7. Shakespeare in Love
8. Jerry Maguire
9. Braveheart
10. National Treasure
11. Forrest Gump
12. Kung Fu Hustle
13. The Last of the Mohicans (inaccurate)
14. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
15. Brokeback Mountain
16. The Usual Suspects
17. The Departed
18. The Red Violin
19. The Hours
20. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (not my favorite HP film)

Read more!

Film - My Kid Could Paint That

After viewing "Who the $%#! is Jackson Pollack," I remembered hearing about another art-based documentary "My Kid Could Paint That."  So I moved this movie up my queue and checked it out. The movies are similar in many ways.  They both explore the world of modern, abstract art, and they both conclude with unanswered questions, leaving the audience to make their own judgments.  However, where "Who the $%#!..." made me smile even when I was frustrated, "My Kid..." made me sad.  To hear a brief summary and more of my thoughts, click "Read More."

"My Kid Could Paint That" starts almost as a laugh about the world of Modern Art.  Surely we have all seen a painting in a gallery where we thought, "Holy heck, it's a yellow rectangle on a red background!  Anyone could do this!"  Well here was a three-year-old (seen mostly in the film at age four) who was painting elaborate, colorful, and yes, masterful works of art that were selling for tens of thousands of dollars once brought to the attention of a local gallery owner.   We delve into a debate about the true value of these pieces: are people buying the art for its intrinsic value?  Or are they buying into the gimmick of a toddler receiving international praise for finger-painting?  Pollack was also criticized in such a manner.  Were people buying his art or were they buying a piece of the troubled celebrity?  

Surely Marla's paintings showcase nice color combinations, as well as great diversity in texture and smart compositions.  The documentary wants to move towards the exploration of a prodigy, but it hits a road block: the parents are reluctant to have Marla be videotaped while painting. How can we study this girl's genius when we are never allowed to see her work?  The documentarian tries once to film Marla as she paints, but she seems lost and creates a muddy mess on her canvas.  Her father gets upset and claims she "always does this when the cameras are rolling," referring to other failed attempts at having her painting documented by film crews from various news operations.   

Eventually the movie can't help itself but become an expose.  Is Marla really the one painting these pieces that are selling for tens of thousands of dollars?  The documentarian, Amir Bar-Lev, hates to pose the question, as he has let himself become incredibly attached to this family. Once Marla's parents discover that Amir is debating their honesty, the trust is broken and the documentary-experience ends.   The true nature of Marla's talent remains a mystery.  

As one journalist points-out during the piece, this is more a story about adults than a child.   Can Marla's parents be trusted? You'll have to draw your own conclusion. 

Read more!

TV - Lost Season Five

So much for my re-watching experience lasting me until next season begins, as was the original intention.   I have no finished watching the not-too-distant Season Five!  Read on for my musings.

Locke:  Okay so I need to download and question a lot of information regarding Locke.  Mainly my thinking all boils down to is Locke really getting signs from Jacob, or has he always been playing into the hands of the Man in Black?  Is he supposed to lead the Others?  Certainly Locke has always been an easily seduced dude, and perhaps one of these two leaders (or both) have been taking advantage of his gullible nature in order to further their missions.

Is Locke really meant to lead the Others?: Just for funsies, let’s take a gander at the history of how those dudes in Tibet determine the next Dalai Lama: High Lamas go to a holy lake to watch for signs that will lead them to the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama.   Once they think they have found the boy, they have him perform a series of tests to affirm the rebirth.  The High Lamas ask the boy to choose from a variety of objects.  If the boy chooses the artifacts that belonged to the previous Dalai Lama, then this is seen as confirmation that the signs have pointed them to the correct reborn leader.

Locke was presented with a baseball glove, a knife, a vial of sand, a “Book of Laws,” a compass, and a comic book entitled “Mystery Tales.”   He picks the vial and the compass, and Richard seems hopeful.  However, then he takes the knife and Richard is angry.  Locke has failed the test.   What was the other object Locke was supposed to pick?  The compass is especially interesting because it is a mobius loop.  If it is the same compass passed between Richard and Locke, then we have seen Richard give Locke the compass in 2007, then Locke gives Richard back the compass in 1954, and then Richard gives Locke the compass BACK in 2007.  So it’s a time-loop conundrum item with no origin, making it pretty special.  

So is Locke supposed to be the leader of the Others (and is the leader of the Others really Jacob’s second in command)?  He fails the test as a child.  However, Richard seems to have changed his mind by the time Locke becomes introduced to the Others in Season Three, saying he’s special. Certainly Locke has some report with the Island, considering it healed his legs and gave him all sorts of visions. The smoke monster lets Locke live on two different occasions.  However, Christian tells Locke that HE was supposed to be the one to move the Donkey Wheel, meaning he was supposed to be kicked off the Island for forever… so: What’s the deal with Locke? 

Another interesting tid-bit:  Locke hears someone say “Help me” in the Jacob cabin.  My current theory is that this was the Man in Black, who was trapped in the cabin somehow (and kept in there through a ring of ash).  And the end of season five we see that the ring of ash has been trampled through, troubling team Ilana, and of course by this time the Man in Black has embodied Zombie Locke.

 

Smoke Monster: Who he is and who he isn’t

With the Smoke Monster holding trial against Ben in Season Five, there are a lot more questions about the nature of this ash cloud. 

Yemi: I’m fairly certain the smoke monster appeared as Yemi.  Notice that Yemi’s body was missing.

Christian: so Christian is also roaming around the Island, and Jack discovered that his dead body was missing from inside the coffin.  Is Christian a smoke monster incarnate as well?

ZombieLocke: A reader of this blog (?!), Dean, questioned if ZombieLocke is the Smoke Monster.  If this is true, then that means the Man in Black is the Smoke Monster.  It would also mean that either Christian is not Smokey, or Smokey can be in more than one place at a time considering Locke is with Ben and Cesar during the same time Christian is with Sun and Lapidus (I think). Delving further, Smokey tells Ben to do whatever ZombieLocke says, leading us to believe that these two could be one in the same.  However, I think it could just as easily go in the direction that Jacob wants the Man in Black to find the loophole because he knows something we don’t (is Jacob the Smoke Monster?). ZombieLocke seemed a bit surprised that Smokey told Ben to follow Locke’s lead. Notice also that Locke’s body has not mysteriously disappeared.  Ilana has it…  In conclusion: I really have no idea what I’m talking about. 

 

Change the future?

Okay so now that we’ve theorized some about Locke, Jacob, the Man in Black, and Smokey, let’s tackle the final scene again.

Throughout my re-watching experience, I’ve also listened to the Official Lost Podcast hosted by the executive producers and head writers Damon and Carlton.   They have said a lot of stuff that makes me feel a bit more comfortable, although still confused, with the whole “Did they change the future” question.

To start, throughout their season three finale and season four podcasts, they often discussed the fact that they were “paradox averse.”  They do not believe in parallel universes or that the future could be changed.  A lot of their discussions about these issues came when fans were asking them if the flash-forwards were definitely what was going to happen in the future, or if they were only one possible vision of a potential future.  

The producers also stand-behind Eliose’s course correction thesis.  If something is meant to happen, it’s going to happen no matter what.  It’s a “What happened, happened” look at the past and the future.  

However, then Faraday comes up with this whole “The Variable” theory that could possibly lead them to believe they *can* change the future.   Damon and Carlton said that a scene that was cut from this episode explained Faraday’s new theory pretty clearly: think of a pebble being thrown into a stream.  Although it creates a little splash, it does not affect the path of the stream. (Desmond catching a pigeon so Charlie wouldn’t was only a pebble in the stream: Charlie still eventually died.) Now picture tossing in a boulder! Suddenly the stream has a huge obstacle, and it will change its course.  Apparently Daniel hypothesizes that doing something super duper major will change the course of the future, like detonating a hydrogen bomb and blowing up the Island.  However, I would have originally thought that Sayid shooting baby Ben would have been a boulder, and if we are going to buy into this theory, than we  have to classify that action as a pebble.

So my conclusions?  Although I think that setting off the bomb is going to mess things up for a couple of episodes at the start of season six, it’s not going to be big enough to stop the Island from course-correcting and getting all of the original fuselage castaways back together (memories intact) at the same time on the Island to face the big reveal of what it all means together.   I believe the writers will stick to their guns and avoid alternate universes where the fuselage gang doesn’t remember their Seasons 1 – 5 experiences.  

What I can’t develop is a theory for how those scenes where Jacob touched our various castaways at points in their past are going to play-out. Are they going to be relevant for where or when and in what mental state the characters “wake-up” after the bomb detonation?  Part of what makes those moments so interesting is that for some of the characters, they are touched before having crashed on the Island, but for others, it is after they have returned as part of the Oceanic Six.

Trivia:

If you made it this far, then you deserve a nice little trivia tid-bit.  Did you know that the aforementioned head writers come up with clever codenames for the whopper scenes in the finales?

- Season One’s scene where Walt was kidnapped was called “The Bagel” for no logical reason. 

- Season Two’s scene where those dudes call Penny to tell her they “found it” was called “The Challah” only because they wanted to continue the trend of naming these scenes after Jewish breads.

- Season Three’s scene where Jack yells at Kate that they “have to go back,” which was a flash-forward, was called “The Rattlesnake in the Mailbox” because Carlton was telling Damon about how spooky and surprising it would be to find such a thing and they both thought it set the appropriate mood.

- Season Four’s scene where it is revealed that Locke was actually the body in the casket was called “The Frozen Donkey Wheel” as a way to deter spoiler sites (for there was a leaked image of Ben turning a frozen donkey wheel, which is an earlier scene).

- Season Five’s scene where Juliet detonates that son-of-a-bitch of a bomb was called “The Fork in the Toaster.”   This name was actually chosen by a fan in a “name the finale scene” contest held by the podcast.  There have been rumors that the final scene was actually supposed to be the one where Ben kicks Jacob into the fire, but I think the name fits and the finale works better with the Juliet ending. 

Read more!