Home » Posts filed under movie makers
Showing posts with label movie makers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie makers. Show all posts

The 39 Steps

Posted by std007 Thursday, May 17, 2012
For The Love of Film is an annual blogathon dedicated to raising awareness of film preservation, and to raising money for the cause of restoring old films lost to time, hosted by The Self-Styled Siren, Ferdy on Films, and This Island Rod. This year, the movie up for preservation is The White Shadow (1923), AKA "White Shadows", in which a young Alfred Hitchcock worked as an assistant director. For more information about the film, click here. Proceeds will go to the National Film Preservation Foundation, who will stream the surviving parts of this film on their website. To donate, click here. The blogathon's theme is things associated with Hitchcock, The White Shadow, or film preservation in general. For a complete list of participating blogs, click on the links to all three blogs.

seen @ The Rubin Museum of Art, New York NY
4.20.12


Before Alfred Hitchcock came to America and Hollywood, he had a thriving career in the British film industry. He started out in the London branch of what would become Paramount as a title card designer, after a brief stint writing short stories for a local magazine. From there, he moved on to Islington Studios in 1920, working in the same capacity. He learned the ropes of filmmaking, eventually becoming an assistant director. Influenced by German directors F.W. Murnau and Fritz Lang, his directorial debut was Number 13 in 1923, which suffered financial difficulty and went unfinished. His first successful film was The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog in 1927, one in which he began to develop his personal tropes that would reverberate throughout his career, such as the "wrong man" premise. His first sound picture was 1929's Blackmail, one of the first British talkies. Among his subsequent British films included the original The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934), The Lady Vanishes (1938) and 1935's The 39 Steps.


Steps is one of the first Hitchcock films to use what he called a "Macguffin," an object meant to spur the plot along but is ultimately unimportant. The story he always told to explain what it is involves two men on a train. One explains that he's carrying a Macguffin, a device used to catch lions in the Scottish highlands. When informed that there are no lions there, he replies, "Well then, that's no Macguffin." The Macguffin in Steps is a pilfered set of design plans.




There are other familiar Hitchcock tropes in the movie: man get accused of a crime he didn't commit and is forced to go on the run, relying only on his wits; unlikely partnership with blonde chick added at no extra cost. There's quite a bit of humor in this one, though I'd stop short of calling it a comedy. Some of the situations Robert Donat finds himself in - for instance, when he's mistaken for a politician and has to give a speech to a room full of people - are situations I could imagine happening to, say, Cary Grant in a Hitchcock film. Though Hitchcock is revered as the "master of suspense," he also had a lively sense of humor. Watching a movie like Steps, it seems as if Hitchcock knew the improbability of the dilemma he has put his protagonist in and keeps the story light as a consequence.


Steps has some beautiful location shots of the Scottish countryside. In black and white, one doesn't quite get the full majesty of it all, especially with the overcast skies and fog, but it's still thrilling to see Donat running through the rocky terrain with the cops on his tail.


I saw Steps as part of a series at Manhattan's Rubin Museum of Art, in which the theme was the use of memory in movies. Steps begins and ends with a character who entertains audiences with his ability to memorize and recall random facts at will. The way he figures into the plot is a clever one, and indeed, it hinges on Donat's character's memory: the way one bit of information, seemingly unconnected to anything, can actually be an unconscious link in a chain of memory.




This was my first time at the Rubin, a place recommended to me by my new friend Sylvia, whom I met at another one of Vija's fabulous parties (it's amazing how many people I've met this way). The theater at the Rubin is small, but cozy: low ceiling in the back opening up at the front, soft lighting, comfortable chairs, and candle-lit tables too. The host was this British dude who introduced author James Gleick, who spoke about Steps in the context of how memory figures in the plot.


The set-up for admission was a bit unusual. The Rubin stays open later than usual on Friday nights to show movies, and when I got there I was directed to the lounge, where I had to buy something from the over-priced bar so I could get a ticket to the show. I immediately looked for whatever was the cheapest thing on the menu, but they were serving Indian and Nepalese food, in keeping with a current exhibit, and I'm not that familiar with either, especially the latter. I might've been willing to try some, except it was ten minutes to showtime and I didn't want to have to wait for however long it took to make. Then the guy next to me at the bar said all I needed to do was get a beer and that would be enough to get in, so I did. I bought an $8 Heineken, which is about the price of a matinee movie ticket in Queens or Brooklyn, so it worked out somehow, I guess.

The Avengers (2012)

Posted by std007 Monday, May 7, 2012
The Avengers (2012)
seen @ UA Kaufman Studios Cinema 14, Long Island City, Queens, NY
5.4.12

The truth is, I don't ever recall being ostracized for reading comic books as a kid. I remember certain friends I shared them with, though those weren't many. My parents were never opposed to them; in fact, my father used to drive me to the comic shop on Saturdays at one point. I never felt protective of my level of fandom as a child. I never had to justify it in any way, and I suppose in that I was lucky.


At some point along the way, when I got older, I picked up the notion that comics fandom was a kind of secret society, and while I didn't necessarily think reading comics was nerdy, I did kinda like thinking that knowing the minutia of comics in general and superhero comics in particular was specialized, arcane knowledge. When I started reading non-superhero comics, that lore became even more specialized - they're not as big sellers as superheroes, which is insane, but that's for another post - making me, in a way, a deeper level of geek. It's the difference between knowing all the different colors of Kryptonite and what they do, and knowing some obscure mini-comic made on a shoestring budget out of some guy's bedroom.



And then one day the nerds won. Geek culture is everywhere now, including comics, and I'm still not used to it. To see and hear references to comics characters you thought only you and your friends know about, on TV and in film, is both exciting and shocking, because it means the secret society has been breached. For generations, in North America at least, comic books have struggled to achieve legitimacy on a par with movies and TV, and now that they've come closer to that goal than they have in a long time, it doesn't seem... right, somehow. Odd, no?


Of course, the current renaissance in comic book movies has had a great deal to do with that - and let's be clear: this includes non-superhero comic book movies like American Splendor or Road to Perdition as well as the men in tights. I've been out of the comics game for awhile, so I don't know how all these movies have translated into sales of actual comics, but I figure if nothing else, awareness has been raised and knowledge has increased. It's been a fanboy fantasy for many years that movie adaptations of popular comics would mean more people would buy comics, but of course, it's not as simple as that. I won't go into the reasons why, though; perhaps another time.




And so we come to the movie adaptation of The Avengers, the pinnacle of a path of progression that arguably began in 1998 with the surprise hit Blade and continued with X-Men and Spider-Man back to back. (Actually, partial credit should also be given to The Matrix. Though not based on a superhero comic, it has the look and feel of one, and it was probably the reason why the X-Men wore black leather in their movie debut.) I knew that all I had to do was to pick a multiplex, any multiplex, and Avengers would probably be playing there. So I picked the Kaufman.


It was a late afternoon on opening day. I knew I had to see it opening day because I needed to see it with a big crowd, even if it meant paying the full thirteen bucks, even if it meant seeing it with unruly audience members, even if it meant waiting on ridiculously-long lines just to get in, because this picture meant something. (As it turned out, my audience was a relatively well-behaved one. There was one guy with a bright cellphone light in the beginning and a mother with a crying baby, who left about a third of the way in, but other than that it was alright. I lucked out.)




And indeed, there was something in the air that day, something that made you wanna linger long after the movie ended. The area outside the Kaufman and the immediate intersection of streets felt alive with activity, lots of people coming and going. The Applebee's across the street had a sign announcing a contest in which you could come dressed as your favorite hero or villain, and apparently the staff would be in costume too. (I did not see anyone on the streets in costume.) 

Outside the theater's entrance was a dude with a table selling comics. He had several boxes full of old and recent comics, with an emphasis on Avengers, of course, plus Avengers posters and pin-ups and related paraphernalia. A few people lingered idly around the table as I entered the theater.


It was about a half-hour before showtime and the line to enter the auditorium was longer than I expected. The concession stand was packed with people buying popcorn and soda. The video game section was a cacophony of electronic sound. Life-sized displays for Avengers and other movies adorned the lobby.




People were everywhere, young and old, especially young. There were plenty of little kids running around. I saw one little kid talking to an usher wearing Hulk Hands. Several other kids floated around the Amazing Spider-Man display as if before a shrine. One of them took its picture. Behind me, on line, a Latino father slumped down against the wall while engaging his son in conversation.


The auditorium's house lights were out, and while it wasn't as dark as it was at the Jackson when I saw Think Like a Man, it was almost as difficult to find a good seat. I had to move up to the rear. I settled on one seat, then changed my mind and picked a different one, off to the left side. The top of the railing to the stairway bulged slightly into my field of vision, but only slightly. All I had to do was lean forward a little and I wouldn't see it. Eventually the house lights came on (to scattered applause) and I stood up, hoping to find a better seat down towards the front, but it would mean sitting amidst a bunch of bratty kids, so I opted to stay where I was.


There were no trailers; the movie started right away.


It was good. There are things I could criticize, of course, both as a movie fan (how convenient it was that aliens invade Manhattan and they confine themselves to Park Avenue South) and as a comics fan (why was Loki not a magic-user?), but it was fun and funny as well.




One big criticism I have is with Thor. I see now why I passed on seeing his movie; making a character like him work in this context, with 21st-century people in a modern sci-fi setting, felt weird. It's not all Chris Hemsworth's fault, either. He seemed like he was making a genuine effort with an unusual role. The problem, I believe, is similar to that which I had with Sin City: you can get away with certain unusual speech patterns in a comic, but when you have to say them out loud, it's different. Still, it didn't bug me that much.


A word or two about Joss Whedon. I never bowed down at his feet like many fanboys. I saw the first couple of seasons of Buffy (hell, I saw the original Buffy movie!), but it never really stuck for whatever reason, and as a result, I never saw any of the spin-offs, or Firefly, or anything else of his. I did read some of his X-Men comics. They weren't bad, but with a comic like that, after awhile you feel like you've seen everything that can be done with it a dozen times at least. I wouldn't have gone quite so far as to say he was overrated, but I definitely did not think he was the man for the job of writing and directing an Avengers movie.




I stand corrected. Credit where credit's due: Whedon understood that it would be difficult to bring together a group of such disparate, alpha-male personalities, and having them bicker as much as they did was smart. As a comics fan, I'm used to seeing Captain America and Thor and Iron Man work together for so long, that it's odd to see them bickering, and I suppose the old cliche of "they meet, they fight, they team up" was inevitable, but I think it made for a better movie.


From a different angle: Vija was writing about Avengers on Facebook this morning. Seems she saw it with her boyfriend and his young grandson. She noted how violent it was, which is true, there's no getting around that, but from an older woman who normally doesn't seek out movies like this, the connotation is different. She's not a prude; she can certainly deal with violence in films, but I think she thought this was just mindless violence and little more. Which of course, is the point of most summer action movies! I suspect, though, that she was a good sport about it all, as she always is. At least she won't have to worry about Sam Jackson coming after her on Twitter.


--------------------------
Related:
Five Avengers I'd like to see in future movies
'Avengers' will be a fanboy's dream come true
Captain America

Think Like a Man

Posted by std007 Monday, April 30, 2012
Think Like a Man
seen @ Jackson Heights Cinemas, Jackson Heights, Queens, NY
4.25.12

Ride around on the subways in New York and you'll see plenty of people reading books. It's always been a habit of mine to look over the shoulders of someone and follow along, whether it's a hard copy or an e-book - if I don't have a book of my own, that is (or even if I do). Ride in the subways long enough and you'll easily deduce which books are the popular ones. In the last few years, I've seen people read the Hunger Games books, the Harry Potter books, the Game of Thrones books, and The Help.

I have yet to see anyone on the subway read Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man, the relationship-advice book by Steve Harvey. I have no doubt it has sold well, nor do I doubt that it has a modicum of popularity. But the movie Think Like a Man, based on the book, would have you believe the book is all the rage - which, I suppose, is understandable, given the movie's clever hook.


In Think the movie, Think the book is the catalyst for a war-between-the-sexes tale, where first the ladies, then the men, use it to try and improve their respective relationships. Harvey himself pops up periodically to impart nuggets of wisdom from his book in a fourth-wall-breaking manner. It does kinda feel like an infomercial after awhile, but it kinda-sorta works because of the way the book is perceived  on both sides: the women see it as vital information being passed on, though some warm up to it quicker than others. (None of them explain why Harvey's opinions on dating bear any weight to begin with, but again, you have to accept this premise for what it is.) The men, by contrast, feel betrayed that one of their own is calling them out on their bad habits, and they use the book to "flip the script," as it were, on their women.


I suppose Harvey's presence in Think kinda reminds me of Elinor Glyn's in the silent classic It: both have written about male-female sexual relationships and how they work, both have had their writings adapted into films, characters in both films read their writings and try to act on them, and both authors appear as themselves in the films to further explicate their respective philosophies. That's about as far as that comparison goes, however.

I have no dog in this hunt; in the game of love, I've been a third-string bench-warmer planted next to the Gatorade cooler for far too long. Still, I enjoyed Think for what it is - a light, glamorous rom-com. It doesn't say anything new or profoundly different about dating, but then neither do 95% of Hollywood rom-coms. What amused me about this one, and this is something I mentioned on Twitter, is how it has the feel of a classic rom-com from the 30s and 40s. The stars are glamorous and beautiful, surrounded as they are by lovely shots of LA by day and by night; the dialogue is delivered snappily, and the story is less about sex than it is romance. It didn't feel like it was making the men out to be dogs or dummies, like I tend to see in a lot of contemporary rom-coms (especially black ones!), but by the same token, it wasn't afraid to show the women's flaws.


Like I said, ultimately this doesn't add up to anything all that insightful or unique; this isn't vintage Woody Allen here. For what it is, though, it's entertaining. It even begins with an animated sequence!

This was the first film I'd seen at the Jackson since the Queens World Film Festival, and the glamor has definitely worn off. When I entered the side theater, the house lights were off and everything was pitch black. It was less than ten minutes to showtime and I was the only one there. I had to find a manager and ask him to have the house lights turned on so I wouldn't trip over myself finding a seat - which was entirely possible, since the center aisle of stairs is steep and not lit with footlights. (Using my cell as a flashlight didn't help.)


I've been coming to the Jackson for so many years, seen so many movies there, and it's an active link to my childhood, which is probably why I tend to look at it through rose-colored glasses most of the time. Still, I think I'm finally beginning to see it as it really is: old.

When I was in Columbus, there was an old neighborhood theater with only a single screen (the Jackson has three), and it felt more modern and stylish and popular than the Jackson does now. (I'll have to write about it sometime soon.) I love the Jackson and probably always will, but every time I go there, I feel like it's not long for this world. I hope I'm wrong.

The ship still sinks!

Posted by std007 Tuesday, April 10, 2012
So I was gonna see the Titanic re-release in 3D, but after reading that the 3D is nothing to write home about, I decided to opt for a 2D viewing, if there was one. I couldn't find one, and after thinking about it some more, I decided I didn't need to see it again that badly after all. Still, I can't let the occasion go by without putting in my two cents about the movie... everybody else is...

I was still working video retail when it first came out in December 1997. I know I saw it in Manhattan, but I can't remember which theater. I don't think I saw it opening day, but I'm not sure. I do recall talking to a few people who had already seen it, and I had steeled myself for it in advance, determined not to fall prey to cheap emotionalism and to be as objective in my evaluation of the movie as possible. But the truth is that this is simply not that kind of movie.

Yes, I may have shed a tear or two towards the end. Seriously, it's hard not to get caught up in the story, especially once they hit the iceberg and the carnage begins. Titanic is the kind of movie that has to be seen on the big screen to get the full impact of it, and James Cameron knew that when he made it. Love him or hate him, he does not make movies for people to watch on their iPhones. And maybe the creation of movies like these has turned him into a dick with a massive ego. If so, that's unfortunate, but you and I will probably never know for certain. It's certainly unfortunate that Cameron doesn't feel the need to collaborate with a writing partner. Maybe that's a sign of his ego; I don't know.


I bought Titanic on VHS - widescreen, two tapes - but I don't recall watching it at home all that much. If I were being completely honest, I'd say the reason I bought it in the first place was because I got caught up in all the hype, but long before it came to home video I knew about the backlash. Obviously I didn't have the internet back then, but I read Premiere and Entertainment Weekly regularly. I knew that people were saying it wasn't all that. And now we've come to expect a backlash to movies like Titanic.


I think Titanic is half of a great movie - the second half, obviously - but that second half is powerful enough to justify the first half. And give Cameron credit for making the movie he wanted to make, without apologies. Like Cecil B. DeMille and David Lean before him, Cameron thinks on an epic scale and has the stones to pursue his vision, no matter where it takes him, from deep space to the bottom of the ocean, from the far-flung future to the distant past. That's a rare thing... and he should be recognized for that much.
Copyright © 2013 Top HD Wallpapers