Random Frosty

About six to eight weeks ago I got a lot of flak from Neesio and her ilk because I had rented all of the Star Trek films to get caught up. Of course, I probably only need the first six, maybe seven, to see the Shat-Attack but I felt it necessary to immerse myself in the story. Even some school chums joined in on the mockery when I told them how I spent my weekend. Here we are, a week after the opening day of Star Trek and it’s the number one movie in America (which never lasts long during the summer months) and suddenly people are coming to me for my Trekkie “expertise.”

Here’s a little secret though: Star Trek has always only been cool to me because of its lameness. For the good SciFi I turned to the Star Wars series. When I rented the Trek series it was to mock it as well as figure out what the hell was going on. Star Trek is analogous to talking with my little brother when I was fourteen – I loved him but I just HAD to make fun of him (and punch him) until he cried.

That all changed when I caught the flick on MoDay. Could I be losing my mind or… is Star Trek cool now? The movie was badass, every time I turn on the ‘ol BoobTube they’re talking about the series, and the interwidewebs are experiencing a bit’o’Trekmania. Is the hype worth it? Well, yes and no.

Star Trek, as everyone knows, was brought back to life by J.J. Abrams here in 2009. A younger and sexier cast is paying fast-paced homage to TOS (Trekkie talk for “The Original Series,” with Kirk, Spock, Bones, Scottie, etc.) and it makes the series seem more relevant. Heck, I know people that said the out right loathed all things Trek except this new movie. Why is that? Well, Abrams had a hand in it, but, ultimately, the creators/cast/crew just ignored what was put to celluloid before… wait, films don’t rely on celluloid anymore do they?

Sure, they used the same names and generalized personality traits but the history could be ignored. How, you may ask? Well… they had a device. Time travel. That’s right, the same device that worked so well in the past.

So, basically, nothing counts because it’s all an alternate timeline. Kind of like finding out everything is just a dream, or a virtual simulation. The bottom line is that if you’ve never seen a Star Trek film before you will probably think it’s cool (because it’s not all that original for a summer blockbuster) but if you’re a long time fan you’ll find things to gripe about. Not that I’m a long time fan or anything… Unless it’s cool now… Damn it! I just trapped myself.

Do I have to end this entry with “live long and prosper” now? Nah, I’m not gonna.

Ghost Town (2008) is one of those comedies that probably will not be considered a “classic” comedy like Airplane! or Young Frankenstein. That is not to say that is without merit, however. The film stars Ricky Gervais as Bertram Pincus, a misanthropic dentist. Pincus gains the ability to communicate with the dead after briefly dying (for seven minutes) during a routine colonoscopy. In the English comedian’s first leading role in a movie, Gervais injects that beloved deadpan/high-brow humor that has been missing in most American comedies over the past decade or so. Not once did a character receive a devastating blow to the genitalia or have sperm dangling from an earlobe. Though there were some sight gags the majority of the “laugh out loud” moments came from the witty dialogue.

We are introduced in the beginning of the film to the venerable Greg Kinnear as Frank Herlihy, a charismatic adulterer who dodges death from above (a balletically falling air-conditioner) only to leap in front of a hurtling bus. Within these first minutes of the film we learn some basic ghostly “rules” that may have not been previously established in lore:

1. Ghosts wear what they died in, which proves unfortunate for those that died in the nude!

2. Since ghosts are not generally seen by the living, when the living walk through them they suffer an abrupt and uncontrollable sneeze.

3. Ghosts can not affect the physical world of the living except to cause sneezing.

That’s it, aside from one more rule revealed later in the film that I shall not spoil for you. As the film progresses the focus changes from the dead Frank to the very much alive Pincus. Frank convinces Pincus to break up the impending marriage of his widow Gwen, played by Téa Leoni. Leoni reprises the same role in this film that she has played multiple times before: the sweet yet absent-minded love interest. Though she certainly is enchanting in the role, it is nothing new and is easily forgettable.

The real stars of the film are Gervais and Kinnear. They both play characters that the audience would not traditionally associate with yet are so charming that the audience can not help but like them. Both are antisocial jerks and yet the audience is able to forget that in hopes that both will succeed in their separate journeys. Very few actors in Hollywood are able to pull off this combination.

I found myself pleasantly surprised by this film. Initially, from the previews, I was not particularly excited as the movie seemed unoriginal and only worth renting. Actually the film did follow the same generic romantic comedy formula and I am glad I did not see it in the theater. But it was funnier that I thought it would be, more heat-felt than first implied and, overall, a good movie. I may not remember the film in five years but it was a great film to watch when there was nothing on TV and I had already seen everything else in the video. I definitely will recommend this to a few people I know.

Even the movie poster looks bad ass!

After jumping through studio loopholes, losing and gaining principle actors, and multiple rewrites, Steven Soderbergh finally brought his greatest film to audiences in 2000. Erin Brokovich was good, but Traffic is great. A movie about illegal drugs that does not glorify the use of them or focus primarily on the addicts, Traffic tells its story from the viewpoints of a user, an enforcer, a politician and a trafficker, whose lives affect each other even though they do not meet. I found myself experiencing conflicting feelings toward all of the characters. I will not go over a plot synopsis but focus a bit on editing, for a change. Toward the end I’ll highlight some of the “talent” in the film.

Editing has never exactly stuck out to me. It always seemed so much like connecting point A to point B; just assembly without any real art in it. After seeing some of Stephen Mirrone’s work however, my mind has been changed. Mirrone has edited the films Bable, Good Night and Good Luck, 21 Grams, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (a terribly underrated movie), and Ocean’s 11 through 13. However, Traffic is his greatest accomplishment. Mirrone’s editing forces, nay, allows the audience to make connections of their own by stopping scenes as soon as the point has been made while allowing other scenes to remain on screen to create an indelible impression on the viewer.

One example of his stopping a scene and lingering on the immediate scene that follows is when Javier Rodriguez (a Tijuana based state policeman fighting an unwinnable war against drugs beautifully brought to life by Benicio Del Toro) is in a bar “seducing” Frankie Flowers (an assassin played by the horrendous Clifton Collins Jr.) in an attempt to seduce him into custody for General Salazar (a drug czar, pretending to be good, portrayed by Tomas Milian). The audience sees devilishly flirtatious smiles exchanged between the characters (with the classic shot, reverse shot showing reactions to respective smiles) just before an abrupt jump-shot to Frankie Flowers bound, gagged, and weeping in the backseat of the car driven by Javier. The camera seems to linger for a few moments on Frankie to allow the audience to take in what has happened, but cuts away before too much imagination can be given to the possible brutality Javier may have inflicted. The audience must see a clear line between the ways Javier goes about accomplishing his goals and Gen. Salazar shows his methods (brutal torture, physical and psychological, among other things).

Another editing style used in Traffic is a repetitive dissolve. It is used primarily for scenes involved with actual drug use. Traffic is a fantastic film with top notch performances turned in by all of the actors. Benicio Del Toro’s performance is the best portrayal in this film and some may argue that it’s his best performance in any film, but I think he was what made both 21 Grams and Things We Lost in the Fire watchable at all.

Presenting Mr. Cheadle and Prof. Mustachio.

Both Don Cheadle and Luis Guzman are hard to ignore in this film and both have really turned in outstanding performances in many different films. To this day, how Don Cheadle’s moving performance in Hotel Rawanda lost out to the pandering and transparent Jamie Foxx in Ray in 2005 I’ll never know. Michael Douglas, while good in the film, seems to portray the same well articulated and intelligently sophisticated character he has brought to all of his films since the mid 90’s. He is good with that role, so it is hard to complain about him at all. I just miss him in roles that portray a wider ranges, like Gordon Gekko (Wall Street), William “D-Fens” Foster (Falling Down) and even Jack Colton (Romancing the Stone and Jewel of the Nile). He’s just become too… safe. His wife, Catherine Zeta Jones, does the best acting she has ever done in this film, but I have a feeling this is due more to Soderbergh’s direction than any talent she has. She is beautiful and lovely to watch on screen, but aside from her performances in this film and in Chicago, she has been pretty worthless. That may sound cruel, but her talent has yet to exceed her beauty.

One Has-Been + 1 Overrated, yet Sexy, Hack = One hell of a performance!

Woody Allen and Diane Keaton sit in front of the Queensborough bridge in Manhattan, a classic film ode to the Big Apple.

While watching Manhattan, Woody Allen’s 1979 “masterpiece,” it is impossible not to be astounded and annoyed with the mise en scène. The film opens with a montage of various New York City locations set to a beautiful George Gershwin score. I know I am not the first to write that New York is the most important character in this film, but I may be one of the few to admit to not liking the main character. Our supporting character, Isaac Davis, played by Woody Allen, verbally introduces himself as a man who absolutely adores New York. He is a 42 year old television writer who is going through a midlife crisis. His ex-wife, Jill (Meryl Streep), has fully embraced a lesbian lifestyle and is writing an in depth book about her relationship with Isaac. His girlfriend is a 17-year old high school girl named Tracy, beautifully played by Mariel Hemingway. As if these women problems were not enough, Isaac is falling in love with his best friend’s mistress, Mary (Diane Keaton).

Woody Allen, while filming this, used the entire frame throughout the whole movie. IMDB.com states that this is his first and, to date, only film shot using the 2.35:1 anamorphic Panavision process. The movie is filmed entirely in black and white, giving New York a classical fantasy quality throughout the film. Manhattan is so important to Manhattan that, at times, the actors are unnecessary or completely forgotten. A few scenes in particular bring this to mind. In one scene, a busy Manhattan street is shown in full (I will not attempt to correctly label the street as I have never been to Manhattan) with a phone booth on the far right of the screen. Our dominant character, The City, looms of our jittery squirlish Isaac Davis as he places a call to Yale. Unless the viewer is looking for the phone booth, which is inevitable as the audience can clearly hear the conversation, one would almost miss the driving action of the scene. Naturally, I assume that this is Mr. Allen’s point: the action on the street is far more important than that of any of the human characters. The mise en scène portrays the stressful choreography of New York traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, that permeates normal life. In other words, the phone call you feel is important means nothing to this thriving and growling city.

The ever nerdy Woody Allen in Manhattan.

Another scene where the characters are secondary in the mise en scène is in one of the many museums shown in the film (again, I will not attempt to correctly name the museum as I have never been to a New York Museum). We see our supporting characters, Isaac and Mary, running in from the rain and, to dry off, visiting a planetarium. These unimportant and boring characters are suddenly the focus of the film as the screen becomes claustrophobic compared to other shots of the city as a whole. Suddenly these underdeveloped characters thoughts and opinions are to be listened to, and Woody makes sure the audience knows that. The camera stays close to them to capture the obtuse conversation, and at the same time the stars in the planetarium are in the background simulating a romantic moonlit sky. This entire conversation is one long continuous shot that often fades to black as our characters pass into unlit areas. This tells the audience that the audio, for once, is more important than the visual. There are long moments when the screen is blank-black while dialogue is passed back and forth.

If it is not painfully clear, I do not hold this film in high regard. I can see the appeal – if you live in or have visited Manhattan. Otherwise, you are merely watching thinly veiled pseudo-cerebral bullshit with unlikable characters; including the namesake Manhattan. We get it: Manhattan is the center of the universe… can we move on already?

Manhattan. Dir. Woody Allen. Perf. Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, Mariel Hemingway, and Meryl Streep. DVD. 1979.