Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Directed by Steven Spielberg. Starring Richard Dreyfuss and Francois Truffaut.

Though it may not seem fitting at first, Close Encounters is an excellent follow-up film to discuss after Bonnie & Clyde. Let's follow the timeline... Interestingly, the New Hollywood generation of films I talked about yesterday quickly lead to the Blockbuster era of filmmaking. There are some positively classic examples of the early Blockbuster films, all of which I mentioned in my previous post (The Godfather, Jaws, and Star Wars were all key), and Close Encounters is also in the same vein. Just look at the year it was released... 1977. It's hard to think of Spielberg's alien film in conjunction with the release of the game changing Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, and I'm sure one overshadowed the other, but bad timing aside, Close Encounters of the Third Kind remains an intriguing UFO film rivaled only perhaps by Contact.

I had seen Close Encounters before viewing it again in my film history class -- of course. Spielberg is a fantastic filmmaker, and I'm sure I wasn't the only kid who grew up with E.T. then graduated to this as a more adult film version of a film about humans meeting aliens. Amazingly, this film really stands the test of time... We watched it in class on Blu-Ray on our nice large projection screen and it was *almost* like it would have been seeing it in theaters. To be honest, I was actually surprised how good even the spaceship and aliens at the end look... a little aged, perhaps, but in general, the special effects were quite well done for the 70s.

I find this movie interesting because it's particularly memorable to everyone who's seen it. Ask anyone what they remember, and I bet you'll hear a whistled version of the theme music, a joke about mashed potatoes, and a comment about the Devil's Tower. These things just stay with you. But there is more to the film than that, of course. Close Encounters is about believing in the impossible, and having others not believe in you. It's about children and adults seeing the world differently (as many of Spielberg's films are), and I think the film encourages a certainly childlike openness and wonder in the audience. In the end, it's wonderful to see a science fiction film that can hold its own in the annals of film history.

Though perhaps this film falls into the beginning of the era when Hollywood began caring more about Box Office returns than the quality of every storyline, I DON'T think Close Encounters is an example of a film or filmmaker that sold out. Okay, sure, this was a film that was made for roughly $19 million and made $300+ million, but this isn't a popcorn film like today's Transformers franchise... it's imaginative and creative. It made money, I'm sure, because people thought it was new and intriguing, and well-made. It's one of those movies where all of its pieces come together brilliantly -- from the special effects to John William's wondrous soundtrack to Richard Dreyfuss's manic acting. So, instead of seeing it already as a Hollywood Blockbuster, I think this film -- and others of the same period, like Star Wars -- mark the transition between "New Hollywood" and the Blockbuster era. Spielberg was still trying something new, like others in the 60s and 70s in Hollywood, but he was beginning to see that he could make money doing so. Still, he's aware of what came before... sci fi like 2001: Space Odyssey and even film history. (Fun fact: In an interesting nod to the French New Wave, which inspired many of the "movie brats," including Spielberg, it seems, the French scientist in Close Encounters is played by French filmmaker Francois Truffaut.)

Close Encounters is the best of both worlds... a smashing hit that is also an entertaining thrill. It's a film with a little bit of melodrama, some romance, a conspiracy theory or two, and plenty of eerie "close encounters" with flying saucers. This is a timeless hit that's worth seeing at any age.

Bonnie & Clyde

Bonnie & Clyde (1967)
Directed by Arthur Penn. Starring Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway.

Let's return to film history with Bonnie and Clyde, which is a remarkable and landmark film. Famous for its graphic violence, among other things, this is a film that could only have been made in 1967 or later. Here's your historical context... Much like The Graduate (also 1967), this film came at the end of the life of the Production Code, a set of self-censorship rules Hollywood used to decide what was okay for movies and what wasn't. The code was officially abolished in 1968 and replaced with the MPAA rating system we have today (so instead of saying "you can't put that in a movie," now they just say, "you can't put that in a movie for 10-year-olds" -- etc). By 1967, though the code was still officially around, it was limping out the door (its decline is often said to have started in 1966).

Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow are well-known cultural figures (so well known that apparently they are worthy of a new film called Bonnie & Clyde Vs. Dracula -- but I digress). The very "based on real life" lives of Bonnie and Clyde were those of depression-era outlaws... They were bank robbers in the "public enemy" era of the early 1930s. They were well known in their own time due to a great deal of publicity in the newspapers as they killed their way across the country, but interestingly, I think it was this film in '67 which really made them icons.

This film, in addition to its relationship to the Production Code, is a great example of a particularly important period in Hollywood. Just before the Blockbuster era was ushered in by films like The Godfather, Jaws, and Star Wars (the great three Coppola, Spielberg, and Lucas films, respectively), there was a burst of creative output from Hollywood studios. Following in the footsteps of many "new wave" filmmaking movements in many European countries, the so-called "New Hollywood" is a fascinating period... and Bonnie & Clyde is often considered the most important movie of this movement. Films under New Hollywood are characterized by being fresh and different from what came before (for "Old Hollywood," think big studio pictures like Cleopatra, My Fair Lady, and even The Sound of Music). New Hollywood films were made by a new generation of young filmmakers who went to film school and were aware of film history and filmmaking movements (the "movie brats"), as well as being individuals who were tapped into the counterculture energy sweeping the country in the late 60s and 70s.

Back now to Bonnie & Clyde. I found this film interesting because of its moral ambiguity. You are, after all, rooting for a couple who, according to history, killed at least nine policemen and possibly more civilians in a seemingly goal-less cross-country rampage, robbing gas stations and banks in a time when people didn't have money to spare. But you do, definitely, end up rooting for them. In no uncertain terms, I think, the film wants you to see them as the "good robbers" chased by the "bad cops." Their death, though something you anticipate, is not a resolution you look forward to -- In fact, as the end drew nearer, I was positively dreading it, especially since I had read a description of the famous final scene before. In all, I can see why this film was both controversial and well received by critics and the public alike. Of course, I can also see why this film struck a particular nerve with the youth generation in the 60s. After all, Bonnie's restlessness as well as the whole gang's disaffected nature bears resemblance to the feelings behind the counterculture movement. Faye Dunaway, with her glamorous blonde hair, very nearly could be a 60s girl, not someone living through the Great Depression.

This is a rare classic film that falls squarely on the list of "must see if you want to call yourself a film-lover" but that doesn't seem like a chore to watch (*cough*Citizen Kane*cough*). The editing is so well crafted that it makes me want to go back and watch it again. It's entertaining, emotional, well-acted, significant historically, and beautifully made. It is, in summation, a masterpiece of American filmmaking.

Chaplin

Chaplin (1992)
Directed by Richard Attenborough. Starring Robert Downey Jr and MANY others.

I don't think there is any genre of films that is as consistently satisfying, creative, and fascinating as the bio-pic, and Chaplin is no exception.

Charlie Chaplin is, of course, a famous figure in film history. One of the great silent film actor/directors and perhaps the most classic comedian of all time, his "Little Tramp" is iconic. Richard Attenborough's Chaplin actually shows you very little of the man himself and includes hardly any footage of his movies. Except for a montage when Chaplin is awarded a lifetime Oscar, you see Charlie in character only briefly. Instead, this film deals with the man once the makeup, mustache, and clown shoes comes off and the bowler hat and cane get hung up for the day. In fact, this is set up by the opening scene, in which Chaplin carefully wipes of his makeup as if to signal that this is about the Charlie found beneath the surface of the Little Tramp. I've only seen one Chaplin film -- The Immigrant. Still, I know OF Chaplin in the way that everyone does... with an unavoidable and nigh universal awareness of a such an important cultural figure, but with very little familiarity. From what I've read, this film was criticized for glossing over Chaplin's life and taking too many creative liberties... but that's always an issue with this genre. I say this as a preface because I don't want to tell you how Chaplin compares to the life of Charlie Chaplin... I merely want to look at this film as just that: a film.

Robert Downey Jr.'s transformation into Chaplin is remarkable. This was of course made early in his career, amidst the tumult of his personal troubles. Still, I found it impossible to watch him in this film without thinking of him now -- cocky at the Oscars and other award shows, clever as Tony Stark or sharp as Sherlock Holmes, always lately on the top of his game. Seeing such talent from him so many years ago is very cool. Downey Jr. manages to flesh out Chaplin at every stage of his life -- his unknown young adulthood, the height of his celebrity, the ups and downs of his many marriages, the scandal and clashes with J. Edgar Hoover, and finally his exile and last years writing his biography. This is a demanding range for any actor. Not an easy role.

The supporting cast is equally wonderful. The film even stars the granddaughter of Charlie Chaplin in the role of Chaplin's mother -- a wonderful nod to history, I thought. The film is structured around Chaplin discussing his biography with his publisher/editor. This is the means with which he is reflecting on his own life. Thus, the primary narrative device is that of a series of flashbacks. I thought this worked well, though the movie certainly had to cover a lot of ground. Chaplin's life was dramatic and tumultuous. His love of younger women often got him into trouble, and his over-the-top work ethic and perfectionism led to many difficulties. Still, this is a portrait of a comedic and artistic genius... one of the first great filmmakers who knew what people wanted, and knew how to give it to them.

While perhaps not true to life, this movie is interesting and entertaining. It's a must-see for anyone who is a fan of Chaplin's work, and is an excellent way to at least get a sense of his life. Finally, it's a prime example of an actor as a true chameleon, with Robert Downey Jr. *becoming* the great Little Tramp and his creator.

Ondine

Ondine (2009)
Directed by Neil Jordan. Starring Collin Farrell.

This is an unusual film that deals with the relationship between myth and reality. It walks the line between viewing the world through the eyes of a child; and being unable to look away from the harsh violence that governs many adult lives. This is a film where the Irish accents run thick and the Celtic legends run deep.

Ondine tells the story of a fisherman who pulls a woman out of his net on a routine day. His daughter becomes convinced that the mysterious woman, who takes on the name Ondine, is a legendary selkie... a kind of shapeshifting mermaid. (Or, more specifically, a seal creature that can shed its skin and become human. Their stories are often romantic tragedies involving them coming to land and falling in love with a human. But, the mythology is more complex than this... as the name ondine also has some important implications. This is yet another water nymph creature who is -- you guessed it -- also involved in romantic literature and romantic tragedies). The film encourages, even builds this mythology, to the point where you believe it! I won't spoil the ending, but let's just say that it involves dragging this airy story back to the ground of reality.

I found this film particularly interesting because it shows that myths are not just stories of yore... Far from being relegated to damp forests with Greek maidens, legends still live and breathe in our modern-day lives. The film is extremely creative in dealing with how myths are created... In fact, Ondine creates its own mythology in a way, while dealing with existing classic myths. This movie creates its own world, even though it's meant to be set in present-day Ireland. It bears a dreamlike quality and floats along, but it bears its share of drama. The whole time you watch it, you feel as if you are in the rolling green hills and misty air of a small Irish coastal village.

Ondine is a different and refreshing take on the romantic drama film genre. It bears a distinctly Irish touch that I find rather beautiful. Though it stars the fairly famous Collin Farrell, it feels like a small film; something you might find tucked away on a dusty shelf -- like an old book of myths waiting to inspire awe.

Grey Gardens

Grey Gardens (2009)
TV Movie, HBO Films. Directed by Michael Sucsy. Starring Drew Barrymore and Jessica Lange.

HOW have I not heard this story before? That's the question I kept asking myself as I watched Grey Gardens, the story of the eccentric, idiosyncratic, and let's face it, just plain crazy cousin and aunt of Jackie Kennedy. Social recluses who don't seem to recognize how odd their lives are, the lives of "Big Edie" and "Little Edie" are quite tragic in a lot of ways. Drew Barrymore and Jessica Lange turn in phenomenal and award-winning performances in this HBO Film.

Interestingly, the film about these women bears the same name as the documentary featuring them (when they Big Edie was still alive) from the 70s. This documentary is actually being made throughout THIS film. However, this Grey Gardens is more of a narrative biopic, tracing the descent into a form of madness of the two women. The story is actually told in a non-linear way, jumping all around, starting from Barrymore's debut as a debutante, and culminating with the 1970s premier of the documentary. This film is unsettling, there's no two ways about it. You get that distinctly sick feeling in the pit of your stomach that comes from watching someone who is totally out-of-touch with reality. Both Edies seem increasingly out-of-touch with the rest of the world, and the Grey Gardens house spirals into disrepair.

This is a film that doesn't have something to SAY, per se, but more to highlight a culturally significant figure (or, rather, pair). The selling point of Big and Little Edie is clearly that they were related to the Onassis clan... so perhaps it's pointing out how far the mighty can fall? This is a showcase for good acting (particularly by Barrymore) and a "true story you've never heard of" gem someone found in a history book or documentary collection. I thought it was interesting to have a film being made within the film... a very self-referential way that makes us, as the audience of THIS film, question our own role as spectator. Worth seeing for the performances, but not something I particularly enjoyed.

The Big Lebowski

The Big Lebowski (1998)
Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen. Starring Jeff Bridges, John Goodman, Julianne Moore.

I feel slightly bad saying this since I know The Big Lebowski is a big cult classic and fan favorite, but I didn't really enjoy it. I wanted to... especially since I like Jeff Bridges... but I just couldn't get into this movie. The plot seems to ramble along, without being particularly compelling or comedic, and it doesn't ever end up anywhere.

I suppose it has something interesting to say about what it means to be a slacker i.e. not focused on ambition and a fast-paced lifestyle like many Americans. "The Dude" is certainly an unconventional hero for a movie. Additionally, I'll admit that there were two aspects of the film I did enjoy: the narration by a complete stranger, and the creative and fantastical dream sequences. However, these two components didn't make up for the rest of the movie, which I found either dull or dumb.

As my film studies education continues, I realize that I am unsure of how to understand films by the Coen brothers. I'd love to take a class on them sometime. They're capable of creating something as oddball as this at the same time as something as mainstream as True Grit. They're clearly interesting filmmakers, but I haven't been able to figure out quite why. Let me see... As The Big Lebowski shows, the Coens are clearly skilled at creating idiosyncratic stories with eccentric characters. And, as I've been discussing with friends lately, all truly great films have great characters. Furthermore, I read recently that the Coen Brothers are known for paying homage to classic genres -- for example, the Western with True Grit or heroic journey of O, Brother Where Art Thou? Following that train of thought, I'm not sure what genre this film would fall into... Perhaps the "mistaken identity" crime / film noir genre.

In the end, this was a film that I had heard mentioned enough times that I figured I SHOULD see it, and now I have. I should have known by the description that it wasn't exactly up my alley, but  as I've said before, it's always good to try something new in film viewing, to see if you've misjudged yourself and you'll end up liking it. Overall, since I have liked other Coen Brothers movies, I'm thinking this one just wasn't for me.

The Adjustment Bureau

The Adjustment Bureau (2011)
Directed by George Nolfi. Starring Matt Damon and Emily Blunt.

I sometimes read Roger Ebert's review of a film I'm attempting to write about... He's so good at what he does that I find it inspiring and thought-provoking. I do often have to challenge me afterwards to stick to my own ideas and language. However, just this once, I simply have to quote him (from this post)... "The Adjustment Bureau is about the conflict between free will and predestination, and right there you have the whole dilemma of life, don't you? Either it makes a difference what you choose to do, or the book had already been written, and all you can do is turn the pages."

I knew this movie was right up my alley even before seeing it... It's an interesting mix of Sci Fi and Romantic Comedy/Drama, and it deals with really interesting ideas about fate. The titular agency is a supposed group that keeps certain important people "on track" with the plans laid out for their lives. In fact, they are tasked with keeping the entire human species on track... but it's really the important people, those who are destined for great things that matter. The explanation for the bureau is fairly well fleshed out (although the head of it, the supreme "god-like" figure is murky and barely explained)...  We do get a rather witty glimpse into history, including the fun fact that the few times the Bureau tried a "hands-off" method led to the Dark Ages and the World Wars.

Thus, humans can't govern themselves, other than the tiny daily decisions... what size coffee to drink in the morning, and the like. So, from this premise, you would think that the film seems to put forth an argument for predestination. But I don't think it does, because the film is questioning predestination, testing free will, asking how the two could possibly work together. If anything it argues that free will is out there, but that it must be worked for. It's easy to be a sheep and follow the path laid out for you, but you can also try to reach a higher state of... call it enlightenment... in which you are in charge of your own destiny.

The film puts forth the story of one man, David (Damon) who decides he doesn't like the plan laid out for him. David must choose between his love for Elise and his aspirations in politics, but what happens if he doesn't choose "correctly", as the Bureau wants him to? Of course, the real kicker is that David was never supposed to really meet Elise... or at the very least, not supposed to fall in love with her. She was supposed to be a chance encounter in a men's bathroom... a catalyst that leads him to greatness. But David and Elise do meet again, on a public bus, when David's Bureau handler falls asleep on the job. Faced with the task of getting David back on track, the wonderful John Slattery (I'm not sure of his character's name) reveals all, thinking a full explanation of the Bureau, coupled with a threat to erase his memory if he should share this information with anyone, will solve the problem. Long story short, it doesn't.

This film is good, but it's missing something that would have made it great. It's as if it's not willing to go all in to the science fiction vision of the world it purports. This is not the next Inception, in other words... it treats its topic too lightly, somehow. The stakes for David and Elise never seem as high as those for Mal and Cob in Inception, for example. Though they grapple with similar things -- their entire grasp on reality as they know it falling apart -- The Adjustment Bureau seems to move on too quickly, or not buy into its own idea somehow.

Don't get me wrong, it's a solid, fun two-hour flick... but it's not nearly the class of film I'd expect in, as I've heard it called, "the post-Inception era." I've heard chatter online that Source Code, another film in a this genre may be a true film for the post-Inception age -- a time of intelligent and interesting films -- but I haven't had a chance to see Source Code yet, at the time I'm writing this.

I liked The Adjustment Bureau when all is said and done. Damon and Blunt, along with the supporting actors like Slattery (whom I love from Mad Men) and Anthony Mackie (whom I'm not very familiar with, but was wonderful in this) all turn in great performances. Damon and Blunt, surprisingly, have good chemistry... It's believable that these are two people chance would throw together, and they'd get along well. I'm not sure how memorable this film will be in the long run... Perhaps in a few years, I'll hear the title and say, "Oh, yeah, I saw that, it was good," but to be honest, it's just a March Blockbuster flick, good for a few hours of fun.

Rango

Rango (2011)
Directed by Gore Verbinski. Starring (voices by) Johnny Depp, Isla Fisher, Abigail Breslin, Ned Beatty, Alfred Molina, Bill Nighy, and others.

Animated film Rango is a horse (or more accurately, a chameleon) of a different color. It's an animated film for adults, rather than children. Most films like this that try to cross the age line focus on the kids and throw in a few nods toward their parents; but the creative team lead by Gore Verbinski really seemed to have set out to make a smart, intelligent, grown-up flick.... and yes, it happens to be non-live action.

Furthermore, Rango was clearly made by somebody who loves films and has seen lots of them... After seeing it, I concluded that Gore Verbinski must be incredibly well versed in genres and cliches. The whole film is one big nod to the classic Western films of the 50s and 60s, drawing on every cowboy convention ever. However, it also tips its hat to surrealist films, Star Wars, Chinatown, and even Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Johnny Depp gives an interesting and dynamic voice performance as the titular character (but really, that's to be expected of him)... as do many of the other actors -- most notably, Bill Nighy (whom I didn't recognize until part of the way into the film). Rango is an incredibly human lizard, which of course is what makes this film so appealing and real despite its animated nature. In the beginning, when he is alone in a glass tank riding in the back of a car, we see him neurotically longing for friends (which comprise the wind-up goldfish toy in the poster, and a headless, legless Barbie doll torso), attempting to figure out who he is, and what role to play (literally). When his tank falls out of the car and he is left stranded in the wilderness of the Mohave desert, we see him struggle to fit into his new surroundings (ironic, of course, since he is a chameleon). There is a wonderful light bulb moment when he first walks into the bar of the little town that the film is about... and Rango decides to reinvent himself.

The CGI animation is impressive. Fur, skin, and scale textures on the many animals are incredibly realistic... as are the desert surroundings. There's one scene that stays in my mind, where the sand is gently blowing in the nighttime breeze... and all I can say is that they nailed it. The sand sparkles in the right way, moves in the right way... It just looks real. If not for the stylization in the characters (oversized faces, and such -- like Rango's left eye), you honestly might question for a moment whether or not it was real.

Fun fact for those interested in how films are made: Verbinski and Co used a system they dubbed "emotion capture" to create the film... where the actors didn't just stand in sound booths and voice their lines, but actually acted the scenes out together. (Read more here.)

To sum up, I really enjoyed Rango. It was entertaining, yet didn't sacrifice intelligence to be so. It was a film that was savvy but legible. It was fun and funny and yet it dealt with some interesting themes (identity, community, environmentalism, interconnectedness). Of course, it helped that it featured my favorite actor and was made by the man who made my favorite movie (Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl)... so I was perhaps pre-disposed to like it. But I really would recommend it to any type of film-goer as an all-around good movie.