Birdman (2014)

In the mainstream population film can be often looked at as entertainment and not much more. We see movie theaters packed on opening weekends for tent-pole productions of the next big franchise or continuation of one. Whether it's Star Wars, Justice League, or Thor: Ragnarok, there's a catharsis that comes with the popcorn blockbuster. It may be the cinematic equivalent of scrolling down through your Facebook newsfeed, but it's bright and flashy and fun and doesn't require a lot of effort to interact with. Rather than being a reflection of the truth of our own lives, we're given large set pieces, neon color palettes, and quirky, yet unrealistic dialogue. We're not given reality, we're purposely removed from it.

Conversely, in Birdman, we're given a film that works to portray it's story in a realistic way. One way it attempts to do this is the use of tracking shots. Tracking shots are shots when the camera focuses on the characters while the camera is moving. The camera either moves backwards, forwards, or sideways while the characters are walking or running. Director Alejandro G. Inarritu mostly films Birdman in one long continuous shot to realistaically show the audience the pains and pleasures of creating a stage adaptation of Raymond Carvers' short story, "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love".

The camera follows the characters as if the audience is following them and their lives. As a result, we become fascinated with what the characters are doing and it adds a voyeuristic feel to the story. As opposed to the gimmick like approach of found footage films, Inarritu is able to use techniques to evoke these feelings. There's also something to be said for the meta-commentary of using Michael Keaton in the role of the protagonist. Keaton's (who played Batman in the late 80's and early 90's) mere presence reminds us of the parallels of this character and the real world person playing him. The soundtrack and use of jazz music also increases the emotional and creative impulses that the characters are going through and makes the audience tense.

The movie focuses on the troubled production of the stage adaptation of one of Raymond Carver's short stories because they're not suited well to film. They focus on the characters talking to each other from one location to another, which would work well on stage but will bore audiences when put on film. Dialogue is something we do over a dinner table, it's not always viewed as something we need tons of in film, let along being a major part of the content. We believe the main character, Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton), has a connection to Raymond Carver because he admires them and wanted to take a break from making superhero movies. With his career becoming stagnant, Riggan wants to prove himself to be a true artist, and distance himself from the pigeon-hole he's been put in. But considering how Riggan was a big Hollywood star in his early career, he might have a difficult time convincing the audience that he can make art while battling his own ego.

The film's subtitle "The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance" represents the ignorance of what other people want in their lives and how self-important certain people in the art business have become.

Pulling these elements together we get a clear picture of what the film is trying to accomplish. By giving a sense of grounding and paralleling with a protagonist who has spent most of their artistic career creating work so far from the condition of our day-to-day lives, the film is able to evoke a felling of duality. We are able to see both sides - the big, bombastic production of the superhero genre - and the lack of trust in the very building blocks of our own reality to be interesting. We are left wondering where the line between the two truly lies and which people would rather spend their time in.

RATING 4/4

Coming Soon: The Summer Movies of the 1980s

Inspired by a RetroJunk article series about The Summer Movies of the 1990's, I'd figure I should do a similar series, this time focusing on The Summer Movies of the 1980's. I choose the 1980's because after seeing so many 80's summer blockbusters, I began to believe that the 80's is the golden age for summer blockbusters.

Now keep in mind, this series might be hard for me to do as I have to see a lot of movies, do research on the movie's history and subject matter, and come up with my own opinions on them. Plus, real life often gets in the way, so it might take a long time to finish every entry in the series. And last but not least, I'm gonna be focusing on the movies I saw. If there are movies you are expecting to be in this series and is not there, it will indicate that I never saw them but I will review them on it's own and there will be no updates on the series. Re reviews on some of the movies might be necessary if I feel like reviewing them in depth.

Probably starting on either Christmas break or early 2018, I'm going to start the series with The Summer Movies of 1980. That summer had Luke Skywalker learning that Darth Vader is his father, The Blue Brothers making their first movie, and Bill Murray chasing a gopher in a golf course. The Summer of 1980 had it all.

No Country for Old Men (2007) (Spoiler Warning)

Cormac McCarthy's 2005 novel No Country for Old Men deals with themes involving fate, doing what you feel is right, greed, and violent consequences by showing them to us rather then telling us how to feel about them. The novel shows parallels between man and nature, often foreshadowing the natural course of things without needless exposition as to what that truly means. We, as a reader, are left to describe that ourselves.

The Coen Brothers captured these themes with the same kind of ambiguity while also staying true to the source material. The opening landscape shot shows us desolation while Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) questions himself through narration on whether or not he did the right thing. The lack of music adds realism and adds to the theme of desolation very well. The ice cold lighting at some of the night time scenes fit Anton Chigurh's (Javier Bardem) personality perfectly and the light blue lighting at the motel shows us the deep trouble Llwellyn Moss (Josh Brolin) is about to get from Chigurh. And the sunny Texas landscape and the harsh yellow lighting at night remind us of hellfire.

Both the book and the movie left important questions we're asking open for interpretation so we can figure it out ourselves. For example, why did Llwellyn take the drug money? In both the book and the movie Llwellyn is shown to have slight reservations about taking the money, hinting at the fact that he knows the stakes of the game he's about to be playing. He does it anyway. We can venture to guess why without being told. His current conditions, living in a trailer park, not seeing much of a future for himself, providing for his young wife. All of these are obvious factors in his decision making, while simultaneously crafting a real, breathing character.

The Coen Brothers also used a lot of symbolism in this film, such as silhouetted reflections on an old TV set. The first reflection shows us Anton Chigurh, which gives us the impression that he's more than a murderous psychopath. The second reflection shows us Sheriff Bell, who later questions whether he did the right thing or not. Both reflections show us different characters in both men. Chigurh wears his normal clothes while Sheriff Bell is in uniform, showing us that Bell goes by the law and Chigurh makes his own rules yet both characters are doing what they think is right. There is also something to seeing both of these characters in the same setting at slightly different times. Nothing is different except the man sitting there. It allows the audience to focus on the extreme differences in the characters themselves. 

Chigurh is an interesting character both in the movie and the book. He's very creative, he makes his own rules, and he views his victims like cattle. This gives us the impression that he might be The Grim Reaper, more a specter than a man. Take a look at his famous coin toss for example. If the victim guesses heads or tails correctly, his or her life would be spared. If he or she loses the toss, the victim would parish. To Chigurh, this dichotomy is fate. He is not one choosing what happens, he is merely enacting what he views as destiny. This very tense scene is unsettling and allows us a clear view into the way Chigurh's mind works.

Through The Coen Brothers' commitment to ambiguity and faithfulness to the original text, we are given a movie that is able to translate deep themes from a book to the silver screen. It is not often that we, as an audience, are given films that are as rich, or as textured as the work they were able to put together.

RATING: 4/4

Fight Club (1999) (Spoiler Warning)

Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club and it's film adaptation from David Fincher shows us the horrors of masculinity and how it can lead to violent activities. We, as a society, have been raised in a stereotypical masculine culture, the reflection of which can be seen in action movie stars, athletes, or superheros. But the characters Fight Club takes masculinity to the extreme with their foul language, their massive and brutal battles with each other, and their war against a capitalistic American society.

Common masculine stereotypes can be attributed to a short temper, the use of violence to solve disputes, fights in public places such as bars, and rough language. But Fight Club doesn't glorify and romanticize masculinity.

The Narrator (Edward Norton) expresses complete cowardice earlier in the story. He works at a boring job, which often affects his insomnia very badly, and he doesn't stand up to his boss (Zach Grenier). He doesn't really become a stereotype of masculinity until Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) enters his life and they decide to run a business in which oppressed men learn how to be a man by fighting each other. David Fincher shoots the fight sequences in dark areas with bright yellow lights to give the audience the feeling that the characters are like savages from hell, so while the movie does embrace violence, it does show the negativity that can come from it.

Fight Club also focuses heavily on the idea of extremism. Nietzsche once stated that the more civilized our society becomes, the weaker each individual becomes in terms of their willingness to endure physical consequences. The formation of the Fight Club was originally cathartic, intended to open the participants to a truer connection to reality. This opening, however, allowed for the extreme ideals of its creator to easily be adopted by those following him. Just as in a terrorist organization, where extreme rhetoric is used to conform the followers, Tyler Durden uses the rhetoric of Fight Club to align his followers with his end goal.

In the context of the story, terrorism is being used against our capitalist society. As the Fight Club progresses, Tyler Durden begins to form a group called Project Mayhem, which declares war on capitalism. They overfeed doves so they can defecate on brand new cars, they cause property damage such as wrecking cars, and blowing up electronic stores, and they beat up complete strangers while they are at work. But the terrorism isn't glamorized. Fincher still uses unsavory color palettes for sequences of Project Mayhem at work.

The true conclusion of both the book and film should be clear. Our Narrator eventually realizes that he himself is Tyler Durden. The parts of him that had felt quelled by the advancement of civilization in the worst possible ways. These manifestations led him down a dark path believing that your ability to damage and destroy defined your true effect on the world. This parallels with our contemporary traits of masculinity, that our ability to effect charge and have a true position is proportionate to our strength. It also parallels with groups in the real world who, when feeling oppressed, resort to violence (or terrorism) to achieve their goals. There's something intrinsically ironic, however, that in Fincher's film the majority of people in Project Mayhem are white American males, a group who in no way experiences actual oppression. It's as if it was purposely to show purposelessness of their actions.

Once our Narrator realizes the consequences of the actions in the book and film, he sets out to stop them. We, as an audience, are supposed to take the position of the Narrator. We are shown the lure of violence, of resorting to our basest instinct when we begin to feel lost in the world. But we are brought to the conclusion that these actions are not the best course to take, they merely result in more pain and destruction. Fight Club holds a mirror up to our faces and asks if what we actually like to see.

RATING: 4/4