Goodbye 2010! - A Look Back At The Year That Was

It was a good year (drunk as hell, but no throwing up).  Time to reminisce on some of my favorite moments.

WALT DISNEY WORLD! (and my Southern Adventure)

From Frog Central in Michigan, Calamity Anna (my ladyfriend) and I travelled down I-75 to the self-proclaimed "Happiest Place on Earth" (Mostly because we had misheard it as being the "hoppiest" place).  After we recovered from our initial confusion over the distinct lack of frogs, we had a blast.  We kept expecting huge lines, but we went at just the right time of year, and were able to do repeat rides of masterpieces like The Haunted Mansion and Twilight Zone Tower Of Terror.  On the road trip, we also got to see such roadside attractions as The Whistle Stop Cafe (of Fried Green Tomatoes fame) and The Lost Sea Adventure (America's largest underground lake).

LEELANAU

I got to tag along on Calamity Anna's annual trek up to her family's place in Northern Michigan, right on Lake Michigan, next to one of Al Capone's old houses.  I got to laze about.  Soaked in the scenery.  Hiked on trails.  Ate gourmet cheese paired with delicious Michigan wine (believe it).  Traded stories about the modern world with friends, around a campfire on the beach, as the heavens opened up above us.

EREBUS, AND CEDAR POINT HALLOWEEKENDS

Did my annual trip to Erebus Haunted House (until last year, the largest haunted house in the world) in Pontiac, MI with Calamity, which was even scarier and more intense than ever before.

The next day, we drove to Cedar Point for their Halloween festivities.  It was our first time at the park in over a decade, and the first time visiting during Halloween.  An amazing mix of ghoulish frights and intense thrill-rides.  Top Thrill Dragster is, in a word, insane.



HARDCORE GAMING



My buddy Godforce Achin's possession of three TV's, three X-Boxes, and three copies of Battlefield: Bad Company 2 led to some of the most insane, brutal, and brilliant co-op action of all time.  Other notable distractions to be had were Red Dead Redemption, Medal Of Honor, and Halo:Reach.

CHICAGO

My first lengthy trip to the Windy City.  Great public transportation, amazing food, and a permeable sense of history.

A GREAT MOVIE YEAR

Fuck the haters;  there were some great films out this year.  When a movie as amazing as Inception only ranks at number ten on my top ten, I know I've had some good times at the cinema.

ENGAGEMENT!!!!

A couple years ago, I found the perfect person for me.  My soul mate, to be with until the day I die (after which, I'll haunt the shit out of her).  While neither of us hold the institution of marriage in high esteem, it seemed fitting and appropriate to declare our undying love for each other in the form of a public ceremony/weenie-roast.  So, this time next year, it'll be Mr and Mrs Frog.


HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYBODY!  I hope you had as fulfilling of a 2010 as I have, and I'm hoping for an even better 2011 for all of us.

He Gonna Do One!: Picking The Archetypal Film From Every Major Genre

As a soon-to-be husband and wanna-be father, I've been spending some time thinking about how to introduce film to my theoretical spud (I'm currently thinking about starting with the Silents, and going up chronologically).  This thought process led to a broader question;  if someone were completely unfamiliar with a certain type of genre, what movie would be the ONE FILM that you would show to them?  Maybe not the highest quality film (though that would help), and maybe not the originator of the genre, but just the best overall representation of what the genre is.

Here are my picks:

DRAMA:  A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE (1951)

Along with "Comedy", this is a pretty ridiculously broad genre, but when I think "Drama", I often think of films that are intimate and real, yet have a tragic fatalism to them.  In the most effective drama, no one wins, and everyone loses just a bit.

COMEDY:  AIRPLANE! (1980)

The ZAZ-team's greatest achievement; often imitated but never duplicated.  This is simply comic madness from beginning to end, without a serious moment to mar the purity.

ACTION:  COMMANDO (1985)

There are certainly better action films, and even better 80's action films, but no other film better defines what an action movie is.  Arnold Schwarzenegger kicks ass and takes names, leaving a trail of bodies and explosions in his wake.  Even grenades exploding next to him only serve to make him mad.

GANGSTER:  SCARFACE (1932)

There are a lot of options here, but there's something so manic, desperate and energetic about this film that I think really defines the undercurrent of all gangster films;  paranoia, and the inevitability of being hoisted by your own petard.

WESTERN:  STAGECOACH (1939)

B&W, John Wayne, John Ford, and featuring every Western cliche imaginable.

MUSICAL: SINGIN' IN THE RAIN (1952)

 A two-for-one;  you get the standard, upbeat, song-and-dance entertainment, and a bit of an exploration of film history.

MYSTERY:  THE THIRD MAN (1949)

This also doubles as my Noir entry.

SCIENCE FICTION:  STAR WARS (1977)

You just get MORE of everything here.  Tons of aliens, laserguns, robots, spaceships, and telekinesis.

FANTASY:  THE LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY(2001-2003)

Same logic as Star Wars.  It's the film adaptation of the quintessential fantasy book of the last century.

WAR:  SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998)

For being smack dab in the middle between cheery propaganda and brutal realism.

SPY:  NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959)

Hitchcock at his most playful.

HORROR:  NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968)

Does it get bleaker, or creepier, than this?



Any thoughts?  Disagreements?  Omissions?  Let me know what you think.

Red River (1948) (Movie Review)

RED RIVER (1948)
Director:  Howard Hawks (with Arthur Rosson, uncredited)
Stars:  Montgomery Clift, John Wayne, Walter Brennan, John Ireland

A fictionalized account of the first cattle drive from Texas to Kansas along the Chisholm Trail, Wayne stars as hardened rancher Thomas Dunson, who due to economic hardships in the post-war South is forced to bring his cows to where the money is, with his best friend Groot (Brennan) and adopted son Matt Garth (Clift) by his side.  The trail is long and hard, leading some of the hired crew to, in effect, mutiny.  Dunson, half-crazed from drink and lack of sleep, starts to get a bit sadistic in response.  The more level headed Groot and Garth are stuck in the middle, and have to decide where their loyalties lie.

Ask a film historian for a western movie recommendation, and this one is likely to come up.  It's easy to see why;  the photography by Russell Harlan is often breathtaking, capturing the epic scope and beauty of the Mexico and Arizona locations.  There's a clever bait-and-switch in the narrative, in that Wayne is playing his usual machismo, determined character;  but he's the antagonist.  Clift (in his feature debut) is the real protagonist, who ends up stealing both Wayne's cattle, and the film.  Brennan is great in his standard, toothless-prospector type role, and John Ireland is effectively menacing and cool as the anti-heroic gunslinger Cherry Valance.  The scene where Cherry and Garth take turns shooting a can to make it "dance" is one of the most iconic in cinema history.

Hawks is a versatile director, as gifted at comedy as he is at drama or action, and all of those gifts come to play here.  Brennan, who quite literally loses his teeth in a game of poker to Quo (Chief Yowlachie), has some hilarious banter with his Native frenemy.  The script, by veteran writers Charles Schnee and Borden Chase, has some great lines in it.  One member of the posse, after witnessing several funerals on the trail, asks, "Fill a man full of lead, stick him in the ground, and read words on him.  Why, when you kill a man, why try to read the Lord in as a partner on the job?".

Hawks never forgets to throw a shootout in every so often, and they come on fast and furious.  The implication of violence is often even more effective than what's on screen;  at one point, an enraged Wayne goes in hunt of his prey in the dark, knife drawn.  We never see what happens, but you know it had to be pretty bad for the guy on the receiving end.

So far, sounds like a great time had by all, right?  Weeeelllll. . .

Joanne Dru shows up around halfway through the film to become a very contrived love interest, and ends up becoming the Jar Jar Binks of this movie.  Her performance, and character, are ludicrous, and she ruins every scene that she appears in, most notably the ending.  And that's the biggest problem with this film;  there's so much spectacular build-up, so many tense conversations and brutal action scenes, that the ending has a lot to live up to. . .  and it pretty much fails on all levels.  It has to be one of the worst, most anti-climactic endings to a "classic" film ever made.

It's essential viewing for movie fans, and it's fun to play "spot the actor" ("Was that Shelley Winters as a prostitute?  Hey, it's Richard Farnsworth!"), but the film is more significantly flawed than the American Film Institute would have you believe.

FREDERICK OPINES:  MIDDLING

Director Of The Week: D.W.Griffith

D.W.Griffith (January 22, 1875 - July 23, 1948) was born David Llewelyn Wark Griffith in La Grange, Kentucky.  His father was a Confederate Army colonel in the Civil War, and later became a Kentucky legislator.  He died when DW was still very young, and the family fell into hard times, forcing young David to begin looking for work at the first available opportunity.

After working some menial jobs to make ends meet, Griffith decided that he wanted to become a playwright; he only ever had one play produced, but his efforts did lead to him getting a few acting roles.  In 1907, he brought one of his scripts to the attention of Edison Studios, in New York.  They rejected it, but gave him work as a screen actor.  Soon after, he left to act in some films for the nearby Biograph Company.  In 1908, Biograph lost their main director, and on a whim replaced him with young Griffith.  A renowned, celebrated, and controversial career was born.

Over the course of his career, mostly from 1908 to 1931 (he never directed a full film after that point), he made over 500 films, most of which were silent shorts produced between 1908 and 1913.  In an era where film directors were often marginalized, Griffith began to push the newly burgeoning artform in new directions, making it something much more than a filmed stageplay.  He often utilized techniques such as irises, tracking shots, pans, close-ups, and other devices that have now become standard in filmmaking, but at the time were fairly revolutionary.  The Biograph "stock" of actors included such notable names as Mack Sennett (who would later become a ground-breaking director in his own right), Lillian and Dorothy Gish, Mary Pickford, and Lionel Barrymore.  Beginning in 1910, Griffith began taking his crew out to the picturesque Los Angeles area to shoot, notably filming his short, In Old California, in the tiny village of Hollywood.  It was the first movie ever filmed there.

Griffith, growing more ambitious with the form, began secretly filming a feature-length (six reel) film with Biograph's money.  Titled Judith of Bethulia, it ended up being a bit of a mess, and Biograph was less than pleased.  The money men ended up chopping his film to pieces, bringing the running time down to four reels.  While he could have stayed on as a successful single reel director/producer, he decided to pursue his passion for the longform film elsewhere.  He left Biograph, and made a few shorts to raise money while in the planning stages on his next, epic project;  an adaptation of Thomas Dixon's novel, The Clansman.

The film, retitled The Birth Of A Nation, became both Griffith's greatest triumph, and greatest controversy.  Over three hours in length, and shown in two parts, it chronicles the story of two families; one from the North, one from the South.  In part one, it details their trials and entanglements during the Civil War, climaxing in the assassination of President Lincoln (SPOILERS!!!).  In part two, it deals with what was the popular view of the Reconstruction Era South at the time the film was made;  that, under their new black "leaders", the South fell into a state of anarchy, and that the Ku Klux Klan was the "natural and noble response" of the Southern Aryans.  In the climax of the film, men in white hoods quite literally ride to the rescue.  Here's the poster:

The movie, and source material that it's based on, are quite odd and contradictory in tone, in that they're anti-slavery, but pro-segregation.  Though the novel was a very adamant political statement, it's quite possible that Griffith's racism was more unconsciously manifested, and that the film was simply his use of popular history for the means of telling an entertaining story.  In fact, for all it's railing against integration in the narrative, the film ends with a heavy-handed plea to end war (?!).  Whatever his motivations, the film is so blatantly racist that it caused a stir even at it's time of release in 1915 (which, as you might imagine, would have to be pretty damn blatant).  Screenings of the film were protested by groups such as the NAACP, and there were often riots in conjunction with the film being shown.  The film ended up being banned in several cities, and even a few states.

Controversy aside, Griffith was rolling in money.  The film, while an expensive production for the time, ended up making over $10 million dollars domestically (it didn't hurt that ticket prices were jacked up to $2, from the average of around 15 cents), and critics considered it (deservedly so) the most artistically accomplished film to date.  Louis B. Mayer, who was simply the East Coast distributor, used the fortune he earned from the film to eventually found MGM Studios.

Griffith attempted to top the extravagant success, and respond to critics of Birth, by directing an even more ambitious project;  Intolerance (1916).  Intolerance, a cross-cutting between four different stories from four different time periods, tells the stories of The Fall of Babylon, the Crucifixion of Jesus, the St. Bartholowmew's Day Massacre, and a "modern day" anti-capitalist story.  With the loosely binding theme of "intolerance through the ages", this film cut back and forth between the different periods as the story progressed, not telling each story separately.  This proved to be too artistically ambitious for audiences at the time, and the movie ended up faltering because of that.  Not a bomb by any means, but not the financial godsend that his previous film was.  The artistic merits of Intolerance are debated by film critics to this day, but it's hard to deny that it's superior to Birth in almost every technical aspect, and also in the subtleties of the acting.  Griffith also had several notable assistant directors on the project, including W.S. Van Dyke, Erich von Stroheim, and Victor Fleming.

Another notable work was the superb, and more intimate, film Broken Blossoms (1919), which tells the interracial love story between a white girl from London, and a Buddhist missionary from China.  Soon after, Griffith created United Artists Studios with co-founders Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, and Douglas Fairbanks.  Way Down East (1920), an adaptation of an old stageplay, was hokey even for the time, but accomplished enough in it's direction to score Griffith another financial and critical windfall.

By the middle of the 20's, Griffith's pioneering style was seen as outdated, and his "old-model" direction was beginning to be overshadowed by the new bucks, such as Fritz Lang, King Vidor, and Sergei Eisenstein.  These were new and exciting voices, ones not content with warmed over melodrama.  He was becoming passe.  He had one last, great gasp;  Abraham Lincoln (1930), starring the incredible Walter Huston in the title role.  It was Griffith's first (of two) sound features, and was as ambitious in it's day as The Birth Of A Nation was in the previous.  It was a hit with critics, but a financial failure.  He made one more, independently produced feature, and never directed another film again.

While generally revered by several of the great film directors and historians, his life has always been shadowed by the stain of Birth Of A Nation's racism, to the degree that the Director's Guild Of America's highest honor, the D.W. Griffith Award, had it's name changed in 1999 to simply the DGA Lifetime Achievement Award.  Still, he will be a director who is remembered, both for his artistic achievements, and for his one great failure.

The Fighter (Movie Review)

THE FIGHTER (2010)
Director: David O. Russell
Stars: Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Melissa Leo

Mark Wahlberg finally gets his dream project made;  the story of "Irish" Micky Ward, a real-life Rocky from Lowell, MA.  Wahlberg stars as Micky, a boxer with real prospects, but dealing with a lot of issues with his family.  His mother (Leo) and half-brother Dicky (Bale), act as managers and trainers, but have too many personal issues of their own to devote their full attention to him.  Dicky, notably, is a crack addict, and often forgets when he's supposed to show up for training.  In order to become the best version of himself, will Micky choose to leave his family behind?

Before going in, know ahead of time that this is Rocky 2010.  And that's not the worst thing to be.  It's a completely formula sports picture, but elevated by fantastic performances from Christian Bale and Melissa Leo, steadily-paced and assured direction from Russell, and less melodrama than you usually expect from this type of film.  I kept expecting Russell to get weird on me, but he actually plays this one completely straight.  There's even a little joke in here about pretentious movie fans, which I'm guessing was his way of telling the critics "Alright, I'm making a popcorn movie.  Deal with it".  It is a typical Russell film in one sense;  it's all about family, and how the same people who can hold us up can also be the ones that drag us down.

Much like the two Ben Affleck directorial efforts, Russell utilizes a lot of "local color" in the casting, which adds a strong sense of horrific realism.  You don't think of these people as actors, and some of them aren't.  Ward's trainer Mickey O'Keefe is played by. . .  Mickey O'Keefe.  And he does a fine job.  Really, there isn't a bum performance in the batch.

The fight scenes are very well done, featuring shot-for-shot recreations of televised fights with Betamax cameras, hand-held and grainy fights, and slow-mo blow-by-blows.  But the boxing scenes are only a quarter of the movie, at most.  What really entertains and draws you in is the story of a family that's trying, but only barely able to, hold it together.  You've seen it all before, but rarely have you seen it done this well.

FREDERICK OPINES: GREAT

My Top Ten Favorite Films Of 2010

It's that time of year, kids.  I haven't seen everything this year, but I've seen most of what was big, interesting (to me) or available.  But honestly, odds are good that The King's Speech wasn't gonna crack my top ten anyway.  I'll start from number ten, and work my way up.

10. INCEPTION

There are certain films that, like it or not, define a year.  Last year, it was Avatar.  This year, it's Inception.  An epic, high-concept mindfuck of a movie that plays like an extremely neurotic cousin of The Matrix, it delivered action, romance, and sci-fi world building all in one gigantic, yet intimate, package.  It managed to become a critical darling and a massive box office hit without pandering to the masses or dumbing itself down one iota.  Not too shabby for what's ostensibly director Christopher Nolan's version of a "one for me" movie.  The four way dream-within-a-dream sequence is a masterpiece of editing, mixing the tension of a heist film with the balls out action of James Bond.  Even if it weren't entertaining as all hell, I might have thrown it on here for sheer hutzpah alone.

9. SCOTT PILGRIM VS THE WORLD

Edgar Wright's long-awaited (by me and five other people, apparently) adaptation of Bryan Lee O'Malley's brilliant Manga-style, Canadian, nerd/hipster, magical realist, kung-foolish, hilarious, and generation defining comic book series.  It's not exactly the way I would have adapted it, and the comics are still my preferred version of the story, but it's a pretty damn perfect movie in so many ways.  Remember when I said that Inception was well edited?  This is some kind of next-level, ADD-infused shit, reminiscent of the equally underrated Speed Racer movie.  In addition to being one of the best directors working, Wright is also one of the best writers, and like his other films you'll pick up on millions of little details that you've missed the first dozen or so times you watch it.  I could see this one working it's way up the list as time goes on.

8. KICK-ASS

A satire of superhero movies that transforms into a superhero movie in it's own right, with enough pitch-black comedy and sublime action that I left the theater grinning from ear to ear.  The story of a perpetual high school loser who comes up with a way to get himself noticed; by becoming the world's first "real" superhero.  Unfortunately for him, other superheroes begin to pop up, ones who are actually efficient at their job, and he's again thrust to the bottom of the food chain.  Beyond the visceral and puerile surface lies a message about doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not just to make yourself look cool.  13-year old Chloe Morentz, in the iconic role of Hit-Girl, makes this movie her bitch.

7. THE AMERICAN

If any genre of film has been done to death recently, it's the hitman film.  I try not to watch them, but they unfortunately continue to be very well made.  I don't know what it is about the genre that attracts so many artistic directors.  Maybe because, like the western, it allows the director to explore the nature of isolation, and by extension, introspection.  Sold as a Bourne-style action film, though really anything but, this is an action movie in the old school style;  crisp, intense, and thrilling.  Not for all tastes, but highly reminiscent of some of my favorite sixties era spy thrillers.  Also, some of the best looking photography (and actors) you're likely to see all year.

6. TRUE GRIT

The Coen Bros go mainstream (for them, anyway) with this western adventure story.  Nothing new, revisionist or bizarre;  just a good story, well told.  Every cast member is fantastic;  I didn't even hate Matt Damon in this!  You know the drill by now;  another year, another great Coen Bros flick.  Let Deakin's photography dazzle your eyes, as Carter Burwell's 19th century hymn inspired score soothes your ears.

5. SHUTTER ISLAND

Unlike the Coens, Martin Scorsese often takes his sweet ass time making a film, but you know that the end result will be worth the wait.  Case in point;  the other Leonardo DiCaprio mindfuck film of 2010.  Partly noir, partly straight-up horror.  A simple story in many ways, but it functions well on multiple levels.  As a film fan, it's like getting a master class on direction.  Every shot, cut, and performance is beautiful, and positioned right where it should be.  I figured out the mystery early on, but that really isn't the point of this story.  It's ultimately an incredibly powerful and emotional drama, strung together with some pants-shittingly intense scenes.  If Marty ever did a balls out horror film, I'm not sure that I would survive it.

4. WINTER'S BONE

Take your standard Film Noir premise, but substitute your typical male schlub protagonist with a headstrong teenage girl.  Now set it in the world of meth dealers in the Ozarks; an extremely hostile environment for a woman of any age.  Instead of slavishly imitating the style of classic noirs, director Debra Granik infuses every frame with pure honesty and realism, making the villains even more terrifying for doing so.  It's bleak, mean, and dark, but with a few well timed glimmers of light.

3. BLACK SWAN

Darren Aronofsky delivers his companion piece to The Wrestler, doing for femininity what he did with masculinity in his previous work.  Scored with both actual samples and variations on Swan Lake, the movie builds to the most incredible crescendo of the year;  appropriate for a story revolving around sexual repression and desire.  Like an actual ballet, it maintains the delicate balance between reality and fantasy; between the poised and the playful.  Natalie Portman was the perfect choice for this role, and it must have been a tough one to play, but she totally nails it.  Aronofsky's best, and I'm interested to see where he goes from here.

2. NEVER LET ME GO

The rare sci-fi story that doesn't cross over into the action, horror, or thriller genres.  Instead, we have a seemingly simple story of a love triangle between three childhood friends, who start out having little idea of the horrible fate that awaits them.  What really sticks with me, and depresses me, is the characters' passivity.  At no point do the characters bother to fight against their government, or even to question it.  They just accept what's given to them, which is all that most of us ever do.  Spectacular performances, beautiful photography.  This one haunted me for days.

1. HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON

If you'd told me a year ago that my favorite film from 2010 was going to be a 3D, Dreamworks animated film starring Gerard Butler, I'd have shipped you off to the looney bin; but here we are.  From the writer/director team that made Lilo & Stitch one of my favorite films of the last decade comes the story of a Viking and his Dragon friend.  Great family entertainment, with a good message.  The 3D isn't essential for enjoyment of the film, but the first flying scene in IMAX 3D was the most exhilarating movie moment of the year for me.  The script is a good balance of serious and humorous, the voice cast does a great job, and the animation is excellent.  I'll be watching this one for years to come.

Well, that about wraps it up!  Another year, another great set of films.

Oh, wait. . .  There's a bonus!  My most hated film of the year!

MOST HATED FILM OF 2010

THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE

"I'm going to fight for you, until your heart stops beating." - Jacob Black

Ya know, I tried that as a pick-up line once, and it didn't really work out for me.  Eclipse is basically the story of a girl who has to choose (because being single isn't an option) between a creepy stalker (the aforementioned Jacob) and bored/boring Edward.  Um. . .  I guess I'm Team Edward then.  Take it from an old man;  boring beats psycho every time.  Except when it comes to movies;  then it doesn't pay to be boring.  I'm not sure exactly how long this was, but the emotional running time was around 18 hours, and I was unfortunately too paralyzed by boredom to turn the movie off (A situation I thankfully avoided with Kristen Stewart's other film from 2010, The Runaways).  Ron Howard's daughter shows up, but thankfully for her no one notices, since this is the worst film she's been in yet (and this is after starring in TWO M. Night Shyamalan films).

Goodbye 2010, hello 2011!

True Grit (2010) (Movie Review)

TRUE GRIT (2010)
Directors: Joel and Ethan Coen
Stars:  Hailee Steinfeld, Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon

In this adaptation of Charles Portis' western novel, 14-year old Mattie Ross (Steinfeld) seeks justice for the murder of her father, and hires the right man for the job;  US Marshal Rooster Cogburn, the orneriest, most deadly (and most drunken) lawman in the region.  Together, they head off into Indian territory in search of the murderer, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), and are joined on their quest by Texas Ranger La Boeuf (Damon), who's been tracking Chaney for some time.  The two men and young girl have their quarrels, but will have to learn to work together if they hope to survive in hostile territory against the notorious Ned Pepper's gang, who are riding with their quarry.

Having effectively shielded myself from all advertisements, I wasn't quite sure what to expect.  I'd seen the original John Wayne film, but despite his Oscar win for Best Actor, I don't think of that as one of the Duke's best, so I have little emotional attachment to it.  I'd also heard that the Coens were going back to the source material, which the 1969 film had strayed from, and that this would be a wholly different animal.

I guess I'll have to give the John Wayne version a rewatch, because as far as I can remember this is pretty damn close.  A bit "grittier" perhaps (heh), but the structure and iconic scenes are essentially the same as I remember them.  And the overall tone is not so odd as to classify this as "revisionist", or anything.  I don't mean this as an insult in any way, but this is the least "Coen-ey" Coen Bros film in a while.  It's mainstream entertainment, despite the better efforts of Jeff Bridges mush-mouthed performance, and the cameo appearances by humans confusing themselves with animals.  Mainstream in the most bold, robust fashion; this works equally well as a children's adventure story, and as a hard-hitting classic western.

As we've come to expect from the Coens, it's top notch from a technical level.  Roger Deakins was born to shoot westerns, apparently, and Carter Burwell rejiggers some 19th century hymns to beautiful effect. The Dude effectively takes the reigns from The Duke, playing against type as the hard to love, hard-edged, and world-weary Cogburn.  It's too bad that Bridges won a Best Actor Oscar last year, since I would love the symmetry of two actors winning for playing this character (in addition to not being for a Maggie Gyllenhaal movie that I'll never watch).  I like Damon best when he's playing characters that I'm supposed to hate, and La Boeuf effectively straddles that line for me.  I wasn't sold on Steinfeld at first, until I realized that her clipped, short nature is the very essence of her character.  This is a girl who's growing up in a harsh world, now without the assistance of her father, and she's approximating grown up behavior as best she can.  She's smaller, younger, and more female than her enemies, which means that she's going to have to always stay one step ahead.  Hailee plays it perfectly.

It's rare for me to recommend a Coen film to general audiences, but I think this one is a genuine crowd pleaser, and would be especially appropriate for teenaged girls.  Let's give them a role model who's not as much of a doormat as Bella Swan, shall we?

In the Coen's resume, I'd place this one somewhere comfortably in the middle.  It lacks a lot of their trademark quirks, but it's a fun, old-school western, and a hell of a ride.

FREDERICK OPINES: GREAT

The Art Of The Top Ten List

As we roll up on 2011, it comes time to honor the most sacred of film nerd traditions;  compiling a top ten list.  Some do fifteen; some do twenty. . .  the point is that there are movies that you've enjoyed this past year, and they cry out to be ranked in a numerical order, respective of their level of quality.

Generally, this is around the time that I start doing a mad dash to catch up on all I've missed, but I've actually been pretty good at keeping up this year.  After I watch True Grit (OH BOY!!!) and The Fighter (oh boy?), I'll feel satisfied that I've seen almost everything that I've wanted to see.  I do live in buttfuck Michigan, so I also have to come to terms with the fact that I'm not gonna see something like, say, Blue Valentine until well into next year.  C'est la vie.  A good list this year beats a perfect list in five months.

There's a certain art to a top ten list.  I've heard someone once say that all lists are "political", and I really agree with that.  For example, imagine if there were some movie that came out that you thought was unduly ignored or underrated.  If you slip it in at the bottom of your list, you're making a statement about both the film, and yourself.  I once had a friend who would populate his list with the most obscure films possible, in a manner that was at once both charming and calculatingly pretentious.

One of the main questions that you'll end up asking yourself is; What do I value most in a movie?  Is it some sense of objective quality?  Is it purely the entertainment value?  I've found myself struggling with this exact question.  If you've read my review of Black Swan, you could probably hazard a guess that it'll end up on my list, since I rated it a "Masterpiece".  But in the long run, I'll probably end up watching Winter's Bone more times than Swan, even though I would rank Bone with the slightly lower "Great".  So what gets the higher rating?  Black Swan is like sipping wine with a Nordic swimsuit model, and Winter's Bone is like throwing back beers with a cute country girl.  In the end, which do I love more?  

In the end it's all arbitrary, but the tough decisions are what makes the list so fun.  I love looking at the top ten lists of friends, co-workers, family members and celebrities; especially if they go into WHY each film was chosen.  It's also just such a great reflection of the person in question.  For example, I'm not much into documentaries or comedies.  It's pretty damn tough for either of those genres to crack the ten, not matter how good or well reviewed they are.  There have been a couple;  King Of Kong and Man On Wire being notable exceptions.  But it does say something about my particular prejudices and preferences.  I'm a nerd, so often you'll see my list dominated by sci-fi, fantasy, action and horror films.  

It's the most wonderful time of the year for me (after Halloween, that is).  I get to gorge on dead birds, make empty promises to "watch what I eat" in the coming year, and chat with my fellow nerds about the year that was.  Maybe I'll get a chance to turn someone on to something they've never heard of, and maybe they'll inform me of some Jim Broadbent movie that just appeared out of nowhere.

I'll have my list done by the end of the week, and I'm looking forward to seeing all of yours!

Director Of The Week: Samuel Fuller

Samuel Fuller (August 12th, 1912 - October 30th, 1997) was the first generation son of Jewish immigrants from Russia, and was born in Worcester, Massachusetts, but raised in New York City.  He spent his teens working in the newspaper industry, as both a copy boy and, eventually, reporter.  During the Depression, he quit for awhile to simply "ride the rails" in the South for a bit.  In 1935, he settled into a career as a novelist, writing books with titles like "Test Tube Baby".  Soon after he became a ghostwriter in Hollywood, doing polishing work on several scripts.  Then the war came.

Fuller enlisted in the army during WWII, serving as a corporal in the division nicknamed "The Big Red One", after the number that was stitched into their shoulder patches.  The war had a profound effect on him.  He received a Bronze Star, a Silver Star, and a Purple Heart, but by the end of the war he had seen things that would effect him for life;  notably, the liberation of the Falkenau, a German concentration camp.  Several of his later works would be tainted, and gifted, by his pessimistic outlook on the world.

Upon his return to the states, he jumped right back into his movie career.  He got his first chance to direct with the western I Shot Jesse James, followed soon after by The Baron Of Arizona, but it was his third film, Steel Helmet, that would really set his career in motion.  Released in 1951 on a budget of roughly 100 grand, it went on to gross over six million dollars.  The first fictional feature about the Korean War, it pulls no punches in it's depiction of the horrors of battle, such as when US soldiers end up killing one of their prisoners.  Right out the gate, Fuller had made himself the center of controversy.

Fuller reached the peak of his notoriety in the mid-sixties, with the one-two punches of Shock Corridor (1963) and The Naked Kiss (1964).  The former, about an journalist who goes undercover in an insane asylum, remains Fuller's most potent and outrageous statement about the ills of society.  Naked Kiss is almost the opposite; the story of a prostitute who integrates herself into the "mainstream", only to discover that it's even more corrupt than the world she left behind.  These stories were a bit too caustic for Hollywood, and America at large, so his output became sparse from this point on.

In 1980, he had a brief resurgence with his autobiographical war movie The Big Red One, which, while drastically cut down from his original version (that can now be found on DVD), garnered enough good will that it seemed his career might be back on track.  Then, the final nail;  White Dog.  A movie about a dog that was trained to kill black people by racists, who Paul Winfield's character makes his mission to deprogram.  The perception, accurately or not, was that black audiences would find it offensive, so it never got a proper theatrical release in the United States.  For years, you could only see it in college film classes, until Criterion released it uncut on DVD in 2008.

A controversial figure to this day, he still remains highly influential, with directors such as Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino and Jim Jarmusch citing him as a major influence on their work.  I'll be honest;  I'm not the biggest fan.  I find his lack of technical prowess to be distracting, and his messages can get pretty heavy-handed at times.  But, he's a "love him or hate him" kind of dude, so don't take my word for it;  check some of his movies out for yourself.

ESSENTIAL WORKS:  Shock Corridor, The Naked Kiss, The Big Red One

Black Swan (Movie Review)

BLACK SWAN (2010)
Director:  Darren Aronofsky
Stars:  Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel, Barbara Hershey

Nina (Portman), is a precise, controlled, and beautiful ballet dancer in a major dance company in New York, who finally gets her big break;  the lead role in their upcoming production, Swan Lake.  But while her virginal innocence and determination are perfect for her performance of the White Swan, she doesn't have the raw sexuality and edge to play the character's dark twin, the Black Swan.  The new girl in the company, Lily (Kunis), seems to possess the qualities that Nina lacks.  Can Lily help Nina to loosen up, and become the perfect Swan Queen, or is she just after her role?

Aronofsky's been hit-or-miss for me;  I respect the guy, but none of his films have really resonated with me before.  Black Swan is kind of a "Best Of" of his previous work.  You've got the gritty realism of The Wrestler; the operatic fatalism from Requiem For A Dream;  the paranoia of Pi;  the "What the hell is going on here?"-ness of The Fountain.  Some people are calling this a horror film (it's even the cover story in the new issue of Fangoria), and while I wouldn't argue against that analysis, I don't entirely agree.  It has horror elements, to be sure, and no other film from 2010 is likely to put you less at ease, but to pigeonhole it in one genre is too limiting.  It's terrifying, erotic, exuberant, and beautiful.  I've never seen anything quite like it, with the possible exception of The Red Shoes.  Except, imagine that movie. . .  sweatier.  And directed by a young David Cronenberg.

Natalie Portman was born for this role, having made a career out of portraying asexual beauties.  Ballet director Thomas' (Cassel) concerns about Nina's performance were the same as my concerns about Portman's performance as a stripper in the movie Closer;  neither of us buy her as a seductress.  As Nina strives to sell her audience on the Black Swan, Portman does the same.  I don't want to say exactly how it turns out, but I will say that Portman nails what she has to do.  This is the flip-side of a traditional "sports" protagonist;  instead of the plucky underdog that we root on to victory, Nina is a perfectionist that we're hoping won't come unhinged by the time the show premieres.

The film could come off a misogynistic, since it seems to be about Nina's struggle between her "Virgin" and "Whore" sides, and there aren't really any sympathetic women in the film.  The company members are generally "catty", her mom (Hershey) is a bitter looney tune, and Lily is a wild card who could be up to no good.  It's entirely possible that it is a criticism of women's culture, maybe as much as The Wrestler showed the limitations of machismo.  Aronofsky has called this film a "companion piece" to The Wrestler, since they were originally conceived as one combined film, and that clearly resonates on several levels.

Aronofsky reached for the stars on this one, and I would say came back with his best film.  Too horrifying for the older crowd, too female-centric and introspective for the horror crowd, and just generally too smart for mainstream audiences;  this is one unique film that stands amongst the best of the year.  Finally, an Aronofsky film that I can whole-heartedly embrace.

FREDERICK OPINES:  MASTERPIECE

Double Feature: Tarzan the Ape Man (1932) & Tarzan and His Mate (1934) (Movie Review)

TARZAN THE APE MAN (1932)
TARZAN AND HIS MATE (1934)
Directors:  W.S. Van Dyke (Ape Man) and Cedric Gibbons (Mate)
Stars:  Johnny Weissmuller, Maureen O'Sullivan, Jiggs, Neil Hamilton

Tarzan the Ape Man wasn't the first Tarzan film, or even the first Sound Tarzan film, but it is the one that has become the most iconic.  Starring Olympic Gold Medalist Johnny Weissmuller in a role which he would make his own (Weissmuller became as merged with Tarzan as Bela Lugosi was with Dracula), and featuring incredible stunts (both animal and human), the film became a massive success.  Weissmuller would go on to play Tarzan in a dozen films, often with co-star Maureen O'Sullivan appearing as his one true love, Jane.  The first film is a good double feature with it's direct sequel, Tarzan and His Mate, since a lot of the themes addressed in Ape Man are brought up and paralleled in the second, as if answering it's own questions.

Tarzan the Ape Man is about an expedition heading into the African jungle, in search of the legendary elephant's graveyard;  which, in the explorer's eyes, is just a giant pile of ivory waiting to be pillaged.  The expedition is lead by Harry Holt and James Parker, with Parker's daughter Jane along for the ride.  Holt, quite smitten by Jane, proposes marriage to her, and she finds herself intrigued by the idea, if a bit wary of being pinned down.  That is, until she meets a man that she is more than willing to be pinned down by;  Tarzan, Lord of the Apes.

Unlike in the novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs, there is no explanation of Tarzan's "origin" here;  he simply swings out of the trees, bellowing his iconic cry (which henceforth is solidified as THE Tarzan yell).  There are several differences from the novels, actually.  In the books, Tarzan is quite the jabberjaw, being a genius who can learn a new language in a day or two.  Here, in a similar fashion to the reduction of Frankenstein's creation, he's reduced to average intelligence, and communicates with Jane mostly through physical expression.

In many ways, the film is quite progressive.  In regards to white women, at least.  Being a bit of an Anti-Dracula, this film portrays the bestial, sexual foreigner as the protagonist, while the "civilized" British play the role of reactionary repressors.  In many ways, Jane is actually the central character of both of these films, and it's about her growth from a society girl into a truly free woman, embracing both her own untamed sexuality, and the jungle that surrounds her.  She is someone who is fought over, but it's Tarzan, her near mute lover, who ends up truly objectified.

Where the films are most certainly not progressive are in their depictions of the black Africans.  In Tarzan and His Mate, explorer Marlin Arlington shoots one of his black porters for "cowardice".  Now, Marlin is an antagonist, but the movie implies that him doing this doesn't make him "evil", so much as just kind of a dick.  Marlin's traveling companion Holt reprimands him afterwards, saying something along the lines of "A whip would work just as well".  Tarzan himself isn't portrayed as racist (though he certainly seems to be in the novels), and Jane's ignorance of prejudice could be explained away as a symptom of her being blinded by society, before freeing herself from it's shackles.  There you go;  two protagonists, pure as snow.

So, as you may guess, she ends up staying in the jungle with Tarzan at the end of the first film, but promising to help Harry cart back his ivory upon his return to the jungle.  This is the set-up for Tarzan and His Mate;  it's one year later, and Holt heads back into the jungle with the aforementioned Mr. Arlington (Mr. Parker is indisposed at this point).  His intentions are two-fold;  to retrieve the ivory, and, with a little luck, to woo Miss Parker back to civilization.  But he's underestimated the degree to which Jane has immersed herself in the wild, and the degree to which Tarzan will help him make his fortune.  Though the series goes on for several more installments (eventually, Tarzan "finds" a son), the ending of His Mate feels dramatically satisfying, tying up several loose ends from the original.

The action and production here are top notch.  Jaded modern viewers may find the use of obvious blue screen for certain parts to be distracting or laughable, but these movies have a secret weapon that modern audiences are unfamiliar with;  stunts.  Now, I'm not talking about Tom Cruise hanging off a cliff from a wire;  I'm talking about dudes swinging from vines, wrestling lions, and riding hippos.  There are some crazy, brilliant and phrenetic action scenes in these two films, and you barely get a chance to catch your breath at times.  You've got gorillas pummeling explorers with boulders, lions fighting elephants (don't worry animal lovers;  it's all the magic of editing and special fx), and an ape man vs a giant crocodile.  The climax of Tarzan and His Mate is one of the most insane action scenes I've ever watched, and that alone would make it a must see.

Tarzan has a chimp companion named, oddly enough, Cheeta, who becomes a new addition to the Tarzan mythology (though there is a similar character in the novels; a monkey named Nkima).  As played by trained chimpanzee Jiggs, the character practically steals both films.  He's the Robin to Tarzan's Batman, and when not saving everyone's butt, finds ways to get himself into mischief.

So, if you have even a passing interest in Tarzan or old serial type adventures, these are well worth a watch.  Just be aware that there is some blatant racism (which decreases my rating a bit), and that these films are highly sexually charged, so they might be inappropriate for young children.  And by "sexually charged", I mean the two leads swing around in skimpy clothing, and Jane has an extended, butt-ass naked swimming scene in the second film.  Otherwise, classic and essential, and a very different experience from later Tarzan adaptations like Greystoke, or Disney's Tarzan.  There's nothing here about  the Mangani, or Kerchak, or Kala.  It's just a simple story, free from the convoluted continuity of the novels, and very fun in it's own right.

FREDERICK OPINES:

TARZAN THE APE MAN:  GOOD
TARZAN AND HIS MATE:  GREAT

Tron: Legacy (Movie Review)

TRON: LEGACY (2010)
Director:  Joseph Kosinski
Stars:  Garrett Hedlund, Jeff Bridges, Olivia Wilde

Sam Flynn (Hedlund), son of computer genius Kevin Flynn (Bridges), is the troubled 27-year old inheritor of his father's digital empire.  When his father vanished mysteriously over 20 years previous, Sam was left with his grandparents, and the majority shares of his father's company, ENCOM.  However, having no interest in a management position, Sam spends his time committing industrial sabotage against his own company, and riding around looking tough on a motorcycle.  After one such stunt, which temporarily lands him in jail, he's visited by an old family friend, Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner).  Alan has received a page from Kevin Flynn's old number at "Flynn's", an arcade that he used to own.  With this clue, Sam heads over to Flynn's, and finds himself sucked completely down the rabbit hole;  he's entered The Grid, his father's digital empire of a completely different kind.  And he'll have to fight if he ever hopes to make it out again.

Tron would certainly be in my Top 20 favorite films of all time, if not Top 10, so it was with bated breath that I walked into the IMAX theater and strapped on my 3D glasses.  I was sorely disappointed.  Tron Legacy fails on so many levels that it's difficult to know where to begin.

The first, glaring problem;  the special fx for "Clu", the main bad guy.  Clu is a digitally de-aged Jeff Bridges, and he looks like complete ass.  This wouldn't be good enough to pass for a single shot "riding on the back of a cave troll" scene, much less as a major antagonist with several scenes of dialogue.  They really should have tested this effect out before making the film, because it distracts from the potential emotional impact that some of these scenes may have had.  "May have had", had there not been so many other problems with the film.

Problem number two;  why so serious?  The original film had mythology, yes, but it had a light mythology in service of an entertaining story, not a story that serves only to expound upon a ridiculous mythology.  The world of Tron is like Wonderland;  you're not meant to spend too long thinking about how, or why, it works, because that's completely beside the point.  In Tron Legacy, how the world works is the entire point of the film, and it ultimately just doesn't make much sense.  The original film seemed to have a sense of humor about itself, and it propelled you along fast enough so that you'd never get bored.

It's like Andre 3000 says; "Baby, take off your cool".  The first film, possibly due to budgetary restrictions, zipped by a lot of interesting designs, leaving you wanting more.  Legacy makes sure that you soak up every single set, every vehicle, in super slow motion.  Bad guy Rinzler holds up two light discs and poses every time we see him, as if director Kosinski were saying "Oooh!  Look at this!  Huh?!".  It's a neat light show, and makes for a ton of framable stills, but it's ultimately just an attempt to distract you from the lack of action or story.

Thirdly, the action scenes suck.  There's no sense of pacing or tension to them.  Rewatch the lightbike scene in the original film;  it utilizes close-ups of the actors faces, as if they were in a dogfight, to ratchet up the suspense.  Here, I can barely keep track of who anybody is.  They had to give Rinzler two discs, because that's the only way you can tell the difference between him and Clu (Oh, wait;  Clu has dark orange stripes, not red stripes.  That's helpful).

The fourth, and most deadly, problem?  It's just boring.  I had to fight to stay awake for most of this, and I watched it at 5pm.  There either isn't anything at stake, or what is at stake is undefinable (Computer warriors are going to take over the world?  How?  And the ISO's are going to cure AIDS and shit?  What the hell is going on?!).

I hate to shit on a movie that's so clearly trying to be good, and had such potential, but they really dropped the ball here.  Jeff Bridges and Olivia Wilde are good in their respective roles as Obi-Wan Dudenobi and Hot Chick, but they can't save this mess.

FREDERICK OPINES:  ATROCIOUS

Why Are Male Nerds So Ridiculously Sexist?

I understand why the country at large is so White Male centric; the entrenched management is not so quick to give up it's comfortable living conditions.  Like it or not (I'm hoping you don't), "The Man" is still running the show, and everyone else gets second-class citizenship.  But that's an entirely different blog.  What I'm wondering in this blog is:  Why are male nerds, who are ostensibly an outcast culture, and often claim to value knowledge above all other things, so backwards when it comes to gender?

The description of every female character in sci-fi/fantasy entertainment has to end with ". . . and sexy".  Now, I'm not a puritan;  sex is awesome, and I understand that "good looking" people are easier on the eyes than so-called "ugly" ones.  But it's often clear that, in the case of female characters, the entire point of their existence is to model in skimpy clothing for the reader/viewer.  Being an object of sexual desire can be a form of empowerment, but I would argue that it isn't if that's ALL you're valued for.  Male nerds, I ask you;  how would you like it if the tables were turned?  What if the only thing that you were "valued" for was your awkward looks, and not your feelings and thoughts?  How does a disenfranchised group come to be so possessive?

In a word?  Inexperience.  While it's a cliche to think of nerds as virgins, there is a strong kernel of truth in that stereotype.  Nerds are by definition socially awkward, and therefore less likely to actively "play the game".  Without interaction, the woman remains an object of mystery to the male nerd.  A mythological creature, either to be loved from afar. . .  or sometimes despised for their lack of affection.

Lady nerds, don't think that I'm ignoring your existence.  However, let's be honest;  you're few and far between, and often don't fit the male nerd's ideal of what a woman "should be".  The grass is always greener on the other side, so a lack of options leads to their obsession with what society views as "perfection";  blond hair, blue eyes, big tits.  Or, if not that exact formula, then at least model-like in appearance.  Since nerds have a longstanding appreciation of comic books, action figures and cartoons, they can even fantasize about female characters whose proportions would not be possible in the physical world.  Certainly superhero characters like Batman and Superman are drawn as unrealistic physical specimens, but the fetishization of the female characters takes it to a whole nother extreme.  You don't see Batman in a lacy thong bikini very often, for example.

Now, are female character in nerd properties any more debased than they are in mainstream media?  I would say that it's about the same, proportionally;  rarely are there any interesting, deep female characters in any form of popular entertainment.  But I expect more from the nerd community.  We're a people who open up our minds to the possibility of co-existence with aliens, cyborgs, mutants and vampires.  Is it too much to ask that we treat our actual co-habitants on this planet with the same respect we grant to our fictional ones?

Monsters (Movie Review)

MONSTERS (2010)
Director:  Gareth Edwards
Stars:  Scoot McNairy, Whitney Able, Various Squid Monsters

I went into this hoping to see Sigourney Weaver fending off Charlize Theron clones with a flamethrower, but alas. . .  The story is about Cthulhu-like aliens that have taken up residence in Mexico, after a NASA probe accidently carrying their spawn crash-lands right next door to the US.  Neither the US nor Mexican military can put an end to the reign of terror inflicted by these beasts (who are only slightly larger than elephants, and react negatively to bullets), so the US says "Fuck y'all!" and puts up a big-ass wall along the Mexican border.  Cut to six years later:  American photojournalist Andrew (Scoot McNairy, looking like a poor man's Josh Pais), taking pictures in Mexico, is then hired by his media mogul boss to transport the boss's daughter, Samantha (Whitney Able as Pixie Cut Barbie), safely back to the US.  Everything goes pretty smoothly until they realize that due to an alien migration, the border is on lockdown.  The only way back to the US is through the "Infected Zone"(Because they can't take a boat to Florida, or fly out?  The "rules" of this world are left unexplained, for the most part).

So, yeah. . .  It Happened One Night meets War Of The Worlds.  But if you go into this thing expecting tons of alien action, you'll be sorely disappointed.  The aliens look great, but the film was made on a budget of half a million dollars, so it's not filled to the brim with Independence Day style carnage.  It's mostly a character piece, about the rich girl and the world-weary reporter who learn to love each other (SPOILERS!) despite their differences.  The monster scenes are tense, but few and far between.

I knew all of this going in, that it would be a character piece and such, so I wasn't disappointed in the concept.  What does disappoint me is that it's a character piece about two characters that I loathe, portrayed by actors of questionable talent.  The Paranormal Activity formula, in essence.  And while Paranormal Activity was ultimately a thriller, this was set up as a romance, so caring about the characters is essential to your investment.

On the plus side, the movie looks gorgeous, and reminds me of beautiful south-of-the-border road trip movies like Y Tu Mama Tambien and The Motorcycle Diaries.  When the leads just shut up and let the scenery talk, it works wonders.  True auteur Gareth Edwards acted as director, writer, editor, special fx creator, production designer, cinematographer. . .  and most likely did craft services as well.  I have to admire his hutzpah, and appreciate his work on a technical level.

But, fatally, the characters are a nightmare of annoyance and stupidity.  They look at the ruins of a town; "What happened here?".  They hear an unearthly noise in the jungle; "What is that?".  Um. . .  monsters?  The pacing is deadly, and I was bored out of my mind through a lot of unnecessarily dragged out scenes.

I hate to kick a small indie film and first time director, but I will say this;  the dude probably has a great movie in him.  But this ain't it.

FREDERICK OPINES:  BAD

Director Of The Week: Tim Van Patten

Tim Van Patten was born as Christopher Van Patten on June 10th, 1959 in Brooklyn, NY.  A half brother of Dick Van Patten, he first established himself as an actor in the late seventies, playing Mario "Salami" Pettrino on the TV series The White Shadow, and as a protege to Lee Van Cleef on the short lived ninja show The Master.  He's best remembered as the piano virtuoso and psychopathic gang leader Peter Stegman from the punk classic Class Of 1984.

Starting in the early nineties, he did directing work on TV shows as diverse as Homicide and Touched By An Angel, until he gets his big break in 1999;  directing an episode from the first season of The Sopranos.  Since then he's become one of the core HBO team, going on to direct twenty more episodes of The Sopranos, as well as several episodes of Sex And The City, Rome, Deadwood, The Pacific, Boardwalk Empire and The Wire.  He's currently working on HBO's upcoming fantasy series Game Of  Thrones.                                                                                                                                        

The episodes that he directs are often some of the best in their respective series.  His Sex And The City episodes include the two part series finale An American Girl In Paris, which gave a much more moving, and hilarious, coda to the show than either of the feature films.  On The Sopranos, he directing the intense Season Five episode Long Term Parking, in which Adriana has a startling revelation for Chris;  he also acted as a writer on the Steve Buscemi directed episode Pine Barrens, in which Chris and Paulie chase a seemingly unkillable man through the woods (arguably the best Sopranos episode ever).  On The Wire, he directed the devastating finale to Season One (IMHO, the best season).

He gives his episodes the scope of a feature film, but they always remain character focused;  that's his strength.  Since HBO shows are often violent, it makes it even more heart-wrenching when you grow to love the characters that are being effected.  HBO has always given the show's producers a lot of leeway and faith, but it's thanks to directors like Van Patten that there remains a certain consistency of talent.  Van Patten, while remaining a director, has moved into the production realm, having been a Supervising Producer on The Pacific, and an Executive Producer for Boardwalk Empire.

Will he ever make the leap to feature films?  I could see it happening, one day.  For now, I'm content to see that he's helping to make the shows on HBO something more than what you would expect from television.

I leave you with Stegman's Concerto.

The Fine Art Of Madness: Insanity In Modern Entertainment

Psychology as science only dates back as far as the late nineteenth century, but madmen in stories go back to the days of primary orality. More often than not, these stories involved ordinary men driven to madness by their own brazen defiance of the gods, by fate, or by the storyteller's need for a killer ending (centuries later, M. Night Shyamalan would take note). These actions were often shown to be the final domino of some great tragedy, such as Oedipus stabbing himself in the eyes upon learning how he had wronged his own family. Several centuries later, William Shakespeare introduced us to Prince Hamlet, who's "antic disposition" and melancholy would set the standard for protagonists at war with themselves.

In the early twentieth century, due in no small part to the popularity of Carl Jung and Sigmund Frued, we moved from a view of madness as punishment, to an actual treatable malady. Murderers had motivations beyond just pure evil, and perhaps even gained our sympathy to some degree. At the very least, understanding. And while the mad scientist character, as epitomized by Dr. Frankenstein and his ilk, was often driven by a lust for power, they were still in some way helping to better human understanding.

So where are we now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century? The madmen of today represent a freer, perhaps even more evolved human; one who can see beyond the boundaries set up by societal norms. As our technologically advanced, privacy free world inches closer and closer to Orwellian dystopia, these last few insane individuals represent the one thing that cannot (yet) be caged; our freedom to think what we like, regardless of the consequences.

These lunatics are often far removed from any actual brain disorder; serial killers don't usually double as mad scientists, grown men with invisible rabbits for friends are not always charming, and multiple personality disorder doesn't really work the way that it's often portrayed. But, outside of your One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nests and Girl Interrupteds, these are not supposed to be slices of life. This is insanity as a thinly veiled reflection of sanity. The murderers in the Scream films can appear completely normal, and then inexplicably flip, because they represent our duel natures, just as much as a werewolf or Mr. Hyde do. This is us; this is what we could become.

Hero or villain (or something in between), what we end up admiring about these characters is their freedom. We live in a society in which we are mostly free to do as we please, but there are certain lines we don't cross. We don't park our car on our neighbors lawn, for example, or knock off the local bank. For good reason; these type of behaviors are irrational, and could lead to self destruction. But, right or wrong, the deranged are free to do these things, since they either have no worries about the outcome, or no way of comprehending it.

Conservative thinkers might fear that the prevalence of insane heroes and villains is representative of a more permissive tolerance of outlandish ideas, i.e. "anything goes". This is partially true, but too small in focus. Ultimately, I think that it shows signs of our growing awareness that not only are multiple perspectives valid in a discourse, but that they can also be useful in an internal monologue. We are all the heroes, villains, movers and fools of our own drama, and it's becoming more and more a pleasure to meet ourselves.