Sin #62: Life's a Stage

I’ve always admired the theater. I haven’t seen a lot of it since theater is pretty difficult to find here where I live. A couple of months back though I went to see a Mexican production of “The Good Canary”, directed by John Malkovich and starring Diego Luna. It wasn’t a particularly accomplished play (it had the obligatory clichés of addiction) but at least it amused me and presented me with a different kind of entertainment. Watching a local play however (without the pretentious flair of international acclaim) was a much better experience since I saw a hilarious story of comical farce entitled “The Story of the Polar Bear that got Stuck Inside the Bathroom of a Restaurant” (that’s the title more or less, in a rough translation).

I’m aware that mounting a stage production can be an awesome feat since it involves the labor of dozens of technicians and especially the actors who have to bring it to life. Orson Welles, before reaching fame with “Citizen Kane” (often considered the best movie of all time), worked in theater and was known for having one of the biggest egos in the business. In “Me and Orson Welles” he is portrayed as a womanizer and a drunk but also as someone who took his craft very seriously and had a grand vision.

It’s a shame that the movie chooses to focus on a young man named Richard Samuels, played by Zac Efron, instead of the great man. He is the typically idealistic actor who plunges himself, through mere luck, into an expensive production of Julius Caesar directed by Welles. Efron brings an unwanted modern sensibility that hurts the delicate nature of the movie and robs it of its real attention on Welles and Christian Mckay’s virtuoso performance.

The movie is also an odd choice for director Richard Linklater who’s one of the best of indie directors and whose films range from experimental (“Tape”) to the commercial antics of Jack Black (in “School of Rock”). “Me and Orson Welles” isn’t one of his best movies but it features a great performance and represents an interesting spotlight on the plays of the thirties and the craft involved.

My favorite movie about the theater is Mike Leigh’s “Topsy Turvy” which presents us with the genius of Gilbert and Sullivan, two brilliant composers of the 19^th century whose plays have been beloved by many but whose relationship wasn’t always as rewarding. The film is astonishing in giving us a full behind the scenes of every aspect of the production including actor’s rehearsals, choreographies, costume fittings and production design among others. Mike Leigh’s films are famous for being “crafted” in a tight collaboration between the director and his actors; there isn’t a script but more of an outline and the actors rehearse for months before stepping in front of the cameras. This dynamic gives his movies a special vibrancy and realism and the opportunity to witness terrific performances. The whole cast of “Topsy Turvy” is brilliant but a special nod must be given to Allan Corduner and Jim Broadbent who create two distinctive personalities that perfectly relate to each other on an artistic sense, albeit not on a personal one.

My favorite scene in the movie involves the singers around the piano rehearsing one of the songs (although it’s hard to pick a favorite scene since the film contains dozens of wonderful moments). It’s truly a fantastic movie.

I wish that I went to see more plays or enjoyed a musical or two every once in a while but for now I guess that I must be glad for the cinematic adaptations (the good ones that is).

Sin #61: The Pixar Legacy

The first “Toy Story” came in 1995, I was 10 years old. It was the first feature length to be made entirely on a computer but its technical merits were completely overshadowed by its characters. Suddenly Woody, Buzz Lightyear and the gang became iconic and Pixar Studio came out of the gate with an astounding adventure that captured the imaginations of both kids and adults alike.

We’re living in 2010 and now Pixar Studio has become synonymous with great storytelling and superb animation. Just this month they released the third installment of “Toy Story” and I’m glad to inform that they haven’t lost their Midas touch; “Toy Story 3” is a glorious closure to a popular and beloved franchise.

After the original “Toy Story” they had a sort of slump with “A Bug’s Life” which had the misfortune of having been released close to “Antz”, a Dreamwork’s feature that had an all star cast (including a main voiceover by Woody Allen) and, in my opinion, a superior storyline. “A Bug’s Life” remains a simple and unsophisticated fable and Pixar’s worst film but they quickly got back in shape with “Toy Story 2” an enchanting sequel that introduced new characters (like Jesse, the cowgirl or Zorg, Buzz’s nemesis).

Next came “Monster’s Inc”, a funny film that somehow felt a little shallow; they would change that with “Finding Nemo”, a beautiful sea adventure that combined Pixar’s whimsical sense of humor with an emotional oceanic travelogue (it was, without a doubt, their most visually enthralling movie).

“The Incredibles”, Pixar’s next film, failed to engage me like “Nemo” did. Even though it featured some very good action sequences, the story felt like yet another variation on the superhero myth (fused with the dynamics of a regular family). It tried to introduce more mature elements but the story lacked a proper villain and its length made it feel a little bit tedious. With “Cars” however, Pixar returned to a gleefully un-ambitious comedy; even though it is geared for a sequel next year it isn’t a particularly inspired movie that necessarily demands it.

After “Cars” the studio hit a stride of amazing films. “Ratatouille” is a delicious and sophisticated dish of a movie that becomes the first story to target adults before their children; it’s a film that deals with deep themes, like the appreciation of food and the devotion of an artist for creation (and also the task of critics in art). I particularly adored the sequence where a critic is immediately transported to his childhood after he tastes a dish; it’s a striking and moving scene that encapsulates the message of the entire picture.

And then comes “Wall-E”, a science fiction parable about consumerism. The first 45 minutes virtually contain no dialogue and the characters have to convey strong emotions through beeps and robotic sounds. The film creates a touching love story and a surprising hopeful ending about a new beginning for human civilization. “Wall-E” is a joy to behold.

In this streak of amazing works there’s a very special movie called “Up” which may be Pixar’s most emotionally heartfelt movie (the opening sequence is a little masterpiece of emotion that shows an entire life in about 15 minutes). “Up” deals with themes of mortality, loyalty and bravery and combines them in a story of fanciful delight.

Pixar films feel lovingly hand-made and even the short films that precede each feature are brilliantly conceived. In a way their latter films are reminders of a time of innocence and purity, when we lacked the affliction of modern times (and still there are some underlying darker themes to be found). Whatever meditation and reflection they generate, the fact is that they are so much fun and each member of the family can take something completely different from them; for me that’s the mark of a great film.

Sin #60: Superhero Movie

We all know how it goes. A kid is stung by a radioactive spider or a scientist is exposed to gamma rays or maybe a rich man with a childhood trauma decides to put on a costume; everybody has a clear idea of the origin of superheroes. In a way their stories are very silly, basic juvenile fantasies about idealism and justice. When relieved of any rationale or psychological depth all they amount to are endless fights between good and evil.

Movies about superheroes resonate when they deal with darker themes. In Christopher Nolan’s “Batman Begins” we meet a man lost in his own guilt and obsession, he then begins his training and finds a way to channel his fears and create a symbol against the criminal underworld. He doesn’t put his mask for purely idealistic purposes, there’s a fetishistic element in his obsession, as if punishing the guilty will bring his soul some kind of redemption (his moral code, however, prevents him from killing). The further consequences of his action lead to dire results in Nolan’s brilliant sequel “The Dark Knight”, where Batman meets an enemy beyond his comprehension. The Joker represents anarchy and chaos, a force of evil meant to corrupt the ordinary and mundane and show the darker side of human nature. At the end of “The Dark Knight” Batman is on the run, becoming a fugitive from the very people he swore to protect.

There’s a movie in theaters right now that has caused some controversy for its depiction of violence and foul language involving minors, that movie is the aptly named “Kick-Ass” which is one of the most enjoyable takes on the superhero genre I’ve seen. “Kick-Ass” doesn’t have the panache of the Nolan films since it doesn’t take itself too seriously but it’s interesting in the way it collides naïve heroism with brutal cold-blooded realism. Yes, “Kick-Ass” is a high school nerd obsessed with comic books but there’s an element of truth to the character and the movie perfectly captures the teen spirit in a globalized internet frenzy media world (in which facebook, twitter, youtube and myspace have become a major aspect in the way we interact with each other).Even though the movie is named after its protagonist, the most memorable character remains Hit-Girl (in a star-making performance by Chloe Grace Moretz); she is a deadly weapon in the disguise of a sweet innocent child. All I’ve got to say about the movie is that it’s a lot of fun. Another recent example that cleverly parodies the genre is “Defendor” starring Woody Harrelson in a story about a mental patient who becomes a masked vigilante. It’s an unconventional film that starts funny but gradually becomes poignant and rather sad(and features yet another terrific performance by Harrelson).

The thing about the superhero narrative arc is that it becomes tiresome after a while; for example, I thoroughly enjoyed the first “Iron Man” in part because it is an economical and ingenious action movie and in part because Robert Downey Jr. remains one of the most charismatic actors in the movies. But the Iron Man sequel didn’t do it for me because it felt like a hollow and unplanned marketing plug. Contrary to “The Dark Knight”, the story didn’t expand its themes and give maturity to its characters. Since superhero movies are pretty common these days (ranging from the heroes of Marvel and DC comics) it’s pretty certain that we’ll see a lot of takes on the genre. Let’s hope at least one or two can shake the monotony.

Sin #59: A Lifeless Ordinary

When I was a kid I was a clear target for bullying; most of the times they made fun of my weight, my height, my glasses…hell, anything that made me look “abnormal” was an excuse for a tirade of verbal abuse. Still, I grew up ok (well, some might debate me on that) and now I can look back and feel a sense of accomplishment for surviving that period.

Although my childhood had its problems, it definitely wasn’t as tough as Dawn Wieners’, the heroine of “Welcome to the Dollhouse”. With her big glasses and ridiculous dress, she is repulsive even to other outcasts (and only has one friend in the whole world who, appropriately, she makes fun off with insulting homophobic remarks). At home things are even worse as her adorable little sister gets all the attention and all she can do is abuse and insult her mercilessly. But one day, things sort of change for Dawn as she falls in love with an older guy who sings in his brother’s band. The guy is a jerk but she doesn’t care, for her he represents an escape from her repressed reality.

Dawn is not a particularly appealing character but I liked her anyway, mostly because she resembles a real teen on a real school environment. While most movies create a glossy and artificial vision of youth, “Welcome to the Dollhouse” cuts to the bone and doesn’t sugarcoat its characters’ situations. And even though sometimes the movie borders on surrealism (especially with the incident about the sister’s kidnapping) it always stays focused on Dawn and her own perception on things around her (including a rather poignant if ambiguous final scene on a school bus).

While youth is all about exploration and maturity, adulthood is all about settlement and resentment. Most of the times it leads to an unhappy life, while sometimes it can lead to lust and depravity; basically any vice will do to take us far from the routine and mundane. Just look at the characters of “Happiness”, a wicked satire of American society that doesn’t blink in the face of taboos. We have the suburban family and their hypocritical facade that’s hiding a pedophile father, a man who makes dirty phone calls and lusts for his neighbor (only to be turned off when he discovers her kinky side) and the neighbor’s sister who is miserable and lonely and survives endless humiliations practically 24/7; and there are more, a lot more (including the sister’s parents and a Russian illegal immigrant).

The director on the films is Todd Solondz and both share a bleak tone with burst of very, very dark humor. While none are graphically explicit, they certainly deal with themes that will disturb a lot of viewers, especially on the implication of the character’s actions and their emotional corrosion. Both movies are fascinating and very sad, but also hypnotic since they evoke very strong reactions from us by creating compelling characters (the actors give wonderful performances, especially Dylan Baker who has a breathtaking scene where he confesses his sins to his son).

“Happiness” and “Welcome to the Dollhouse” are the kind of experiences where you don’t know whether to cry or laugh; its unsettling material that goes to places where most movies chose not to go. With both works Solondz establishes himself as one on the most audacious directors on the American independent front. While they are no easy films to take, they are definitely unforgettable.

Sin #58: No Joystick Allowed

Videogames have come a long way since the early days of Pong and Pac-Man where people usually went to arcades, dropped endless quarters and obsessed about reaching the highest score (this obsession has nothing to do with age, just look at the rivalry between Steve Wiebe and Billy Mitchell to become the top scorer in Donkey Kong as seen in the amazing documentary “The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters”). As videogames became more sophisticated so did their storylines, and with the introduction of iconic characters like Mario, Sonic, Megaman and Link, the movie industry quickly took notice and began to find ways to adapt their stories to the screen.

The result however was astonishingly bad and after a series of fiascos, videogame garnered a pretty negative reputation. I admit that when I went to these movies I had somewhat decent expectations; after all I was a fan (I played a lot of videogames in my childhood, especially fighting games). But the filmmakers had no earnest respect for the material and were really more interested in cashing in a quick buck at the expense of our juvenile desires. A clear example can be seen with “Street Fighter”, which is based on the popular fighting game (that has had dozens of sequels and spin-offs); the movie is an atrocious adaptation that doesn’t even manage to pay homage to the original characters, it turns the whole enterprise into another one of those dreadful Jean Claude Van Damme action movies.

“Mortal Kombat”, based on another popular franchise, at least had a cheesy but more faithful transition to the screen. Even though it isn’t really a good movie, it’s a fun time waster (not the biggest appraisal, I know). The sequel though sucks out all the fun, it’s terrible.

Last weekend I saw “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time” which is based on the videogame by the same name. Since it’s directed by Mike Newell (who made, arguably, the best Harry Potter movie) it was expected that it would break the videogame curse and become the first decent adaptation. Unfortunately the film sometimes forgets to play less like a cutscene from the game and more like a movie. It should be more playful by taking cue from Alfred Molina’s hilarious and tongue-in-cheek performance but still its way more fun that the awful “Clash of the Titans” remake. The problem, as with the “Silent Hill” movie (an atmospheric and haunting experience that manages to be truly scary), is that it tries to satisfy the fans by sticking to close to its original source without pulling off an accessible movie for audiences unfamiliar with the game.

On Roger Ebert’s website there was a bit of a controversy a while back after he claimed that videogames could never become art. Enraged fans debated for weeks that games had become sophisticated enough that they could stand against any movie and that games like “Metal Gear Solid”, “Final Fantasy” or “God of War” had merits enough on their own to be considered works of art. Ebert demurred and confessed he had never properly played any game and was afraid to become addicted to them. I understand both parties’ point of view but Ebert should have made some research before making such a bold statement.

Whether videogames are art is irrelevant when one has the task of adapting them to the screen. We still have to linger over the possibility of a truly successful adaptation. In the meantime grab a joystick, play the games and ignore their movies.