Sin #81: Where's the Magic?

So, there I am on the line for “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Part I” discussing with some friends the other installments on the Harry Potter franchise. One friend said he hated the third one, directed by Alfonso Cuaron, because it didn’t remain faithful enough to its original source; I claimed to have loved it because it finally made Harry Potter a true cinematic venture filled with wonderful sights and terrific performances. While the Chris Columbus movies were clearly family-friendly flicks, they still retained a certain appeal even though they sometimes felt a bit clunky and over developed. My favorite is still the fourth one, “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” directed by Mike Newell, a movie that is fun, exciting and brooding with unbearable suspense (it also marks the arrival of Lord Voldemort in the physical shape of a bizarre and noseless Ralph Fiennes). The first four stories had a clear narrative arc; the first one introduced the characters and their magical world, the second delved into the back-story of its villain and the relationship with the hero, the third expanded the universe of characters giving weight to the conflict and the fourth gave a reality to the enormous threat that was Voldemort. In the fifth I expected a powerful confrontation but the movie stalled to the point of frustration and Voldemort once again remained inactive throughout; the same of the sixth movie. By this point I stopped caring.

So, I sat down on the first part of the last movie with some hope that they would turn the final story into a rousing spectacle but I must confess I was quite disturbed by “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Part 1”. First of all, the tone of the film is so bleak one would think Cormac McCarthy himself adapted the story and then, since the movie is divided into two parts, scenes drag on beyond belief. There’s a curious feeling that the filmmakers gathered a lot of deleted scenes and made a movie out of them. The result is a miasma of lethargy, all tease and no release.

“HP and the Deathly Hallows. Part 1” bears no similarity in tone to the rest of the movies (and it’s virtually the antithesis of the first movie). It also represents the first time where a movie in the series is so enclosed in its own literary universe and its fans that the casual viewers are left stranded in a muddled and insipid tale that adds irrelevant characters willy-nilly and doesn’t even give a proper ending to the important ones. The result is an emotionally shallow experience, which only sheds light on the financial issue of dividing the final movie into two parts (as a business-marketing plan its absolutely brilliant, but there’s no artistic merit for it).

I fully understand this last movie wasn’t made for me; it was made for the millions of people who read the book and analyzed every single detail in it. But every movie in the series was clear to non-Potter fans. For this movie you need a guide before entering the theater and still you would be confused at all the “padding” in order to make it 2 and a half hours long. The film is so clumsy in its editing that it’s not even structured to have a climax, it just sort of stops and presents the end-credits which is puzzling (the first “LOTR” finished with Frodo and Sam leaving the Fellowship but at least there was an exciting build-up to it).

Harry Potter was all about the magic but there is no magic here to be found (just the sad faces of its protagonists on the brink of doomsday). Maybe part 2 will all be about action, but after so much unnecessary foreplay I’m not interested anymore.

Sin #80: Watching Some Jackass

Youtube has taken the cult to fame to unprecedented heights; suddenly any kid now can upload a video of himself being ridiculous and get hundreds of thousands of hits (in other words, become famous through humiliation, either intentionally or not).

This weekend I went to see “Jackass 3D”, the third movie in this famous trilogy of depravity and scatological humor. The movies derive out of the MTV program that aired in the late 90s and became an instant hit among the youth of America. Some called “Jackass” the low point of our culture citing that teenagers were responding to its vulgarity and emulating the dangerous stunts. Of course some dumb kids did and got hurt but, hey, at least they got it all on video and can now share a laugh about it, right?

To appeal to our morbid sensibilities “Jackass” plays like a cathartic experience. These guys are hurting themselves for our own amusement (there isn’t any sense of exploitation in their antics and there’s a real camaraderie between Johnny Knoxville and his friends) and while some people cringe at the thought of watching male genitalia, all forms of body secretions and general physical violence, I believe “Jackass” is mindless and harmless fun.

Not all the jackasses on Youtube, however, are looking for fame; some got it by chance. Take Jack Rebney, for example. In the late 70s and early 80s he was a respected news journalist and business man with a bit of a temper. For a while he worked in commercials and found himself advertising the Winnebago trucks (more commonly known as mobile homes). The shoot was disastrous as a rambling Rebney found himself forgetting his lines, hating their idiocy and becoming very exhausted by the terrible heat.

The outtakes for the commercials were edited and released on old videocassette tapes (of course all of this was before the arrival of the internet) and people gathered to laugh at the “Winnebago Man”. When Youtube finally arrived and became a sensation, the videos were discovered by a whole new generation who could laugh at this angry old salesman. Something strange happened afterwards as Jack Rebney practically disappeared and no one knew about his whereabouts.

In the documentary “Winnebago Man” a filmmaker named Ben Steinbauer searches for Rebney. When he discovers a recluse living in a cabin in California he expects a mad-dog lunatic and finds an angry man who rambles on politics and social issues but is mostly hurt at being dismissed as a buffoon. He becomes a fascinating subject as he refuses to speak about his personal life and despises practically everyone. The movie takes a tragic turn as Rebney loses his sights and starts to become more and more dependant; at the end he finally agrees to visit a local festival where his clips are being shown. The response surprises him (and the audience is also surprised to find an intelligent man hiding behind a façade of hate).

There’s a temptation to call “Jackass” or even the Rebney videos guilty pleasures but through their absurdity they project a mirror to society. While the “Jackass” team is well aware about how they got their call to fame, Jack Rebney became trapped in a generational divide and failed to find any sense of joy. With “Winnebago Man” at least, he no longer can be seen as only a crazy, angry man and while that won’t give him any comfort (he couldn’t care less, he says) at least it comforts his viewers.

Sin #79: The World vs. Scott Pilgrim

“Anybody who hasn’t seen “Scott Pilgrim” is a motherfucker”

Guillermo del Toro

“Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” announces its singular vision even before it gets down to business with a pixilated 8-bit version of the Universal logo. It then introduces Scott (who plays the bass) and his punk band, Sex Bob-Omb; there’s Stephen Stills, the vocalist, Kim Pine, the drummer and Young Neil, the wannabe band member.

Scott Pilgrim is yet another variation of the Michael Cera persona, a charismatic and shy hipster in search of true love (a role he’s been developing in virtually every picture he’s ever been in). The movie, just like in the comic books it’s based in, breaks the hip world of teenage angst with over-the-top fights that put its characters in a meta-reality of geek heaven.

Scott is not entirely a likable character; he’s a slacker and a selfish guy who even cheats on his previous girlfriend, the sweet seventeen year-old Knives Chau, with Ramona Flowers (who seems like a cross between Clementine of “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” and Summer from “(500) Days of Summer”). To date Ramona, Scott has to defeat her seven evil exes (a colorful array that includes a mystical Hindu, a famous actor, a girl, a vegan, Japanese twins, and a music executive) knowing that with great power comes great silliness Scott uses all of his videogame-fuelled imagination to create wild scenarios.

“Scott Pilgrim…” might be the defining movie of the “geek” generation (I can’t imagine much appeal for older audiences). As someone who is only a little bit older than the characters I can totally relate to their problems. As a kid I grew up on movies, videogames and comics; I found solace on stories of mythical proportions that took me out of the boredom of real life (I was much more of an indoor boy, awkward and shy among other kids).

Edgar Wright hasn’t created a movie with “Scott Pilgrim…” but more of a distillation of all the pop culture elements of our youth. His references range from “The Legend of Zelda” to “Seinfeld” among many, many others. Wright is one of the most innovative of today’s filmmakers, capable of turning the head of popular genres and infusing them with a lot of style and an overt sense of loving tribute (his other two features “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” are wonderful films, discussed here: http://bhndthesins.blogspot.com/2010/01/sin-10-two-brit-flicks-by-wright.html). With “Scott Pilgrim” he shows an amazing command of sound and visual using smooth transitions that give the movie a very swift pace.

“Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” was met very positively among fans but did poorly at the box-office which is a real shame since its one of the few summer movies that feels utterly original and presents a distinctive vision rarely seen among studio films. I suspect it’s one of those movies that will garner a cult following when it’s released on DVD and Blu-ray (it’s definitely such a rich experience that one viewing is not enough).

Sin #78: Life is Biutiful

Uxbal is a man with a lot of regrets. His failed marriage left him torn, alone to raise two small children who cling to him in an environment of poverty. In the streets he is involved with illicit activities aiding illegal immigrants in sweat shops. He also has a spiritual ability to speak to the dead, comforting the living as they mourn them.

Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu’s “Biutiful” focuses intently in the life of a man who is dying and, in his last days, is desperately trying to make a difference for the people around him. He loves his wife but regrets that he left her alone on her alcohol addiction. He cares about the Chinese immigrants even though he knows that their working conditions are deplorable. After he is diagnosed with cancer he tries to redeem himself from his sins.

“Biutiful” packs an emotional wallop because Iñarritu never gives up on Uxbal and also because he is blessed with having Javier Bardem playing him. Bardem is one of our great actors, capable of turning a character into a fully developed human being full of frailty and guilt (he has gone from a cold-blooded psychopath in “No Country for Old Men” to a charming womanizer in “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”); as Uxbal he delivers an unforgettable performance (which will definitely be rewarded with an Academy nomination). Iñarritu has always been a director of great global ambition and soaring emotions; this is his great virtue and biggest flaw. For “Babel”, his 2006 take on misery spanning several countries, he created fascinating vignettes that somehow could never mesh together (they’re lovely short films in search of a bigger meaning). Some admired his audacity while others despised his pretentious and rather annoying way of creating tragedies for characters who really should know better (like the subplot with the Mexican nanny, for example).

I remember how his first film, “Amores Perros”, created a sort of revolution in the Mexican industry proving that Mexican cinema could rise above the crude comedies and stereotypical poverty stricken stories we were accustomed to in the previous decades. “Amores Perros” felt like a more reality grounded version of a Tarantino movie and its stories and characters became haunting and poignant (even though the movie is far from perfect; from a more-less weak middle story involving a woman in a wheelchair and her dog to the lengthy final story involving a retired hit man).

For his next film Iñarritu gathered an amazing cast highlighted by Sean Penn, Naomi Watts and Benicio del Toro in the drama “21 Grams” that features scenes of stunning emotional power lost a bit in a miasma of narrative gimmicks. For the first act, the movie feels jumbled and confusing and only gradually reveals its true intentions. “21 Grams” is a very good movie but somehow there’s a feeling that Iñarritu puts himself between his characters with his overt style.

His first three movies were close collaborations with screenwriter Guillermo Arriaga but “Biutiful” represents Iñarritu’s first credit as a screenwriter (he does a good job with the material since it’s not very different thematically from his previous films). While some succeed better than others, all his movies are provocative works with astonishing performances.

Sin #77: Morelia Film Fest 2010

The Morelia Film Festival is celebrating its eighth year this October and I think it’s cause for celebration among Mexican cinephiles since year after year it delivers high quality productions from all over the world. I’ve felt an affinity to it from its very conception in 2003 even though I missed it that first year; I did, however, take my family on the year after and enjoyed some exceptional movies (like the fantastic documentary “Super Size Me”, the epic “Hero” and Richard Linklater’s brilliant sequel “Before Sunset”). The backdrop for the festival is a huge part of its appeal since the colonial city of Morelia is one beautiful place to visit.

The 2009 festival was personally outstanding since I stayed through its entire run (in about a week I saw 26 movies). The annual unveiling of the inauguration plate was performed that year by the great Quentin Tarantino, who was there to present his “Inglourious Basterds” (which was my favorite movie of the year). The eclectic selection ranged from the classics, like a print of “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” (which is a wonderful movie), all the way to weirder gems like “Last Year in Marienblad” to more contemporary features like the indie “(500) Days of Summer” or the anime “Ponyo”. Every year they select a country as a special guest and 2009 brought a memorable collection of Rumanian films (like the delightful “12:08 East of Bucharest” and the exasperating and strangely haunting “The Death of Mr. Lazarescu”). The energy is always high in a festival like this (it needs to be for one to be able to sustain 4, or even 5, movies a day) and the mood turns to excitement thanks to the talented guests that sometime accompany the films (one of the best moments came with the screening of Francis Ford Coppola’s “Tetro”, which was shot in gorgeous digital high definition; afterwards, the cinematographer talked to us about the film and working with the famed director).

The 2010 Film Festival promises to yet again deliver with some very high profile movies for the more art-house sensibilities. Its opening picture is “Biutiful” from Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu and starring Javier Bardem who won the best actor award in the Cannes Film Festival. The unveiling of the plate was recently performed by Iñarritu and director Terry Gilliam (whose “The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus” was actually last year’s closing feature).

There are some great films this year; from the creative mischief of Edgar Wright’s “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World” and Robert Rodriguez’s Grindhouse spin-off “Machete” to more offbeat works like the Palm d’Or winner “Uncle Boonmee Who can Recall his Past Lives” or Sofia Coppola’s latest “Somewhere” (which actually took the top prize at the Venice Film Festival and is the closing feature this year). There are also more commercial offerings like the acclaimed crime drama “The Town” and the posh romantic comedy “Tamara Drewe”. One of the most fascinating movies has to be Olivier Assayas’s “Carlos” about the famous Venezuelan terrorist; the festival is screening the complete 330 minute version in what is sure to be an interesting experience.

The Morelia Film Festival is a great experience for movie lovers. To learn more about it you can visit its official website at: http://www.moreliafilmfest.com/

Sin #76: A History of Porn

“Cinema history is the history of boys photographing girls”

Jean-Luc Godard

The history of pornography mirrors the history of photography and cinema; one could almost argue that it has been instrumental in defining both arts, technically and artistically. The first erotic pictures came commercially around 1845 and featured heterosexual and lesbian sex (around those days male homosexuality was actually a crime). Around the 1870’s “postcard porn” was invented and in the following decades became hugely popular all around Europe. Of course pornography has always been a victim of censorship by groups of so-called moralists (at the beginning of the 19^th century there was actually a task force in Britain to fight porn). Today there are age limits and laws that control its content.

With the invention of cinema, pornography took on quite a more radical type of frenzy. There were special theaters where movies were screened and several sub-genres began to emerge (porn based on voyeurisms, fetishes, races, etc.). Once home entertainment was reached, porn became a multimillion-dollar industry.

The seventies were a defining decade for the adult industry and they are wonderfully chronicled in Paul Thomas Anderson’s “Boogie Nights”, a mesmerizing mosaic of the people working in and around porn. We meet a young waiter who becomes a porn actor (with the provocative name of Dirk Diggler), the hotshot director, the veteran actress and the crew who all make for an unusual family of sorts. “Boogie Nights” is set on the near horizon of videocassettes which enabled customers to view pornography from their homes and also resulted in the birth of amateur video porn (which since has taken its full potential in our internet age). The movie is filled with terrific performances all around (especially from Mark Wahlberg who gained respect as an actor; before he was a hip-hop star).

Technology has defined porn and, in a way, porn has defined technology. In the “war of the formats” (VHS vs. Beta, Laser Disc, vs. DVD, HD DVD vs. Blu-Ray) it has become a deciding factor. Now that 3D has had a sort of renaissance with the popularity of movies like “Avatar” and “Alice in Wonderland”, porn movies are being shot in 3D (the first movie is a Chinese production called “3D Sex and Zen: Extreme Ecstasy” due for release in May 2011).

Pornography is often seen as a controversial subject, especially from a religious and political viewpoint. For ordinary citizens it’s more of a casual activity (for writer Salman Rushdie it is vital to the freedom in society). Wikipedia claims that more than 70% of men from ages 18 to 34 visit a pornographic site in a typical month.

There’s a funny independent movie called “Humpday” about two friends who decide to make a porn video as a part of a local festival held in their town (it stars Joshua Leonard, from “The Blair Witch Project”). The situation is funny but the movie is actually heartwarming and true, and it enlightens on issues of marriage, friendship and sex (it’s in no way morbid about its subject). While politicians gamble on shaky values and moral hypocrisy, society needs to wake up to the needs of human nature and accept its dispositions; it’s an integral part of protecting our freedom of speech.

Sin #75: Monsieur Jeunet

I’ve never been to Paris but I know about the city mostly through the eyes of the artists who have filled my head with their own wishful view; in a way I think Paris has really been defined by its visitors and fuelled by their own romantic notions. Like Baz Luhrmann’s take on the Moulin Rouge which bears little resemblance with the actual club but certainly represents its vigor and unabashed energy.

For me Paris is a Jean- Pierre Jeunet movie. I can close my eyes and imagine the subway gate opening and Amelie walking by with her big, wide eyes and bubbly smile. The color palette is a warm mixture of yellows and greens and the people are always enthusiastic and slightly eccentric individuals, who have a tender and sad side to keep them company.

My first encounter with the marvelous world of this filmmaker came with the strange “The City of Lost Children” which is a warped and bizarre sci-fi fantasy with some astonishing imagery (his debut film was “Delicatessen”, about a family of cannibals). I loved the tone of the movie but felt a little cold with its themes, as if some warmth was missing from the picture. Warmth came in spades with “Amelie”, which became an international hit and made a star out of Audrey Tatou. The movie is a sweet fairy tale in which our heroine basically uses her endless charm to lift the spirits of the people around her; she also finds love in the process. Audiences fell in love with the film, and also with its whimsical and melodious soundtrack by composer Yann Tiersen (who also made the memorable soundtrack for the German film “Goodbye, Lenin”).

Tatou and Jeunet collaborated once more with “A Very Long Engagement”. An online reviewer called it: “Amelie meets Saving Private Ryan”, which isn’t really a fair statement. The movie isn’t as whimsical as “Amelie” and nowhere near as violent as “Saving Private Ryan”, and while the former had certainly a romantic flavor, “A Very Long Engagement” is a fully explored romance. Here is a film that isn’t for cynics. I confess I felt completely in love with its unabashed lyricism.

Jeunet’s most recent venture is titled “Micmacs” which is all about the whimsy and crazy lives of a group of misfits. The film is so chock full of invention that many will find it a case of “too much of a good thing”. But I believe that too much of Jeunet’s wild imagination is a lot better than 90% of what Hollywood releases every year. There’s always a sense of youthful invention in every one of his movies.

Of late, Jeunet was developing his own adaptation of Yann Martel’s astonishing book “The Life of Pi” but the project never came together, mainly because it’s a harrowing story that requires a lot of special effects for it to be remotely believable (and even though it features a young protagonist, the novel is far from a feel-good children’s parable). Jeunet vision might have been gripping but his only Hollywood film was poorly received (that would be “Alien: Resurrection”, the fourth installment in the series that had its moments but was ultimately deemed unnecessary).

Jeunet is one of the few director’s whose own brilliant style almost because its own substance. All his characters exist in a meta-reality where love and childhood innocence trumps the forces of evil. He seems to be making stories about dreamers and how they ought to stick together in order to survive (like the quirky loons of “Micmacs” living in the sewers along with their offbeat inventions).

Sin #74: When Good Goes Bad

It all starts with a rebellious teenager. Donnie’s got issues; first of all, he has strange visions of a man dressed as a grotesque rabbit who apparently knows when the world will end, then he gets obsessed with black holes (with some astonishing revelations) and time travel.

“Donnie Darko” is the brilliant debut of Richard Kelly, and it is simply a formidable calling card that became an instant midnight cult film. People saw Kelly as a director of great ambition and imagination and expected mighty things of his next movie. Unfortunately he delivered one of the most wretched pieces of entertainment of its year with his “Southland Tales”, which is an incoherent mess of epic proportions.

While “Donnie Darko” focused intently on its hero, “Southland” is scattered all over the place in an unconvincing futuristic dystopia that never comes to life. The first mistake is its quirky and unconventional casting that ranges from The Rock to several members of Saturday Night Live (not to mention Justin Timberlake in an inexplicable role; he also gets to deliver one of the most awkward musical scenes I’ve seen while covering The Killers’ All the Things That I’ve Done).

Even though “Southland Tales” is a complete failure, I still had faith in Kelly. Surely he would see the mistakes of it and return to his roots by making a more grounded story. He surely tried with “The Box” but sadly with it, he has taken an intriguing premise and run it to the ground in a smorgasbord of overall lunacy and absurdity. The film starts promisingly as a mysterious man hands a couple a box with a single button; if they press it they win exactly one million dollars but someone they don’t know will die. The next events in the movie are impossible to predict since they head into the realm of cheesy existentialistic sci-fi (how far does the story remove itself from its earlier scenes!).

There are some directors who seem to walk a tight rope every time they make a movie; you never know if they will succeed or fail. Terry Gilliam is one of them. While “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” was an entertaining and lovable fantasy, “Tideland” descended into perversity while being incredibly dull. Kevin Smith is another example since his stories usually involve junkies and fart jokes. In his best movies (like the great “Dogma”) he is able to combine an adolescent kind of humor with some pretty meaningful themes (well, not really that meaningful but sweet). Recently however, Smith sold out with the appropriately titled “Cop Out” which is one of the dumbest cop buddy movies I’ve ever seen. Here is another film hammered by some irritating casting decisions. By making Tracy Morgan into the obnoxious sidekick, Smith has made the movie unbearable (it is important to say that this is the first movie he has directed in which he didn’t write the script, hence the lazy jokes). Desperation quickly crawls into this vacuous vortex and the movie remains painfully unfunny throughout even though it’s in a desperate bid to remain entertaining.

I’m afraid Kelly will never do something as intriguing and powerful as “Donnie Darko” (and by the way, I’m pretending the sequel “S.Darko” doesn’t actually exist). He remains a man of big ideas but somehow he is unable to channel them successfully. With “Southland Tales” and “The Box” he reveals himself as basically a one-trick pony. On the other hand I still believe in Gilliam and Smith because they’ve showed me their strengths on more than one occasion and they remain engaging and creative filmmakers. I think they work better outside the system, inside the independent and art-house constraints whose limitations can be seen as more of a blessing than a curse.

Sin #73: Most Wanted

The increasing violence and insecurity have risen to dangerous heights across the Mexican country; in a sense, some towns near the border have resorted to the ways of the Wild West by turning the desert into a battlefield. The bloodshed, product of the drug war, has gotten worst over the months and now seems to taint the bicentenary celebration of September in many cities (Monterrey has been the city most affected by the violence, not to mention natural catastrophes that have devastated several urban areas).

Society has always had an affinity for violence and the Western genre has always been a formidable way of focusing it and simplifying its conflicts. There are the good guys (handsome, proud and honorable men) on one side and the villains (ugly, despicable killers) on another. The good guys inevitably win the fights and the bystanders cheer as the heroes ride victorious into the sunset.

For a taste of the genre there’s no better introduction than playing “Red Dead Redemption”, a videogame for Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 developed by Rockstar that takes the “Grand Theft Auto” engine and transports it to the Wild West in a story of revenge and, indeed, redemption (for those fans of GTA, I got to say that many staples are still present including pillaging and going on an endless murdering rampage). It’s a cinematic experience that’s engrossing and utterly involving, not to mention a lot of fun (without a doubt it’s yet another triumph for Rockstar).

In cinematic terms, the genre has had its ups and downs. For a while westerns became opportunities for character actors like John Wayne or Clint Eastwood to develop their tough-guy personas, but then its popularity fizzled and westerns were perceived as almost an ancient relic of dated clichés.

Today, the genre has made a comeback (with some original works like “Appaloosa” and several remakes, like the Coens’ version of “True Grit”, soon to be released with Jeff Bridges in the John Wayne role); some films have even risen from their ancient roots by injecting new life into their stories, like the “3:10 to Yuma” remake starring Russell Crowe and Christian Bale.

“3:10 to Yuma” introduces a story ripe for clichés but director James Mangold keeps the action real and focuses on the acting of its talented cast. Crowe creates an intriguing villain, suave, mysterious and very capable of exploding in terrible acts of violence and yet, charming and likable. Ben Forster is the true monster of the piece as a young man on the mission of rescuing his mentor. Bale is a farmer longing for the respect of his family.

The movie follows these characters on a doomed journey but I liked its ending which finds the right balance between poetic truth and irony.

A very different kind of western comes in the form of a Korean movie (I know the phrase Korean western sounds bizarre) called “The Good, the Bad and the Weird” which isn’t a parody of “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” but more of a tribute to that classic film. It’s equal parts Sergio Leone and “Kung Fu Hustle”. The movie follows a group of characters in search of a buried treasure (the characters make a leap of faith since none of them knows exactly what’s buried).

The great thing about “The Good, the Bad and the Weird” is its endless invention and great energy; it features astonishing cinematography (especially in a virtuoso opening scene inside a train), a fantastic soundtrack and performances that never wink at the audience. It’s a joyful adventure.

These movies are current examples of a genre that gets constantly reinvented, and since the truth is always stranger than fiction, it’s nice to see stories where the good guys actually win and can ride proudly into the sunset.

Sin #72: Confessions

Documentaries have a way of packing much more of an emotion wallop than the usual sensationalistic stories we hear from the news. They provide a personal input and tap directly into the psyche of their subjects, drawing us in. A few weeks ago I saw a documentary called "Dear Zachary: A Letter to A Son About His Father" that features one of the most shocking stories I've ever seen on the screen. It all starts with Andrew Bagby, a medical student with two wonderful parents and great friends (the movie is directed by Kurt Kuenne, one of his close friends). Andrew is lonely and depressed in his internship and one day meets a medical resident named Shelley Turner (a woman in her 40s that has already 3 estranged children from different men). His friends know that something is very wrong with her but Andrew starts dating her for a while; he then senses her jealousy and manic depressive tendencies and tries to leave Shelley. In a violent rampage she kills him and flees the country. What happens next is truly horrific as justice lets Dr. Turner walk away and then she reveals that she is pregnant with Andrew's son.

The story of "Dear Zachary" is the stuff of tabloid glory and a more morbid filmmaker could easily have turned it into a soap opera of unnerving melodrama. Fortunately the movie never takes that road and instead it becomes a powerful tragedy of a failed system and the suffering of an entire community (the one bright spot in the whole piece is the heroism shown by Andrew’s parents, who have faced terrible struggles).

Another amazing work is “Tarnation” in which a man named Jonathan Couette makes a home movie documenting his life. Within a 200 dollar budget, the use of editing tools from a Macintosh computer, hours of video footage and family pictures, it goes very deep and affects us with its protagonist’s honesty.

“Tarnation” doesn’t feel like a regular movie and sometimes enters into the realm of conceptual video art with its use of old movie footage and kaleidoscopic color scheme; it’s like a video diary on acid but its accumulative power is undeniable. The footage Couette captures related to his psychological disturbed mother reminded me of the family footage in “Capturing the Friedmans”, another disturbing and haunting work that focuses on the destruction of the family nucleus after the shocking accusation of the father’s pederasty. The details of the case sometimes go on such a level of pornographic detail that it makes us recoil in disgust but, just like a car wreck, we can’t look away. The Friedmans are so tormented by the sins of the father that they remain a fascinating case for any psychiatrist and a hypnotic voyage into madness for audiences.

These three documentaries feature some of the most harrowing scenes in recent memory and subjects that are intrinsically frail and weak, in other words, completely human. While none offer comfort at the end and leave us really in a state of emotional exhaustion, they create a stark portrait of the dark nature of man.

Sin #71: Charming, To The Last

I love watching movies about the hypocrisy of the aristocracy in social gatherings. In Robert Altman’s brilliant “Gosford Park” we get to sneak into a lavish dinner filled with colorful and eccentric characters (who get involved in a mysterious murder case); there is the rich tenant having an affair with the maid, the wife who mocks and despises him, the sister complaining about everything in the house (including the marmalade and, especially, her allowance) and many more, which include unusual guests like an actor pretending to be the assistant of a clueless American producer.

“Gosford Park” features great performances from its amazing cast (a cast that features virtually every British performer, although the Harry Potter movies really have the distinction of featuring every English actor working nowadays). It’s really fascinating to see Altman juggle with so many stories and yet never lose focus of the big picture.

No one was better however, at poking fun of the Bourgeois like director Luis Buñuel with his two films, “The Exterminating Angel” and “The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeois”. Both are drenched in a surrealistic and morbid cloud that turn the whole affair into a black comedy of manners; “The Exterminating Angel” features the gathering of a wealthy group that through some strange force are compelled to stay in the house even after the evening is long over. They’re not trapped (the doors are wide open) but they simply cannot leave. It’s hard to unravel the meaning of the movie (even with some strange occurrences like the arrival of farm animals, which surely represent some kind of symbolism) but Buñuel keeps us involved up till the very ending, which seems appropriately weird in accordance to the past events. Buñuel made several movies in Mexico and “The Exterminating Angel” is one of his best (the most acclaimed of the era remains “Los Olvidados”, a potent social critique of the state of poverty in the country).

“The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeois” was made during his French period and also features a meeting between a group of aristocrats. This time dreams interweave with reality in a series of bizarre sequences. The film starts with the arrival of the friends of a rich couple at a lavish mansion; they were, through a misunderstanding, expected to arrive till the next day so nothing is ready. They all decide then to go to a fancy restaurant where they realize about the death of the owner and how their evening is interrupted by the funeral. They decide to leave. The movie follows this pattern over and over in sometimes hilarious results.

“The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeois” is a very strange film; it doesn’t have a linear narrative and loses itself in its self-indulgent fantasies. With that said, I have to admit it’s never boring and some sequences are very inspired in a surrealistic sense (I specially love the whole subplot with the priest who becomes a gardener and can finally avenge his parents murder, at the hand of his family gardener).

These movies take us to the slick world of the upper-class, and the social distinctions of the “upstairs-downstairs” set of values. They’re all wicked fun at the cost of the bourgeois.

Sin #70: Grumpy Old Men

Few scenes are as poignant in the movies as the early sequence in Pixar’s “Up” that begins with Carl’s marriage to Ellie and ends sourly in her funeral. Time passes and he becomes bitter as he watches the neighborhood where he grew up in become one gigantic shopping mall. Carl spends his days missing Ellie, and reminding himself that he could never take her to Venezuela where she dreamed to live one day among the jungle and vast mountains.

Carl brings closure to his relationship with Ellie at the end of “Up” (with the help of a little boy scout named Russell and a talking dog appropriately named Dug) and is truly grateful for his adventures but there are certain seniors that aren’t so lucky. Take Walt Kowalski, played by Clint Eastwood, in “Gran Torino”. After his wife’s death he becomes stuck in his old crippling home and hating the multiethnic cultures that have invaded the neighborhood (especially the Asian neighbors that seem friendly enough, although the teenagers are suffering from the gang violence and prejudice). Eastwood gets to say: “Get off my lawn” which seems to perfectly encapsulate geriatric behavior in today’s society.

“Gran Torino” isn’t one of Eastwood best movies, but it demonstrates that at 80 years old he is still one of cinema’s most important screen presences. His performance is like an anthology of the tough-as-nails screen personas he has played over the years and represents his swan song from acting (his late roles also pocked fun at his age, like in the funny “Space Cowboys”, where he shared the screen with other veteran actors like Tommy Lee Jones, James Garner and Donald Sutherland).

Another showcase for an acting legend is the British film “Harry Brown” which features yet another fantastic performance from the great Michael Caine. In the movie Caine plays a retired army officer living in a slum seized by violence, drug trafficking and vandalism. His best friend has recently been murdered by one of the gangs roaming the streets and he is off on a revenge rampage that takes him deep into the dark belly of the London criminal underworld. Contrary to Walt Kowalski, Brown isn't against the use of brute force against criminals (he does what it takes to bring justice, sometimes to brutal results). Although the movie has been compared to "Gran Torino", it is grittier and more involving giving us a chilling look at the most affected areas of South London (it has a "Death Wish" kind of vibe, and it also reminded me of Jodie Foster's “The Brave One”).

These movies show us that old age isn't necessarily a time of passiveness and that it's never too late to get a hold on life and learn through others (although I certainly wouldn’t recommend going on a killing rampage). It’s refreshing to see movies that showcase seniors in the title roles since most movies seem to be made by young people and are always about young people. “Up” is such a nostalgic trip because it gives us a lifetime in a few minutes and then begins with an old man waking up, which is how most of us will end up.

Sin #69: Moore Than Meets the Eye

My first encounter with the work of Michael Moore came right after he had won the Oscar for best documentary back in 2002. I became curious for the movie after the controversy with his speech (where he spoke plainly against President Bush, to equal measure of booing and cheering from the attending audience). I purchased “Bowling for Columbine” in DVD and loved it. Moore’s detractors said it was nothing but a piece of propaganda that fudged facts and manipulated the audience with weak arguments (some even said Moore was a traitor for making it) but there was no denial that Moore’s film had sparked debate among audiences about the purchase of guns in America (shedding light on the NRA and the gun-obsessed culture) and the policies of the US government on foreign soil.

After “Columbine” I decided to check out the rest of his work. I saw his first feature titled “Roger and Me”, a moving and observant portrait of Moore’s hometown in Flint, Michigan and the consequences of GM’s factory closure (it even had an impact on his own family since his father was a worker there). Then I stumbled upon “The Awful Truth”, a hilarious and insightful series of sketches where Moore and his team go on a quest to show society’s flaws (I still smile thinking of Crackers, the crime fighting chicken and Pistol Pete).

His most successful documentary came in 2004 with “Fahrenheit 9/11”, an adaptation of his book Stupid White Men and an attempt to stop George Bush from winning the re-election (an objective he sadly failed to realize even with the film making more than 100 million dollars at the box office, a record for any documentary). “Fahrenheit 9/11” won the prestigious Palm D’Or at Cannes and remains a fascinating account of a post-9/11 America.

Still, my favorite documentary is “Sicko”, which tackles the difficult issue of health care (certainly one of the biggest concerns in Barack Obama’s candidacy). In “Sicko” Moore travels to Canada, France, Britain and even Cuba to prove how distinctively flawed the US system really is (especially the corruption inside insurance companies). “Sicko” is not about big political statements but more about the people’s rights to receive proper care, in a way it’s the most humanistic film he has ever made.

His most recent movie might be his most ambitious, “Capitalism: A Love Story” tries to pinpoint exactly what went wrong with a system that rewards the rich (who own 80% of the world’s resources) and has failed to benefit the rest of a population that is quickly slipping into an economic recession. “Capitalism” shows us an angrier Moore, although he also seems defeated as tragedies continue to build. He gives us people losing their jobs and a government unwilling to help them (there is a powerful sequence where he shows a post-Katrina New Orleans that feels like a ghost town, even years after the catastrophe).

Michael Moore will always have a loyal following as well as equally devoted detractors. His biggest contribution is creating debate as well as making terrific entertainments. His movies are skillfully adept at creating moments of seriousness and pain and merging them with humor (contrary to a documentarian like Errol Morris, Moore is more interested in entertaining than educating).

Certainly all of his movies are wonderful modern works that capture a moment in our difficult political and social climate.

Sin #68: Things to Learn in Prison

Prisons have become a playground for the wicked. Every day we hear in the news about phone extortions directly from jail, bribes to guards and violence between inmates as many of the occurrences that happen on a day-to-day bases. Imagine yourself entering prison and facing a system that demands violence to survive (we realize that prisoners don’t enter to reform, they merely enter to strive).

In the French movie “A Prophet” we meet Malik El Djebena, a man caught between the rivalry of two groups: the Corsicans (the dominant mafia) and the Muslims (who seem to be comfortable in small schemes of drug trade and petty crime). Malik is offered a choice almost immediately, either kill an important Muslim and be offered protection or be killed. For Malik the choice is obvious although the act itself gets pretty messy and gruesome since he is not a killer.

“A Prophet” is an amoral tale that focuses on the crime scheme and its inner connections and how a man climbs his way to the top. Malik is far from your typical protagonist and there isn’t a single moment in the film where he is looking for redemption (even though he is sometimes tormented by some of his actions, especially his first murder).

For the most part guards keep a blind eye as long as they are being bribed and for inmates like Cesar Luciani (the mob kingpin) jail becomes almost a resort.

The characters in “A Prophet” don’t live the brutality of prison life as seen in “Hunger”, a spellbinding and intense Irish production that features a stunning performance by Michael Fassbender (who starred in “Fish Tank” and Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds”).

For those who refuse to abide the rules there are a number of tortures that include endless beatings or confinement in a disgusting room covered in human feces. Death isn’t a far though for prisoners, even for terrorists who are willing to go to extreme measures like hunger strikes to protect their ideals.

“Hunger” contains several virtuoso sequences that transform a regular drama into a poetic and tragic tale (there’s a conversation between an inmate and a priest done in one take that is brilliantly acted). At the end we gaze at the amazing transformation of Fassbinder, who as Bobby Sands acts as the leader of the movement and its inevitable martyr.

Both Sands and Malik are criminals and while their movies never glorify their behavior they certainly observe how a corrupt system favors those who deserve punishment. The overall message is: the system is flawed. Even in a thriller like “Cell 211” there’s a strong element of social critique as the inmates of a Spanish prison take hold of the establishment and demand changes from the abusive staff. That film is mostly content on delivering an entertaining and arresting (no pun intended) experience but you can also realize that beneath its fictitious elements lies an accurate portrayal of prison life. It’s a very good movie.

“A Prophet”, “Hunger” and “Cell 211” are very different films, but each of them shows us that jails are dangerous and corrupt asylums that cannot be called places of healing. In our cynical times we are not permitted to witness a man that truly repents for his actions (I remember Morgan Freeman’s terrific speech in “The Shawshank Redemption” before the prison committee). As long as the system stays the same, the cycle of violence will continue forever.

Sin #67: All My Dreams

“Don’t Wake Me, I Plan on Sleeping In…”

Sleeping In-The Postal Service

Dreams have fascinated filmmakers ever since the dawn of cinema. This year Christopher Nolan (one of the boldest and most ambitious directors currently working) delivers us “Inception”, his latest mind-bender which might just change our perception of dreams as a narrative entanglement that reveal layers within layers of dreamscape while emasculating a sense of emotional frailty. In “Inception” he takes us on an intellectual ride that doesn’t condescend to the summer blockbuster crowd; it’s an ambitious and incredibly smart movie that works within the structure of a heist movie (or even a Bond action adventure) while introducing complex ideas (there are echoes here of other great sci-fi works like “Blade Runner” or “2001”). Without a doubt, one viewing is not enough to assimilate all of Nolan’s intricate plotting and abstract concepts.

I’ve read several theories on the movie and the cleverly ambiguous ending which is definitely open to several interpretations. If you haven’t seen “Inception” I recommend you save this reading for later, since I don’t want to spoil the experience.

First of all, about that ending; some say Dom Cobb’s cipher is about to collapse as the screen goes dark, others believe it keeps spinning endlessly, revealing that Cobb is still inside his dream. There are several clues that suggest Cobb might have never woken up at all (and that Mal, his wife, might not be dead). My own theory is that she escaped the dream world and failed to convince him to accompany her back to their children (speaking of which, they never seem to age and are always seen in the same position throughout the story). Cobb might be another reinterpretation of Leonard, the hero of “Memento”, who leads a tragic life stuck in an endless loophole of despair (Leonard thinks he is avenging his wife’s death while Cobb thinks he is trying to go back to his children). Both characters are paranoid and refuse to look beyond their own dilemmas. In the climax, Mal ominously tells Cobb about his delusions of worldwide corporate persecution and asks him: how are you certain of your reality?

With this argument we might even ask if the process of inception is even possible. Maybe the true target is not Robert Fischer, the tycoon’s son, but Cobb who is truly lost within his subconscious. Of course this is only one of the many hypothesis “Inception” has inspired and it’s such a complex movie that I believe it will be endlessly discussed for years to come; It’s really an amazing achievement. It also represents the second Leonardo DiCaprio movie in a year that deals with deceptive realities (the other one is Scorsese’s “Shutter Island”. Both movies focus on intense performances by the actor, who has shown great maturity with his choice of roles).

Another movie that drifts within dreams is “Waking Life” from director Richard Linklater. The movie is a series of conversations between professors, poets and philosophers with a young man who suspects he might be dead (or trapped within a very strange dream). The film uses rotoscopic animation to convey several surreal visual styles (that change depending on the conversation).

Even though the movie doesn’t have a traditional storyline, “Waking Life” is hypnotic, intriguing and utterly original.

“Inception” and “Waking Life” are unique cinematic experiences that go where few movies dare to go. They will certainly haunt your dreams.

Sin #66: Third World Poverty

For millions of people in Mexico, poverty is synonymous with way of life; after all, over 20 percent of the country lives in extreme poverty and many are forced to abandon country life for a job in the city with terrible wages. As an alternative they will immigrate to the United States to work as illegal aliens in fast-food chains or janitors for big corporations. It’s a sad state of affairs, but society’s pyramidal structure and capitalist system prevents the government from giving the poor a more worthy lifestyle and an education, since it doesn’t favor the rich minority who control most of the country’s resources.

A couple of years ago, Danny Boyle released “Slumdog Millionaire”, a film that garnered world-wide acclaim and even went to win several Oscars including best picture. The movie might be a feel-good fantasy about a boy that goes from rags to riches but its greatest asset is in its portrayal of poverty in Mumbai. The earlier passages echo “Oliver Twist” in the journey of a boy living in the brutal streets try to survive along with his brother and Boyle’s vibrant vision makes the setting realistic while avoiding the romanticized view we often see in these types of stories (although the movie’s heart is essentially romantic).

The authenticity of the movie is also reflected in the casting process as the children portrayed aren’t professional actors and their real life draws parallels from their characters. There was actually a controversy a while back about their lifestyle after the shooting wrapped, with some claiming they were exploited and were still living in poverty (there were some bizarre rumors about Rubina Ali’s father trying to sell her, she plays young Latika in the film).

While many people applauded “Slumdog Millionaire” (I liked it quite a bit) I wish most of them would notice another movie released the same year called “Chop Shop”, directed by Ramin Bahrani. “Chop” is an American independent production that doesn’t deal with formulas or happy endings but merely observes an immigrant boy living in America and trying to survive while he takes care of his sister.

The most shocking aspect of the film is its location in New York, since it isn’t the same New York we often see in Woody Allen or Martin Scorsese movies because it almost feels like a third world country slum. The morality lines begin to fizzle in this setting and we realize that sometimes one finds shelter in illegal activities. “Chop Shop” might be slow for some but it is a riveting slice-of-life work of cinema that delivers a startling reality.

In many ways Bahrani’s film reminded me of “Los Olvidados” (its English title is “The Young and the Damned”), one of Luis Buñuel’s best films. In it we meet several boys living in the slums of Mexico City during the fifties. “Los Olvidados” had a rather controversial opening in Mexico as the movie was deemed to be brutal and unapologetic in its depiction of poverty. Buñuel’s vision was pretty hard to embrace in this country although the film got plenty of acclaim in other places (Buñuel has never been shy to controversy, especially with the shocking “Un Chien Andalou”, a short film in which he collaborated with the great Salvador Dali. It is said they put stones in their pockets in case the audiences attacked them).

While poverty is still a huge problematic pretty much everywhere, these films do a good job in not letting us forget those who need a hand the most. They’re the kind of films that change our views and can potentially make a difference.

Sin #65: The Story of a Girl

Every time there’s an author writing a potential bestseller there’s a producer behind trying to turn it into a movie, mainly because the success of it is pretty much guaranteed. Of course, it’s always tough adapting a book and we’ve seen countless adaptation that have failed miserably either because they are way too faithful to the original source or not close enough. Most of the best passages in a book work better in our imaginations than on the movie screen so it’s always a tricky business.

Take something like “The Da Vinci Code” for example, a movie which I hated. First of all I must confess that I’ve never read anything written by Dan Brown so I can’t judge the quality of the adaptation; all I know is that the movie is bland, tiresome and tedious, with characters who never come alive (not even with the skill of some very fine actors like Tom Hanks or Audrey Tatou). People who love the book call it a real page-turner, dynamic, exciting and very entertaining. So, what went wrong?

Then there’s “The Twilight Saga”, Stephanie Meyer’s love story between a girl and a vampire (merely the remnants of the concept really since Meyer ignores almost every convention from the vampire mythology. If its real vampires you seek go read an Anne Rice novel). So far, there has been three movies based on the books and it’s astounding to witness its popularity among female fans (I guess there are some men in there, but they are among the minority for sure). Some twilight enthusiasts (or twi-hards) criticize screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg (who has some obvious talent since she writes for the TV show “Dexter”) for tweaking several details from the book but I certainly don’t envy the task of adapting those awful books (although the fourth one presents outrageously contrived developments that might result in some laugh-out-loud moments).

So, is there a recent example of a good bestseller adaptation? Fortunately yes, there is; case in point, the first adaptation of the Swedish bestselling novel titled “The Men Who Hate Women” by author Stieg Larsson (who unfortunately passed away after completing his trilogy of books). The title of the movie version is “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” and it’s one of the most involving detective stories I have ever seen.

Its greatest strength isn’t in its murder mystery spanning several decades (although it’s a fantastic whodunit filled with suspense) but more on the creation of extraordinary and unique characters who command our attention from the get-go. On one side we’ve got Mikael Blomkvist, a journalist facing jail time who accepts the proposal of a rich man (who can’t move past the disappearance of his niece some decades ago), on his last months as a free man. Then there’s Lisbeth Salander, a tattooed Goth chick, who begins investigating Blomkist and ends joining him in solving the case. A relationship develops between them, although Lisbeth remains a mystery (I can imagine she will be further developed in the next installments).

The performances in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” are brilliant (Noomi Raspace definitely deserves an Oscar nomination) and the film is a haunting thriller, not to mention one of the best films of the year. The movie is the first in the Millennium trilogy (since the other two movies were filmed back-to-back they are already available as well). Without a doubt the movie is a prime example of a successful adaptation of a bestseller, Robert Landon could learn a thing or two from Lisbeth.

Sin #64: The Giants on the Windmills

“Don Quixote de la Mancha”, written by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, remains one of the most influential books ever written (it is considered the first modern European novel). For decades it has been the ambition of filmmakers to adapt its story to the screen but there seems to be a curse attached to the legend of Quixote; Orson Welles spend his entire career filming pieces but died before he could finish the movie and in 2000 Terry Gilliam failed spectacularly to shoot his own surrealistic take.

There’s something endearing in Quixote and his madness; after all, he represents the dreamer and idealist, slaying dragons and seeing giants instead of windmills and pursuing the love of the lovely Dulcinea (a sweet maiden in his heart but really just a hardworking maid). The story of Quixote seems to be a perfect match for the imagination of director Terry Gilliam (one of the most uneven but creative forces working today) but the production was a catastrophe waiting to happen. “Lost in La Mancha” documents the making of “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote” (the title of Gilliam’s film) starring Jean Rochefort as Quixote and Johnny Depp as his loyal partner Sancho Panza. The story is about an advertising agent who travels through time to 17^th century Spain and meets Quixote who mistakes him for Panza.

Gilliam is no stranger to chaotic productions; he went way over budget on his ambitious “The Adventures of Baron Munchhausen” and had to fight with the studio for his cut on “Brazil”, but nothing could prepare him for the disaster of Quixote. First of all, the funding for the film was significantly less than he anticipated (even though it was a small budget for his vision, it was a considerable budget for European standards), then came the terrible floods that destroyed several sets and changed the terrain that was already shot. If that wasn’t enough, his actor Jean Rochefort had to be hospitalized and no longer could ride a horse (there are some scenes shot where they show him in great pain). At this point every element whether natural or man-made was against the filmmakers.

After firing a producer and with the impatience of dozens of investors, the production was finally shut down to the grief of everyone involved. Gilliam moved on (his next two movies, “The Brothers Grimm” and “Tideland” were atrocious but he bounced back with the quirky and inventive “The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus”, Heath Ledger’s final film). After the release of “Lost in La Mancha” Gilliam was bombarded with questions about the film and the hope about it ever getting made; he seemed defeated and pessimistic about its chances of reaching the screen. After finishing “Parnassus” however, Gilliam admitted that he had the rights for “Quixote” back and was definitely moving forward with the production (it’s now confirmed that Ewan McGregor will substitute Depp, who can’t commit to the project because of his hectic schedule, and that Robert Duvall will play Quixote. Filming starts in September). It now seems that in 2011 we will finally get to see “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote”, 10 years after its disastrous first attempt. Hopefully it will be worth it.

Sin #63: Art in Transformation

We’ve all been warned on documentaries like “An Inconvenient Truth” or “Collapse”; the world, as we know it, will undergo a serious transformation thanks to our process of industrialization fueled by greed. The most serious problem is currently happening on our gulf as the oil spill has quickly started to fill the pacific ocean and will eventually cover every single ocean; there seems to be no solution to the continuous spillage and, as usual, politicians keep passing on the blame (hell, even the CEO of BP refuses to take responsibility on the matter). Only time will tell how much damage it will really do to the marine ecosystem.

As technology continues to offer us breakthroughs in the areas of science, art, health and entertainment I can’t help but wonder if we’ve to finally pay for our decades of excess. Few movies seem as prophetic to me as Godfrey Regio’s “qatsi” trilogy which may be seen as a profound statement on mankind, its evolution and the consequences of its supposed “growth” or just merely as an elongated and rather pretentious series of music videos.

“Koyaanisqatsi” (or “Life out of Balance”) is the first movie in the trilogy and is all about industrial tyranny, consumerism, militarism and exploitation. It’s a breathtakingly beautiful work of images and sound whose power continues to haunt audiences more than 25 years after its original theatrical release (its influence can be seen in dozens of commercials that use the same filmmaking techniques).

“Powaqqatsi” (“Life in Transformation”), the middle film, is not as effective as “Koyaanisqatsi” for the fact that it feels a bit more repetitious and monotonous. The film is more about the delicate nature between man and nature but even though is isn’t as powerful, one can’t deny the visual wonders Regio displays on screen.

“Naqoyqatsi” (“Life as War”) is different from the previous installments. First of all, its images are all seen through digital filters which give the film a haunting and eerie look and its themes seem to evoke technological engineering and artificial intelligence. Even though “Koyaanisqatsi” is the most memorable of this unique trilogy, “Naqoyqatsi” is the one that most deeply resonates, especially in today’s society.

The thing that is most striking in these films, besides their visual wonder, is the score from composer Phillip Glass. Although he’s made a number of movie scores, he’s never been better than working on the “qatsi” trilogy (some movies even recycle some of the tunes). On “Naqoyqatsi” he got work with the great Yo Yo Ma and together they deliver a phenomenal emotional symphony.

These movies are meant to provoke a strong reaction from the viewer who will either find them hypnotic and profound or will simply dismiss them as yet pseudo intellectual dreck. Watching them I find myself glued to the images and moved by the music and thinking about mankind, his actions and, specially, the consequences.

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).