Sin #94: The Loss of a Child

I don’t think I’ll ever understand the pain of losing a child and I hope I never have to. Two recent, albeit different, movies I saw dealt with the repercussions of this tragedy on a marriage. The first movie focused on the man that forever changed scientific studies and the other on a middle-class couple dealing with loss.

“Creation” is the story of how Charles Darwin came to write and publish his controversial “On the Origin of Species”; a book he knew would defy the principles of his own faith. The film humanizes the man and avoids an oversimplified view on the science versus religion issue. It wisely keeps us focused on Darwin and his frail grip on reality as he continues to see his 10 year-old daughter long after her death. The film could have easily been as controversial as its subject but it remains neutral preferring to portray the drama of a family torn by pain and disease. Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly (a real life couple) are very convincing on their roles and help elevate the picture from the cheap Hallmark TV production it could have easily become. I had always thought of Darwin as a devoted atheist and a spokesman for rational thought but it surprised me to learn of his conflict of ideas since he attended church regularly and his wife was a devoted Christian.

“Rabbit Hole” may be one of the most honest dramas I’ve seen in a while. It plunges us directly into the life of a married couple 8 months after the death of their 4 year-old son. His death was an accident (he was hit by a car after chasing his dog) but the couple continues to grieve and attend therapy sessions that don’t seem to help much (especially for Becca, who hates all the “god talk”). Their struggle to continue with their daily lives is sometimes unbearably painful in a movie that’s equally hard to watch.

Nicole Kidman delivers one of her best performances as Becca, a strong woman trying to find some comfort; Aaron Eckhart as Howie, her husband, is equally good, as a man realizing that his marriage needs to heal in order to survive.

Director John Cameron Mitchell is a curious choice for this material after making “Hedwig and the Angry Inch” and “Shortbus”. This story might feel more conventional but he shows great detail and care for moments of raw honesty and heartbreak (especially the scenes between Becca and Jason, the teenager who was driving on that tragic day). Mitchell avoids clichés and finds redemption for its characters; he also balances the more intense moments with sweet humor (mostly between the husband and a woman he meets at the therapy sessions, played by Sandra Oh) than in no way underplays the hurt.

What I like about both movies is their sincerity and their reluctance to overplay the drama giving a lot of dignity to their characters. “Creation” takes one of the most important figures in history and successfully turns him into a complex human being (thanks to Bettany’s moving portrayal) and “Rabbit Hole” is a heartbreaking and unforgettable story that truly resonates.

Sin #93: Higher Ground

Imagine a stark, dirty room on top of a complex housing building, facing a city highlighted by bright neon lights. A man lights up his pipe and, suddenly, the bright stains outside become abstractions, kaleidoscopic fractals of surreal, ethereal beauty. The bliss of this heightened reality doesn’t last very long and the man turns away and goes on his very last job as a dealer.

We are forced to relate to this man, forced to see through his eyes and forced to remember his childhood, his parents’ tragic accident and his relationship with his sister, another lonely soul wandering the streets of Tokyo through the dangers of drug addiction and prostitution.

“Enter the Void” is a fascinating experiment, but not quite a successful one. It pulls us in, deeply, into the lives of broken and ultimately empty human beings and tries to give some spiritual weight to their experiences. Some images burn the screen and remain powerful as isolated shorts but they never quite gel as a cohesive whole. And after the film goes through the very simple arc of its characters, it goes on in a compulsory and repetitive succession of meaningless transitions. Here’s a film that could easily lose about 45 minutes of its run time and probably benefit from it.

The director, Gaspar Noe, shows a unique vision by seamlessly blending digital effects with optical tricks and weird camera angles. The movie is visually amazing even if ultimately pointless (it establishes its creativity from the very beginning with a chaotic and startling title sequence).

Noe was also responsible for the controversial “Irreversible” with its infamous rape scene featuring Monica Bellucci. That movie was also a visceral experiment in revenge and sexual violence in film filled with visual panache and focused performances. “Irreversible” is not a pleasant time at the theater but it’s a more accomplished movie than “Enter the Void” (even though its technical wonders kind of compensate for its lack of structure).

The best movie about addiction remains Darren Aronofsky’s “Requiem for a Dream”. It’s an acting tour de force and also an intense experience that plunges us into the very heart of darkness. The first time I saw it I was completely blown away by its directing style (Aronofsky uses close-ups, acute sounds and split screens to emulate the experience of taking drugs), and after multiple viewings I focused on the actors who really bare their souls for their roles. Ellen Burstyn in particular, achieves an astonishing transformation as a lonely widow gradually losing her mind. The film closes with a brutal and mesmerizing montage that culminates with the horrific consequences for each of the characters. “Requiem for a Dream” invests in its characters and sort of makes them implode through their addictions and, by avoiding any kind of catharsis, it gives the story a heartbreaking ache. “Enter the Void” isn’t nowhere near as poignant since its characters are empty shells; merely narrative vehicles for its audacious style.

None of these movies, however, glorify the experience of taking drugs and offer a raw glimpse into hell. By not patronizing an audience and offering a contrived happy ending, they remain powerful indictments against addiction.

Sin #92: Killing Field

Every smart psychopath finds a way to avoid getting caught. But, in a way, they’re flirting with that danger at every moment, relishing the wit of their actions. Some men kill as a form of punishment, others kill to satisfy an uncontrollable urge.

Take Lou Ford in “The Killer Inside Me”. As played by Casey Affleck he is the shy and likable sheriff of a small town, an exemplary citizen. After he gets entangled with a troubled prostitute, dark passions get stirred and Lou not only finds himself a beater but also finds a victim who enjoys it.

“The Killer Inside Me” is a dark movie, not only because of its graphic violence against women (as seen in a brutal scene with Jessica Alba that stirred great controversy after its premier in the Sundance Film Festival) but mostly because of the cold nature of its protagonist. Ford always remains an enigma throughout and even when we see flashbacks of a disturbed youth, we never truly get inside his head. It’s this sort of detachment that makes the movie strangely compelling as if saying that true evil can never be fully explained.

Every time I see a movie about a psychopath I’m reminded of Patrick Bateman, one of the most memorable killers ever portrayed onscreen as adapted from one of the most controversial books ever published. Bateman sits in a luxurious penthouse, waking every morning to perform his body rituals and staring into a mirror that doesn’t quite reflect the monster within. His life is really just a superficial façade of vanity and poise; except when he is killing, when it can get really dirty.

I love “American Psycho”, mostly because of Christian Bale’s fascinating performance that walks a fine line between restraint and madness but also because how director Mary Harron keeps pulling the rug on our perceptions of Bateman. After its ending, we’re left wondering if in fact the murders were all in his head.

When Bret Easton Ellis published his novel in 1991, feminists around the country called it misogynist and sadistic, failing to view it as a satire of the Wall Street mentality of the 80s. Ellis was surprised since he never intended to write a work of violence towards women but more of a twisted depiction of male vanity. “American Psycho “became a hot item in Hollywood during the 90s with many actors and filmmakers interested in the project (at one point it was going to be directed by Oliver Stone and Bateman was going to be played by Leonardo DiCaprio, who later turned it down for the simple reason that it was definitely going to affect his good boy persona from movies like “Romeo and Juliet” and “Titanic”). It’s great irony that a woman became the director of “American Psycho” and that she made a great adaptation of the material. Ellis’s novels are often hard to adapt since they’re mostly overindulgent with their dark undercurrent of the rich and glamorous (I admit that his “Glamorama” was a pretty dense read).

Some killers find a code to base their immoral actions. Dexter Morgan, from the brilliant TV show “Dexter”, punishes criminals in orders to satisfy his thirst of blood. His father was a policeman who understood his killer instincts and helped him to use them as a way of vigilance. Dexter’s whole life has been about control although sometimes it slips his grasp, especially in his personal relationships.

Ford, Bateman and Morgan are completely different killers but they all live with what Dexter lovingly calls his “dark passenger”. While their actions are morally reprehensible, as characters, they are very entertaining to watch.

Sin #91: Parlor Tricks

Films about magicians share a common thread; they’re usually about loners. In Sylvain Chomet’s “The Illusionist” we meet an aging magician working in cheap pubs and old theaters (whose simple act involves hats and rabbits while performing to a very small audience, sorry leftovers after a Rock and Roll show). To survive, he also takes jobs on clothing stores and garages, jobs which he detests.

“The Illusionist” brilliantly captures the everyday details of the city of Edinburgh (a rich city known for its gothic architecture that, kind of, smells of wet stone and seaweed the last time I visited it). The visual style of the movie is similar to Chomet’s “The Triplets of Belleville” but the tone is different, it goes for nostalgia instead of whimsy. I wanted to love this movie as much as I loved “The Triplets” but I missed the sense of joy of the earlier film. “The Illusionist” introduces a young woman who follows the magician around but we’re never sure about the nature of their relationship (although it could be deemed creepy considering their age differences, it’s never depicted in a sexual manner).

Chomet’s “The Illusionist” shouldn’t be confused with 2006’s “The Illusionist” starring Edward Norton, Jessica Biel and Paul Giamatti. That “Illusionist” was a traditional love story set early in the 20^th century. I liked the movie as an innocuous adventure with romantic undertones. Even though every actor is playing a stereotype (none more obvious than Rufus Sewell as the evil prince), the acting makes the film believable and very entertaining (even Biel shines in a role that is not your typical damsel in distress). The movie is a throwback to the more story-driven Hollywood genre pictures of old.

Shortly after “The Illusionist” was released in theaters, Christopher Nolan released “The Prestige”, a very different magician’s tale. The movie is yet another Nolan mind-bender focusing on the rivalry and obsession of two competing performers. The story is set within the invention of electricity, introducing Nikola Tesla as the inventor of a strange machine that may have supernatural powers (a whole movie could be made depicting the rivalry of Tesla and Edison during this period).

“The Prestige” is the kind of film that rewards multiple viewings, as every one of Nolan’s movies. The obsession in the story takes it to self-destructive consequences (in more than one sense) and the film clearly shows the risks of performing live stunts (we have to remember that Harry Houdini died in a fatal accident while performing). “The Prestige” is a richer experience than “The Illusionist” but it appeals to a different audience altogether (one more interested in dark and cerebral parables).

I’ve always liked magic. My father used to impress me with the most simple and banal tricks and on TV I always enjoyed watching David Copperfield and, more recently, David Blaine (even though I’m aware that editing is a big part of their performances). Still, there’s a fascination and awe for performers willing to give us seemingly impossible sights. Sometimes that’s all we need to distract ourselves from our mundane lives; what I didn’t know was the toll it took on them. After all, it’s hard to keep an audience’s attention.

Sin #90: Transcendental Crap

It’s no secret that Hollywood churns out dozens of bad movies every year; some of the worst break out through the gates right at the beginning, on January and February (months that have infamously become a dumping ground for failed productions).

Making a bad movie is easy enough (just ask Uwe Boll) but making a terrible movie that suddenly becomes a cult item must be a great feat (even though, as they’re making it, filmmakers have no clue as to the public’s reaction to the finished product). Take “Troll 2” for example; according to voters on the IMDB website it is the worst movie of all time. It was written and directed by an Italian couple who barely spoke any English and who thought they were dealing with some heavy issues.

Watching “Troll 2” is a curious experience. I expected to be entertained with its ludicrous plot but grew tired at its obvious incompetence and seriously bizarre sequences. There’s a kind of lunacy at work here that might have resulted appealing to the hundreds of “Troll 2” fans around the world but that failed to interest me in the slightest (was it too much to ask for campy fun?). The popularity of the movie was truly unexpected for its cast who were rightfully embarrassed at the film. The one positive aspect with the whole “Troll 2” fan lore support was the release of the documentary “Best Worst Movie”, which chronicles the impact of the movie as well as the lives of the people around the production (mainly George Hardy, who played the father in the film and who is a successful dentist, and all around nice guy, in his home town). He loves the attention and is thrilled to go around the United States promoting it.

“Best Worst Movie” is a much, much better film than “Troll 2”. It’s funny and poignant and entertaining. I saw it before even knowing of the existence of “Troll 2” and it made me curious to go back and check it out, only to realize that you really don’t need to see it in the first place.

One movie that does live to its infamy is Tommy Wiseau’s “The Room”, a hilariously incompetent drama with some of the worst performances ever captured on film. The worst is by Wiseau himself, who manages to turn every line of dialogue with a hysterically funny delivery (“You’re tearing me apart, Lisa”, “oh, hi Mark”). “The Room” has become the pun of every joke since its release but it has gathered a cult following (even celebrities like Paul Rudd have embraced the film) and there’s still packed midnight screenings. The first time I saw it I found myself appalled at how every scene was seriously misconceived and the whole story was stuck in a narrative blender that was sort of…brilliant. I saw the movie again and was equally enthralled and by the third viewing I truly realized how special “The Room” was. Tommy Wiseau is the real deal, a man so endearingly incompetent (think of him as a successor to Ed Wood) that his films become instantly addictive. He recently released a short film titled “The House That Drips Blood on Alex” that is very funny, once again, for all the wrong reasons.

There are a lot of reviews making fun of Wiseau and his “Magnum Opus” but it’s a movie that lingers on our mind like a parasite refusing to die. That is no small feat for a movie with such a banal plot (in a way, the film is an experience, impossible to describe). So, is “Troll 2” worst than “The Room”? Definitely, and expect a “The Room” and Wiseau documentary anytime soon.

By the way, Wiseau is planning a 3D version of the film and is ready to release the Bluray edition with loads of extras. Thank you, Tommy.

Sin #89: The Royal We

Few can deny the public’s fascination with the British Monarchy. Amid the hundreds of books and movies written about the nation’s royalty one can find a real-life melodrama playing to all our voyeuristic needs. One of the most acclaimed movies at this year’s Academy Awards is “The King’s Speech” starring Colin Firth, Helena Bonham-Carter and Geoffrey Rush. It chronicles the rise of King George VI, a man who’s had a terrible stammer his whole life and now has to give a speech amidst the beginning of another terrible war with Germany. Bertie, as his family called him, is a man unsure of himself who never thought he’d be King (in fact, his older brother was heir to the throne but was forced to resign after he chose to marry an American divorcee). The film is impeccably shot and acted and could represent a prime example of what insiders call “Oscar bait”, a term used to describe movies more interested in garnering awards than connecting with audiences (this term might be a tad unfair for the movie since the story is quite engrossing). The main reason to see “The King’s Speech” is to marvel at the performances, especially Colin Firth’s brilliant portrayal that captures every physical nuance in the stammer and also makes the King a wholly sympathetic and yet deeply flawed individual. He’s the frontrunner at the best actor award, deservedly so.

In recent years there have been several films about the monarchy. A few years ago “The Queen” gave Helen Mirren a best actress Oscar. The movie poised itself among the controversy of Lady Di’s death in Paris sparking enormous criticism for the Queen and the establishment after she refused to give her a proper Royal burial (even though she divorced Prince Charles, in the public eye she remained the “People’s Princess”, a term coined by Tony Blair). The story also introduces Blair as prime minister, portraying a clash between liberal and conservative views. What I like about the movie is that it remains neutral to its characters; the Queen herself seems to rise from the stereotype of an old bitter woman resenting the public’s sudden disapproval although that’s not to say that she’s portrayed in a flattering manner since there are times that her scorn for Diana is quite obvious.

One can go through every history book and find an interesting story to tell. On TV we had Jonathan Rhys-Myers playing Henry VIII (in an unlikely yet entertaining portrayal) with “The Tudors”, which just ended after four successful seasons. Once again Helen Mirren played a Queen in the great HBO miniseries “Elizabeth I” and at the movies Cate Blanchett played that same role in two films (the first was widely acclaimed while the second one was mostly ignored).

A recent example of a handsome and involving production is “The Young Victoria” starring Emily Blunt (very good in the title role), which portrays the romance with Prince Albert. The movie is beautifully made with great attention to period details and shot with a fresh and modern perspective (although it isn’t as jarringly anachronistic as in Coppola’s “Marie Antoinette” which was all about blending pop sensibilities to a stylized version of 18^th century France).

There’s no denying that these movies play to our fantasies about monarchs. We place them among the common man and yet identify with their plights and even care for them. In a way, except for maybe their wealth, they might not be all that different from us.

Sin #88: Oscar Season 2011

After the Golden Globes nomination fiasco, where some of the worst-reviewed movies of the year were in for big awards (namely “The Tourist” and “Burlesque”), the Academy Awards nominations show a much saner choice of candidates for the top prizes. The 10-best list include: Black Swan, The Social Network, True Grit, Inception, The Kids Are All Right, The Fighter, Winter’s Bone, Toy Story 3, The King’s Speech and 127 Hours. There are fantastic movies on this list (including “True Grit”, a movie that was completely ignored at the Golden Globes), but since there are only 5 directing nominations, those usually reflect the five films that are truly in the race. The nominated directors are Darren Aronofsky for “Black Swan”, the Coen brothers for “True Grit”, David Fincher for “The Social Network”, Tom Hooper for “The King’s Speech” and David O. Russell for “The Fighter”. So those are the real best picture nominees. If I had to take a guess I would say that the winner will be “The Social Network”; not only has it won in almost every major awards event but it is also representative of our times and our cultural obsession with digital communication and social media (there seems to be rumors that “True Grit” is gaining momentum and that maybe “The King’s Speech” might take the award since it is a more “traditional” Oscar movie).

Just as in any year, there are upsets; one of the most prominent is Christopher Nolan’s snub as a directing nominee. After “The Dark Knight’s” snub a couple of years ago as a deserving Best Picture nominee, it is now clear that the Academy doesn’t really appreciate Nolan’s talent to produce smart and sprawling entertainments. His “Inception” is an outstanding movie of great imagination and technical craft; it is a grand work of ideas that caused endless debate among audiences. Even though it is my favorite movie of 2010, it is highly unlikely that it will be rewarded in any category except for the technical ones.

I am glad though that the Academy recognized the brilliant “Black Swan”. Aronofsky is quickly becoming one of cinema’s most audacious directors and his latest work is an amazing descent into madness set in the competitive world of professional ballet. It is safe to say that Natalie Portman will take the award for Best Actress, she surely deserves it. Colin Firth, the most probable winner for male acting, also deserves the recognition (he should have won for “A Single Man” a year ago).

It’s sad (but unsurprising) that the Oscars showed no love for “Scott Pilgrim” or “Tron: Legacy”. “Scott” should’ve been rewarded for its awesome editing and special effects and “Tron” for its brilliant soundtrack composed by Daft Punk. In the acting categories it’s incredible that Noomi Rapace wasn’t acknowledged for her work in the Millennium Trilogy or any of the actors in “Never Let Me Go”.

There are actually two happy surprises as Javier Bardem was nominated for his amazing work in “Biutiful” and the film got also a nod in Best Foreign movie (representing Mexico); also that “Exit at the Gift Shop” got a nod as best documentary (I would love to see a Banksy doppelganger at the podium, accepting the award). The one Oscar that nobody doubts is in Best Animated Feature with “Toy Story 3” which seems to be universally loved (except for maybe critic Armond White).

The Academy Awards will be hosted by Anne Hathaway and James Franco (who is also nominated for his great performance in “127 Hours”) and will air on February 27.

Sin #87: Let Go

Remember Michael Bay’s “The Island”? In the movie we were introduced to an underground colony of clones that were told that the outside world had suddenly become inhabitable (don’t really remember the specific reasons). After one clone discovers the secret of their seclusion (basically that they were being harvested for their organs) he decides to escape with a fellow prisoner (the gorgeous Scarlett Johansson). “The Island” is not interested in the child-like personalities of the clones and their tragic fates; it starts with an intriguing dystopia that never becomes more than window dressing for the later action sequences. The special effects were really good but the movie had a strange and ambiguous marketing campaign that turned it into Bay’s only box-office flop. I didn’t hate the movie (it’s certainly much better than “Pearl Harbor”, “Transformers”, “Armageddon” or any one of Bay’s spectacles for audiences with short attention-spans) but there’s a wasted potential in this intriguing premise since there’s no attempt to delve into the clones’ plight. And don’t even get me started on “Episode II: The Attack of the Clones”.

Just when I think that I won’t find a provocative science fiction story about clones, here comes a beautiful existential drama that goes deep into the issue. That would be Mark Romanek’s haunting “Never Let Me Go”.

It all starts at one of those British boarding schools where the children are well-groomed and well-behaved. But there’s something not quite right since the children can’t even cross the fence to pick up a ball and there’s a sense of despair when they gather to listen to the daily announcements from their principal. One day, a teacher decides to tell her students the truth; they will never grow old and lead happy lives. Their destinies are to become organ donors.

Kathy, one of the girls, begins to develop a crush on Tommy. But he is shy and angry and becomes seduced by Ruth, envious of Kathy’s harboring love. As the years pass Kathy begins to drift away but is always in wait for Tommy to love her. In one of their trips together they hear about a rumor that if a couple truly proved they were in love they would be given some more years to spend together before their donation.

“Never Let Me Go” is a heartbreaking film that makes us wonder about what it really means to be human. I’ve read some fascinating inquiries about the nature of the story relating to why didn’t the clones escape if they had the possibility to roam free and if there were really any “real” versions of themselves out there. I don’t think they had anywhere to go and that there were any “real” versions, which makes the story even more tragic. The performances are amazing all around, from Carey Mulligan who was Oscar-nominated for her performance in “An Education” to Andrew Garfield who will be the new Spiderman in next year’s reboot and who showed great range in Fincher’s “The Social Network”.

“Never Let Me Go” is yet another literary adaptation whose book I haven’t read; all I know is that it’s considered a masterpiece and impossible to film. As a stand-alone piece, the movie is amazing since it evokes a mood that we rarely see in Hollywood productions (it also refuses to end with a tidy and happy conclusion that would betray its fragile nature). Here’s a movie whose images and characters are not easy to forget.

Sin #86: Coming Attractions, First Half of 2011

Here are the most anticipated movies based on directors, actors and trailers for the first half of 2011:

-The Green Hornet (Gondry): Here’s the movie that takes Michel Gondry’s inventive style to the mainstream. Based on the popular TV series (which had Bruce Lee as a sidekick) the film features a much slimmer Seth Rogen in the title role (and also in the role of screenwriter) and an appealing visual style (which might be ruined by the 3D conversation). We can only hope for campy fun.

-Paul (Mottola): Another Rogen movie (this time he lends his voice to an alien) along with two of the funniest actors in British cinema as partners (I’m talking about the invaluable team of Nick Frost and Simon Pegg). “Paul” is directed by the guy who brought us “Superbad”. I’m sold.

-Rango (Verbinski): Johnny Depp is one of cinema’s busiest actors; here he takes the part of a chameleon (with the help of motion capture). “Rango’s” trailer is intriguing with a fantastic animation style and a talented cast (they all had to act out the movie and then were animated). There are always a handful of mediocre animated films every year but this one looks interesting.

-Jane Eyre (Fukunaga): Yet another adaptation of the famous Charlotte Bronte novel (I remember an excellent version with Charlotte Gainsborough and William Hurt in the nineties). This one features a very strong cast with Mia Wasikowska (of “Alice in Wonderland” fame) and Michael Fassbender, who is an amazing British actor who will star in the new X-Men movie later this year.

-Sucker Punch (Snyder): If anything, “Sucker Punch” has the most awesome trailer of 2011; it features hot girls, guns, robots, ninjas, you name it. Here is another kick-ass action movie by Zack Snyder (who is ready to bring his style to the Superman reboot). “Sucker Punch” might be one of the most entertaining movies of the year.

-Source Code (Jones): Duncan Jones’s film debut was the rather brilliant “Moon”, a classic sci-fi movie with a terrific performance by Sam Rockwell. For his next film he takes on another sci-fi premise working with a very strong cast lead by Jake Gyllenhaal. Even though it looks more commercially appealing then “Moon”, Jones has proven that he is a promising talent.

-Hanna (Wright): A 14-year old girl trained as an assassin? A global thriller from the director of “Atonement” and “Pride and Prejudice”? “Hanna” is quite an intriguing movie thanks to a promising trailer and an excellent cast (with Cate Blanchett and Eric Bana and lead by Saoirse Ronan, whose performance in “The Lovely Bones” was the best part of the movie).

-The Tree of Life (Malick): I’m not a fan of Terrence Malick (I hate the self indulgent mess that is “The Thin Red Line”) but the trailer of “The Tree of Life” is simply stunning, if a little ambiguous. The film has been in post-production for ages and the story is not yet quite clear. This might be an ambitious masterwork or yet another pretentious mess. We’ll have to wait and see.

Sin #85: Top 10 of 2010

2010 was mostly a year of disappointments even though great filmmakers like Christopher Nolan, Darren Aronofsky and Martin Scorsese delivered fantastic movies. There are still movies that I haven’t seen that might make the cut (like “True Grit”, “The King’s Speech” or “127 Hours”) but, as of today, here’s my Top Ten of the year in descending order:

10. - Exit through the Gift Shop: This documentary about street art is unique in how the filmmaker suddenly becomes the subject of the piece. Is this real or is it a hoax orchestrated by the brilliant British artist Banksy to force us to look closer into the real value of art? In a way it doesn’t matter since it is a compelling and provocative work in itself.

9. - Shutter Island: This was a great year for Leonardo DiCaprio, having made two movies worthy of the Top Ten. In his fourth venture working with Martin Scorsese he delivers a very strong performance in the atmospheric thriller “Shutter Island”. The film grabbed me from the start with its quiet dread creeping into the story and a final twist that gives it an extra layer of tragedy.

8. - Carlos: This movie is epic in every way. Spoken in more than five languages, filmed in several countries and spanning many years, it depicts the life of Illich Ramirez Sanchez (brilliantly portrayed by Edgar Ramirez), one of the most wanted terrorists during the seventies. There are currently three versions of the film (I saw the longest cut of 5 and a half hours, which may be a long time to spend in a theater but more than worth it since there isn’t a dull minute to be found).

7. - Machete: Few movies are more fun to enjoy with a packed theater than Robert Rodriguez’s “Machete”, an absolutely outrageous piece of “mexploitation”. The movie was originally a fake trailer showing before Rodriguez’s “Planet Terror” but became so popular that it was enhanced for feature length with one of the most intriguing casts in recent years. Here’s one of the most entertaining movies of the year.

6. - Toy Story 3: It took 11 years for the toys to return to the big screen but the guys at Pixar once again prove that no one is better at making sophisticated and mature family films (maybe Studio Ghibli is their only rival). “Toy Story 3” is a fitting end for the trilogy and another wonderful movie from Pixar, whose last four movies have been amazing.

5. - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: Next year we’ll get the David Fincher-directed remake of this movie, but I don’t think it will surpass this Swedish adaptation of the international bestseller. The biggest triumph of this absorbing thriller is presenting us with a heroine that completely grabs our attention (actress Noomi Rapace is amazing on the role). There are another two installments on the so-called Millenium Trilogy but this one is the best.

4. - The Social Network: I was skeptical of this project from the beginning since I’ve never liked Facebook very much. I have to admit, however, that Fincher did an amazing job directing this story and the performances are great (hell, even Justin Timberlake shines). From the beginning I was completely enthralled in this corporate story of betrayal. “The Social Network” is a movie for our times.

3. - Scott Pilgrim vs. the World: I’ve seen this movie more than 10 times and I’ve enjoyed it immensely every single time. The film is incredibly creative and fun (it also is very geeky, which might explain its poor box-office performance). Directed by Edgar Wright (of “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” fame), “Scott Pilgrim” is a fantastic achievement destined to become a cult classic.

2. - Black Swan: Here’s another Darren Aronofsky descent into madness. “Black Swan” is a brilliant story of obsession that features one of the strongest performances of the year (Natalie Portman will surely win the Academy Award for best actress). The film is a nightmare fetish set in the ballet world. This movie stands proudly next to “Pi”, “Requiem for a Dream” and “The Fountain”, Aronofsky’s other masterpieces.

1. - Inception: Christopher Nolan is one of the few filmmakers who is able to marry complex and intelligent stories with commercial appeal. “Inception” is a huge movie with ambitious ideas that had us discussing it for months. Is the whole movie a dream? In a way it’s a distillation of different genres and the dreams within the movies. This is yet another provocative work from Nolan and the cleverest piece of entertainment of 2010.

Sin #84: The Facebook

It all started with a bad breakup. Erica dumped Mark and then he got a little drunk and wrote nasty things about her in his blog. To top things off, he also created a web page where guys could rank the student girls of Harvard based on their looks. The site was so popular that it blocked the server and got him in detention; it also got the attention of the Winklevoss twins, students who have had the idea of a web page similar to Myspace but way more exclusive. They want Mark’s help but Mark doesn’t need them. Instead he enlists his best friend Eduardo to create his own social network and thus “The Facebook” is born.

The creation of Facebook is one of the great corporate stories in recent years, not only because it depicts the rise of the world’s youngest billionaire but also because it defines a generation that has become completely dependent on computers for social interaction. In 2010 we got two very different movies involving Facebook, one was about its makers and one was about its users.

David Fincher’s “The Social Network” is a chronicle on the foundation of Facebook, anchored on two different lawsuits and a flashback narrative. The movie features one of the strongest casts of the year with several highlights, including Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckenberg, Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker and, in a neat special effect, Arnie Hammer as the Winklevoss Twins. Fincher’s direction is superb but the real star is the multilayered script by Aaron Sorkin that never patronizes its characters. The story may not be exactly true but Sorkin’s script is so good that it sure feels like it happened like this.

The other Facebook movie is the intriguing documentary “Catfish”, where a photographer develops a friendship with a young girl and her family only to discover that they are not being entirely honest with him. The marketing strategy for the movie was based on a surprise ending that meant to turn it into a dark thriller. The truth is that this is a bit misleading since the film doesn’t offer so much a thrilling payoff but more of a sad and tragic one.

“Catfish” is meant to warn us about the pitfalls of Facebook and how lonely individuals are able to literally transform themselves and live their own fantasy through a computer (whether they’re psychopaths or merely pathetic is another matter). The issues of privacy have been the strongest remarks against the site but it all really depends on how much the user is willing to share so the blame belongs to them, I guess. Still, Zuckenberg’s project is all about “opening up” and turning the whole social experience into a frivolous and callous experiment.

There’s some part of me that admires Mark Zuckenberg. He was able to turn a good idea into a brilliant moneymaking venture by never losing focus on his objectives. Yes, he was deceptive (it’s pretty cruel what he did to Eduardo at the end) but he remains a fascinating individual, both in real life and in the movie, as portrayed by Eisenberg.

There are over 500 million users worldwide on Facebook including myself. Does this make me a hypocrite after confessing my distaste for the site? I don’t think so, since Facebook (or twitter or Myspace for that matter) depend really on how you use it and who you add. Its most of the people on Facebook I hate; the idea, on principle, is not bad at all.

Sin #83: Coffin Nightmares

Remember that scene in “Kill Bill Volume 2” where the bride is tied up and about to be buried alive? Tarantino brilliantly changes screen formats to give us a sense of claustrophobia and dread and then turns the screen to dark as we hear the rumbling of the dirt and the bride’s hard breathing (Tarantino also used the premise of being buried alive for his great feature-length episode of “CSI”).

Rodrigo Cortés’s “Buried” takes it to next level by making a 90-minute movie set entirely inside a coffin and featuring only one actor on-screen, without cutting to flashbacks. Although “Buried” can be seen as a “gimmick movie” (one actor, one stage), it is so tense that it absorbs us completely. The film wouldn’t be effective without a believable central character and Ryan Reynolds is more than up to the task and creates a powerful performance that draws us into his startling predicament (which could be described as a cross between the literary nightmares created by Edgar Allan Poe and the thrillers of Alfred Hitchcock).

The movie is diabolically ingenious in its narrative devices; all Paul Conroy (Reynolds) has is a cell phone with half a battery, a Zippo lighter, some fluorescent lights and a pen. His captor wants him to film himself and ask for a 5 million dollar ransom. But the thing about Paul is that he is not a soldier or any kind of action hero whatsoever; he is merely a truck driver in Iraq moving supplies, working on hostile territory for a low income to provide for his family.

In a situation like this, who would we call? Our family, friends, government agencies, maybe our captor begging to let us out? Paul desperately tries to call everybody he can to let them know he is trapped underground. In one of the most grueling moments in the film he receives a call from the head of the company he works for, informing him of his termination.

Cortés shows great imagination with his cinematography and editing (he is actually his own editor, which is uncommon). Although most of the movie is shot in very intense close-ups (showing Reynolds looking bloody and grimy), there are also strange angles that show the dirt around the coffin. The movie is also wise in giving Paul a background based solely on his conversations on the phone; this gives us a completely subjective view as to the events on the other lines making us wonder, as Paul does, if they’re entirely trustworthy.

There are a lot of twists in “Buried”, including its rather ironic ending (which will be definitely a subject of conversation coming out of the theater) but the movie never takes to the usual Hollywood conventions (if a big studio had made it there would be scenes with the grieving wife and son and desperate military strategies to try to rescue him).

Here is a film hard to recommend. Yes, it’s incredibly effective in its depiction of desperation on an impossible situation but it’s more of an endurance test for audiences than an entertainment. Still it’s a virtuoso example of what can be done with the simplest resources. With it, we can also agree that being buried alive is one of the most frightening of scenarios imaginable.

Sin #82: Borders

“We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us!”

Jessica Alba in “Machete”

The topic of illegal immigrants remains, to this day, a big issue in the United States. After the attacks of September 11 xenophobia took on a whole new meaning and Muslims became targeted as religious extremists, not much to the concern of White America (especially the kind of bigots who have enforced ridiculous security measures on airports to the point of harassing hundreds of thousands of innocent travelers).

For the past few years, the border between Mexico and USA has become a warzone for Latinos in search of the promised American dream, even though they pretty much have to endure low wages and terrible working conditions; since they are illegal, they aren’t expected to demand insurance or any kind of work benefits.

While the United States remains one of the great multiethnic nations in the world, it pretty much remains divided by hate and intolerance (vividly exemplified in Paul Haggis’s “Crash”). In this social and political climate comes the movie “Machete” with a big smirk on its face and a “fuck you” attitude. By making a schlocky B-movie in the Grindhouse tradition, Robert Rodriguez has taken the caricature of the ignorant but hard working Latino and transformed it into a bad-ass action icon (played by the inimitable Danny Trejo, whose role as a protagonist was long overdue). “Machete” first started as a fake trailer showing before Rodriguez’s “Planet Terror” and became so popular that he decided to expand it to feature length.

Machete himself is a retired federal agent who seeks revenge on the man who murdered his wife and daughter (played very “tongue-in-cheek” by Steven Seagal, who not only is portraying his first villain ever but is also supposed to be Mexican). Machete later becomes entangled in a plot to assassinate a senator and also ends up supporting an underground rebel movement led by a mysterious revolutionary called “She”.

The violence in “Machete” is extreme and the political message is none too subtle (subtlety has never been one of Rodriguez’s strong points). He has often said that he never meant to make a social comment and that the whole “Arizona Law” debacle merely coincided with the release of the film. It is, however, pretty obvious that the movie is meant to support immigrants and criticize American policies. But if you decide to avoid any sort of political statement you can certainly enjoy “Machete” for being a slice of delicious mexploitation mayhem.

A movie that deals more seriously with the issue of illegal immigrants is “Frozen River” starring Melissa Leo as a single mother desperately trying to provide for her family by aiding an Indian woman in transporting illegal aliens. The film is a bleak look at the underbelly of poverty in America and the cost of survival. The actions in the film may be morally reprehensible but, in a way, are enforced upon people who can barely survive on a day-to-day basis.

The racial tension is still seen full-force with President Obama, whose detractors, in full ignorance, dare to claim he is a Muslim as if saying that his partisan worldview represents a danger to the western civilization. It’s a sad state of affairs when even the so-called Free World can’t even get along.

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).