Bringing the Blog Back

So, it has been a while since I last wrote here. Somehow over the summer, for the first time in as long as I can remember, I fell out of love with writing.

Writing has always been relaxing for me. Practically every single other activity, from socializing to video games to sports to even watching movies, has felt to me somewhat of a chore. In order to escape the chore of living day to day, I wrote. I wrote movie reviews, political commentaries, short stories, scripts (some things I had no business commenting on)... I've tried my hand at just about everything over the years. It used to be that I would write something every day for years on end without even making a precedent out of it. Some of my friends will remember the absurd amount of Facebook notes I would write, down to even writing fan fictions for inside joke short stories. People wondered why I wasted so much time on these meaningless projects that none but a handful of my closest friends ever viewed. The writing wasn't for the audience. It was the way that I dealt with the world.

I'm not sure when it happened, but one day a couple years ago I suddenly realized writing felt like a chore to me. All of a sudden, the day to day minutia of life didn't seem so worthy of my commentary, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I doubted whether my commentary was worthy of my time. Writing became more about the audience than it did about me, and as a result I realized that nobody really needed to know what I thought about the 2008 NBA Finals and how they related to the French New Wave (though, to be fair, who wouldn't want to read that article?). Also, I began to focus more on the quality of my articles, afraid that something I would post would somehow reflect poorly on me. Quality control is not a bad thing, don't get me wrong, but it made the process more stressful, which in turn made it less about therapy and more about what everything else in life is all about.

The last week has reminded me how much I love to write. I've completed my final draft of my bathrobe drama, written several movie reviews, and jumpstarted multiple film and radio projects, many of which I am the primary writer of. And for the first time in ages, I don't feel conflicted when I write. I've found a way to care about quality but also find the same pure joy that I once felt when I wrote.

In short, I am rehabilitating this blog as an outlet for my new (hopefully) continuous self-expression. The idea of journaling still has little appeal to me, for whatever reason (maybe I just do all of this for the attention), but I really don't care if nobody reads my blog. In here will (again, hopefully) be my sincere commentary on whatever I feel like writing about at the time. I might post script or short story excerpts and new ideas for projects. I'm kind of hoping to keep a running blog of my first ever experience as a theater director. Regardless of what it is, if you want to know what is going on with me, this will be the place to look for it.

The Abbreviated Last 90.5 Years in Cinema (According to Me)

I have always been one for making lists. I am a list-addict. As a matter of fact, I've had to go on a twelve step program to get away from them because I was having trouble finishing movies because I want to get them on my list more quickly. I had the art of the list down perfectly. Rather than try to list my 100 Favorite Movies from favorite to 100th favorite, descending in a neat order in between, when I hit the thirties, forties, and fifties, I started playing around with directors, eras, title lengths, actors, poster colors, and whatnot, to make the most aesthetically pleasing lists ever assembled. I am a list-making fiend.

And so now, I proudly present the worst movie list I have ever put together. There are no well thought out write-ups here. There's not even a whole ton of criteria. I just took every year of cinema from 1920-2010 (90.5 years. Sounds like a radio station promotion) and picked my favorite film I'd seen from every year. The intitial purpose in creating this list was to see if there was any gaps. Sure, I've seen twenty films from 1927, but what the heck did I watch from 1973? To my relief, I've seen at least one good movie from every year. Of course, when you're suddenly forced to cut Casablanca and Duck Soup and include Vacation and American Graffiti (remember our talk about 1973?) you begin to question why the heck you are compiling such an abomination. But it was a fun little exercise. Quick too. As I made these selections (some of them like choosing which half of your child you want to retain most) I dreamed up some little commentaries on each of the individual years. But then I realized that if I spent a paragraph praising 1959 and 1962, I'd have to write something about... well, 1973 (American Graffiti!). So here's the list. Maybe I will tackle a few of my favorite movie years on this blog later. There were two years where I just couldn't choose. It wasn't the quality of the films per se (I allowed Casablanca to be beaten by Shadow of a Doubt because they were similar enough that I could compare their virtues head to head). No, there were two instances where such unique artists clashed, representing monumentally different movements and moments in cinema that I simply could not, in good conscience, pick one.

Warning, if you really want to save yourself for my 2010 end of the year list, there might be a spoiler below.

1920

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

1921

The Goat

1922

Nosferatu

1923

Our Hospitality

1924

Sherlock Jr.

1925

Seven Chances

1926

Faust

1927

The General

Sunrise

1928

Steamboat Bill Jr.

1929

The Passion of Joan of Arc

1930

All Quiet on the Western Front

1931

City Lights

1932

Vampyr

1933

M

1934

It Happened One Night

1935

The 39 Steps

1936

Modern Times

1937

Make Way for Tomorrow

1938

The Lady Vanishes

1939

Rules of the Game

1940

His Girl Friday

1941

Citizen Kane

1942

Cat People

1943

Shadow of a Doubt

1944

Double Indemnity

1945

Ivan the Terrible Part 1

1946

It’s a Wonderful Life

1947

Out of the Past

1948

Rope

1949

White Heat

1950

Sunset Boulevard

1951

Rashomon

1952

Ikiru

1953

Tokyo Story

1954

Rear Window

1955

Night of the Hunter

1956

Rififi

1957

Bridge on the River Kwai

1958

Vertigo

1959

Rio Bravo

1960

Psycho

1961

Yojimbo

1962

Lawrence of Arabia

1963

8 1/2

1964

Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

1965

Alphaville

1966

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

1967

Bonnie and Clyde

1968

2001: A Space Odyssey

1969

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

1970

Patton

1971

The French Connection

1972

The Godfather

1973

American Graffiti

1974

The Godfather Part II

1975

Dog Day Afternoon

1976

All the President’s Men

1977

Star Wars

1978

Dawn of the Dead

1979

Alien

1980

The Empire Strikes Back

1981

Raiders of the Lost Ark

1982

Blade Runner

1983

Vacation

1984

The Terminator

1985

Blood Simple

Ran

1986

An American Tail

1987

The Evil Dead 2

1988

Die Hard

1989

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

1990

Miller’s Crossing

1991

Beauty and the Beast

1992

Unforgiven

1993

Army of Darkness

1994

The Hudsucker Proxy

1995

Toy Story

1996

Fargo

1997

LA Confidential

1998

The Truman Show

1999

Being John Malkovich

2000

Unbreakable

2001

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

2002

The Two Towers

2003

The Return of the King

2004

Shaun of the Dead

2005

Serenity

2006

The Prestige

2007

No Country for Old Men

2008

Wall-E

2009

Where the Wild Things Are

2010

Toy Story 3

Inception

SPOILERS BELOW. LOTS OF THEM. LIKE, I RUIN THE WHOLE MOVIE.

DO NOT READ UNTIL YOU'VE SEEN IT.

There is a moment in Inception where Cobb (Leo DiCaprio) asks Ariadne (Ellen Page) to “make a maze in two minutes that takes more than a minute to solve.” This is meant to test her abilities as an architect of a dream puzzle that will ultimately have to fool somebody so fully that they will believe it to be the real world. Christopher Nolan spent ten years writing Inception. By Cobb’s standard for a good puzzle, it should take us five years to figure it out. As most of the seasoned filmgoers who went to see the movie this weekend have pointed out, it really doesn’t appear that hard to figure Inception out. In fact, I’ve had lots of friends tell me that they didn’t even think they owed the movie a second viewing, because they got the extent of it the first time through. It seems to be a traditional blockbuster, dressed up with an uncannily intelligent script. However, I (the critic of a movie that is all about what is real, or more succinctly, not real) would like to point out that that’s just what they want you to think.

The title Inception refers a process by which a skilled team of dream engineers enters the mind of a subject and tries to get that subject to accept an idea. More specifically, the engineers stage what is essentially an environmental improv in dream form, to sell the target on some notion that they will carry with them into the real world. It’s a tough gig. More than one person declares, “But that’s impossible!” It is not impossible however. As a matter of fact (and though you may not realize it) it is happening to you as you watch the film.

Inception essentially is film. Movies are streamlined dreams, carefully constructed to pull us into an impressionable state, so that once our guard is down we will accept their ideas. Inception (the movie) studies the value of those ideas as they apply to the real world once we leave the dream. It’s not a new idea. My favorite film, Buster Keaton’s Sherlock Jr., does essentially the same thing, and was a great key for me to start unlocking Nolan’s puzzle. You see, Inception has a lot of ideas of its own. The movie is about Dom Cobb, a dream engineer who has been on the run since he was framed by his wife for her own murder (and seriously, if you’re still reading at this point without seeing the film, you’re already going to have less fun, but get out before it gets any worse). The movie appears to follow the traditional hero’s journey, in which Cobb must go on a quest to overcome his demons. At first he believes he is facing his greatest challenge to return to his family, but ultimately he understands that he is really fighting to find inner peace and overcome his guilt.

That’s the first layer of the deception that the movie is taking us on. Like the heist in the film, the movie establishes its first layer as the real world before it takes us deeper. We might be able to recall that we are sitting comfortably in cushy seats (like the target, Robert Fischer Jr. [Cillian Murphy] might have been able to do), but we’re more than ready to accept a world where gun fights and street chases take place on a regular basis. This willingness to latch onto the absurd in movies is linked to the willingness to accept the absurd in dreams. There’s a certain amount we are willing to take for granted right at the get go, and the movie takes full advantage of it. For instance, we accept film cutting as a common technique. However, traditional film cutting is also the way the movie displays its dream inconsistencies. Where is the cutting traditional film and where is it a dream? You might think you know, but that is only because you accept the movie’s traditional story, because it is the kind of story that all movies have. Even when the movie is putting all of the answers right in front of your face, telling you to look deeper, 90% of the audience will not expect anything out of the ordinary until the film’s final moments. Even after the movie is over, most of the audience will reduce the movie to one simple question (is the film’s ending a dream or reality)?

The second layer of deception that the movie employs is its themes. Within Inception, there are clear themes about truth, grieving, and the danger of ideas. But from the wider perspective, all of this is actually a pretty interesting discussion on the nature of film. Like Inception, films put the audience in situations that are lies. No film, not even a documentary, is truth, because there is some form of manipulation to give it to us in a desirable form. However, once those ideas take hold, they go with us into the real world. We can choose to accept or reject them, but once they take hold, there’s no telling what their negative impact might be in a world where they do not fit. Dom went into his wife Mal’s (Marion Cotillard) mind to convince her that the world she was living in in limbo was not real. That was the truth. But the idea that he sold her was one that would ultimately kill her. On the other hand, Fischer’s deception during the heist is totally a lie. We all know his father never loved him. That’s one of the surest things in the movie. But the idea that he takes away from envisioning a scenario in which his father did love him was ultimately a positive one. A positive lie had a good effect. It all reminds me of The Dark Knight, where two major lies (Alfred’s withholding of Rachel Dawes’ letter to Bruce and the coverup of Harvey Dent’s crimes) turn out to be the salvation of Gotham City. If you accept that these ideas are limited to a movie that is unintentionally committing the same sins it is decrying, then you don’t know Nolan.

I know I had sort of a theme going with the layers of deception, but I’m going to break off it for a second. I had a whole ton of good, funny material to point out the film’s flaws. But really, who am I to say that anything in the film is a flaw and not a clue to unraveling the puzzle? Maybe the entire movie works perfectly when viewed the way Nolan intends it to be and not filled with our own expectations of what a movie should be, as Fischer does with the dream created for him. Seriously, Nolan has made it very public that he spent ten years writing this movie. Do you think he would leave any flaws after all that cleaning up? Do you think the mind that has written Memento and The Dark Knight would settle for a movie as shallow as some people have claimed Inception to be, especially after all that work? Some people complain about the lack of character development and the heavy amount of exposition the movie employed. These things bothered me a lot too when I first saw the film. But like the dream henchmen in Fischer’s subconscious, aren’t all of these characters just projections of the dreamer, Nolan’s, mind anyway? Couldn’t the heavy exposition be just like the one technique the film employs, in which Cobb pretends to lead Fischer through the mystery, handing him all of the answers, all of which are actually lies or at best, stretched truths? One review I read for MTV claimed that the film’s use of metaphorical names (Ariadne was a Greek goddess who helped Theseus defeat the minotaur at the heart of the labyrinth) was useless. That is, unless it is a clue to understanding that the external world is all part of a dream, these names extensions of archetypes that would be playing around in someone’s subconscious. Greek mythology has often been considered one of the most primally archetypical forms of storytelling, and as each character verbally expressed their desires and functions in the story, I couldn’t help but feel that there was something beneath the surface. When characters with names from Greek myths are verbally stating the function of their corresponding archetype, coming from a voice that is supposed to represent a full character... do you see where the discussion starts here? One could perhaps argue that regardless of purpose, expositional dialog makes for a slow moviegoing experience. Well, Nolan has an incredible cast carrying his exposition, and I'm not sure how a person could get bored at this movie, regardless.

Some people have complained about the film’s lack of dream logic. I myself have made public the opinion that Spike Jonze and Charlie Kaufman could have written a more engaging, more complex, more colorful script. While I still think those two could have infused a little more humor into what was an oppressively serious film, I would now say I consider Nolan their equal. You see, utilizing any more than the most basic dream logic would have defeated the whole point of the film. The film is not about dreams at all. Just like forged images were the sole territory of dreaming until the dawn of cinema, in this fantasy universe these dream thieves have turned dreams themselves into streamlined efforts by making them all about corporate protection. These dreams are controlled environments, their secrets fully unlocked so that they can be manipulated to deceive or protect for various reasons. Most of the these reason are not personal, but are rather of a political nature. In other words, in this universe, dreams are movies. They are fully immersive movies, but they are movies nonetheless. Maybe they’re video games, since people can interact in them. But nonetheless, since the whimsical nature of true dreaming is not controllable, it has been eliminated.

Why do we go to the movies? Do we go to experience new ideas? Maybe. Do we go to find catharsis? Certainly. Do we go to be challenged? Not as much as we used to. Christopher Nolan has created a movie that does all of these things, and speaks to their quality at the same time. You can leave the movie engaged in a discussion about what lies are healthy and what truths are dangerous, which can lead us all around the realm of philosophy, politics, and religion. The film’s widest audience will leave with a slightly enhanced version of the same experience they always get at the movies, following the hero’s journey to see a character overcome their inner demons in a unique, exciting, and interesting way. You can enjoy Nolan’s action and knack for creating a sense of awe on the screen through images like the gravity bending hallway fight and the Parisian city folding in on itself (Seriously, the last hour of this thing is one of the most tense things ever filmed). And for the first time in a long time, the mystery of a major movie is actually a challenge to unravel. When the movie cuts to black, the top either spinning eternally or just about to topple, it leaves us wondering whether the movie’s ending is a dream. But if it is a dream, where did it break into a dream? There’s one place that would seem likely, but there are four or five places where the entire film could clearly have broken into a dream. Film buffs will have a blast trying to uncover them. Through making a movie that feeds itself on every level, Nolan has created the perfect summer film. It will work for the film buffs (at least the ones who can set aside their pride and dig beneath the surface) as well as the cinematically uninitiated. Even the simplest of audiences will have to leave the movie wondering why the complexity made it more engaging. They will talk about it with their friends, and maybe come to a more complete understanding of the potential power of film. This could be the salvation of the summer movie. Already there are loads of theories available for what Inception really means. At first I rejected all of this theorizing, assuming that Nolan’s message with his ending was that it doesn’t matter whether the movie is a dream or not. All films are dreams, so who cares whether the movie confirms or denies that its fictional world is real? But that eliminates a lot of the fun. Maybe Nolan left the truth in the film and maybe he didn't (I think maybe the script might be a set of penrose stairs like the ones used to loop the dream worlds). There are layers and layers and layers and layers in this movie, crossing over every single scene, possibly every shot (it certainly will be analyzed to that extent). Shots relate to other shots in odd ways. And it all feeds back to the question of what is real. Unlike similar movies like The Matrix, Nolan may have actually crafted a movie worthy of the scrutiny fans put such works under. Maybe that was his intention when he spent all these years writing it. Maybe not. It's an impressive feat nonetheless (like a mainstream Primer).

Comparisons have been made between Nolan and figures as influential as Hitchcock, Kubrick, and Tarkovsky. This has probably caused much of the critical backlash that has dropped the film’s tomatometer into the low eighties (critics would have you believe its just a little bit better than Despicable Me). And true, when you look at Nolan in light of those filmmakers (all of whom were interested in things far different than he is) Inception falls apart (also, too much mention of Kubrick and Hitchcock can be very dangerous. For those not sure of what I mean, look at the critical treatment of M. Night Shyamalan post-The Sixth Sense). Only when you view Inception solely as a Christopher Nolan film will you realize that it is a complex maze of ideas, deceptions, and emotions. He’s charting his own path into the stratosphere, and I think one day Inception may be considered his unappreciated masterpiece. I am always trying to find places in modern film where the critics got it wrong. After all, Hitchcock and Keaton were both pretty much critically maligned in their day. True art is ahead of its time, and should take a while for us to adjust to. While some will call Inception an experience devoid of heart and lacking in true humanity, it might just have a more tested heart than the gushy films that are its peers. Leastways, I think it is a mystery film to end all mystery films, where even the most seasoned viewers may get lost, never to return.

My Take on Lebron

Perhaps you've heard about this whole Lebron thing that has been in the news recently. Either way, I'm no expert, but I will throw my opinion around like I am one. People are talking about Lebron James going to Miami as if it is a bad thing (except the people in Miami). Are you kidding me? Lebron James leaving Cleveland invigorated the NBA to a classic status we haven’t seen in a long time. We already have a rivalry between Boston and LA to add some flavor the league, but not since the early nineties have the NBA’s lines been so clearly drawn between good and evil. You see, while Magic’s Lakers and Bird’s Celtics were primarily concerned with defeating each other, they also had to ally on occasion against a greater evil, Isaiah’s Pistons. The “Bad Boys” were the evil force in the NBA. They played dirty and to make matters worse, they won sometimes while doing it.

Now I’m not sure how they plan on playing ball on the court, but the Miami Heat have distinguished themselves as the league’s new definitive villains. Once the bright future of the NBA, Lebron failed to win a championship in his hometown of Cleveland. Seven years later, he has shed his hometown boy image for a championship and revealed himself for the villain he truly is. This is not a comment on whether or not he is a good guy. He could be the world’s nicest guy for all I know. But the way the last few months have played out, Lebron has run the lines of the archetypical Master of Darkness. Brought up as the great prodigy that would save the league, Lebron has always felt he was too good for the NBA. He refused to participate in the dunk contest with his peers his first few years in the league. He demanded his teams make stupid trades (Shaq anyone?) just to try to get himself a championship. He didn’t want it for his team. He wanted to win it for his legacy.

All the while, guys like Dwayne Wade were winning championships. And on top of that, Kobe Bryant just wouldn’t die, so Lebron couldn’t even capture the title of “League’s Best Player.” A good guy who was just a bit arrogant, Lebron eventually faced the ultimate temptation. Does he stay in his home and continue to fight the good fight in Cleveland (where they declared a holiday with his name on it and were ready to create a statue in his image), forever preserving his soul and remaining the arrogant good guy, or does he join the allying axis of evil in Miami, forsaking his one team image (that most of the greatest players in NBA history have)? He chose the latter, and now the league is suddenly looking at the evil triumvirate of Lebron, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh (read Germany, Italy, and Japan).

Suddenly the Lakers, going for three straight, aren’t the bad guys anymore. That little deal with the Pau Gasol sham (trade) is long forgotten in comparison to this new devilry. Suddenly the Celtics don’t want to die off so quickly anymore. The signing of Jermaine O’Neal shows that that ship is not ready to sail either. All around the league, teams are bolstering their forces like never before. Sure, part of it might have something to do with one of the largest free agent periods in league history, and I’m sure 90% of these deals were in the works before Lebron even thought about Miami, but you have to admit, there’s just a little added motivation to beat a team with three (yes, three) players receiving maximum contracts. That’s a team entirely comprised of star power.

Now let’s fill in the rest of the roles in this villainous saga. Udonis Haslem, one of the Heat’s best players from last year, is supposedly signing on for a mere 4 million to be a part of a championship team. That’s millions less than he could make elsewhere. That miserable sap who sacrifices everything for belief in the ego-centric villain is a great villain saga staple (remember Robert Duvall’s Tom Hagen from The Godfather?) Players like Zidrunas Illgauskas and others seem poised to sign for millions less than they were worth (most league minimum contracts) to be part of what they consider to be something special. This is a typical league practice (remember the Slowtime Lakers of 2004 who brought on oldtimers Gary Payton and Karl Malone for dirt cheap to try to get each of them one championship as a going to die present?) but here it feels just a bit more sick and twisted. Players are leaving the teams they’ve grown up with (the Heat reportedly asked Derek Fisher to jump ship from the Lakers), all so that they can win a championship. Unable to currently think of a better example, I’ll compare these guys to the trade federation from the Star Wars trilogy (Zydrunas Illgauskas sounds a lot like he would come from the same place as Nute Gunray). “But King James... promised us a championship!”

Pat Riley takes on the role of the mastermind of this whole equation. Once a great leader (he was with Magic and the showtime Lakers) he has used all of his powers to win once again, no matter what the cost (the next step is for him to fire the head coach and take over this superteam himself). And lastly, you have the once loyal trainer of the prodigy that has left. I’m not talking about anyone in Cleveland (where pretty much everybody has said “Good riddance” to the two-timer who drug them along two months of “What if’s” only to dispose of them in a very public, very cold shakeoff). I am talking about David Stern. David Stern has often held that Lebron is the future of the NBA. He sold Lebron as hard as he sold Michael Jordan. Nobody was more disappointed than David Stern when it was Dwayne Wade, not Lebron, who was the first kid from that class to win a championship. Stern has already fined the Cav’s owner $100,000 for calling Lebron a traitor in public. Stern, I am sure, will continue to support Lebron like he always has (even to the foreign markets who won’t bite because they are only interested in players who win championships). But it will prove his demise.

Because you see, nobody can win in this scenario. We have started down a path that will not end well. This is a tragedy. If Lebron wins, then it will never save his legacy because he needed a super team to do it. If he loses, then he couldn’t even win with a super team. Either way, King James has put an even bigger target on his back than he had before. And as much as I understand his decision, it will be really fun to see everyone take aim for that target as the next year progresses. A team with three good players can’t win in the new NBA. The Lakers are too good. The Celtics are too good. Heck, the Magic are too good. All around the league, teams are gearing up. Except now, there’s a new place to focus all of that energy. Without playing a single game, the 2010-2011 Miami Heat have become the team to beat. And everyone will play just a little bit harder to try to make sure that happens.

See. Isn't this more fun already?

New Script

I'm attempting to write an entire feature spec script in the next two weeks. The way I plan to do this is by making the script semi-autobiographical. It's not actually auto-biographical, but I fill in all the blanks with myself. It begins with a liberal, pot-smoking, novel-writing, agnostic, and bored out of his mind intellectual college student returning to his conservative Christian home after his antics get him kicked out of school. At first he considers his new situation as just another speed bump in his path to regaining his freedom and becoming a famous writer. However, he loses the motivation and ability to write and as he unsuccessfully applies to other schools, soon realizes that his stint at home isn't so much a temporary inconvenience as it is a permanent change he is going to have to adapt to. He keeps getting notes back on his stories, telling him his crimes are incredibly detailed but his characters lack motivation. He needs to try to find empathy to make the characters believable, but he can't. He begins trying to find ways to connect with the community he always hated, and even makes friends with some of the people he never spoke to when in high school. When his path leads him to spend time with the girl he had a crush on in high school, he suddenly realizes that he is dealing with many of the issues that he has carried with him since he left home. While in high school, he liked her because of theoretical things that they had in common (and him building her up to be what she wasn't), their shared experience in failing to fulfill their ambitious goals (she wanted to go to an Ivy League school to study business) is ultimately what brings them together. They both wanted to break free of their home, and it is exactly where they have wound up once again.

There's a bit in there about him being a master thief with an unshakeable moral conviction against stealing. In high school, while other people did extra-curricular activities and had social lives, he would break into and sneak around buildings like his school and leave notes on expensive equipment explaining how he could have stolen it. Unable to figure out a way to align his talent with his moral upbringing (which he claims would keep him from finding satisfaction even if he tried to shed it and just become a thief), he ultimately decided to write crime novels. While in college, he continued his streak of finding ways to beat the system and rebel. That is ultimately what gets him kicked out of college. Finally caught, his actions (and abysmal GPA) come as a surprise to his parents (who always assumed he was the perfect child he carefully allowed them to think he was). As the story progresses, and he sees his parents aren't the ignorant slaves to doctrine he thought they were (and that his own view on life and reaction to his boredom has kept him from seeing the ways he could be making a difference in the world around him), he starts letting lose and refusing to live two lives. While his parents may never understand him, he develops a working relationship with them (and stops lying to them. I'm trying to work on a cute way to acknowledge they know they are speaking to the real him and not the him that he always made them think he was). There's also a bit I'm working on with a gang that represents him overcoming his past, and the climax of the movie is them chasing him down and him losing them in one of the buildings he used to frequent as an amateur burglar. Only once he realizes that living is better than writing (and he doesn't have to hide who he was born to be or give up who he was raised to be) and seizes opportunities where they are presented to him, rather trying to force them where he wants them to be, does he come to learn empathy and actually write a successful book and move on to the next stage in his life.

It's a work in progress. It's quirky, a little idealistic and mostly a fairy tale. It's simple, but my thoughts of late have been pretty simple. I'm thinking of going the oddball Wes Anderson comedy route with it.

Summer Movie List

Summer Movie List

Below is a list of the movies that I am going to try to watch this summer. Hopefully I will grow in my understanding of the medium through these films. I always love summer because it frees me up a little bit to geek out over film. Here's the list. Feel free to recommend other films or tell me where I've gone wrong (or view some for yourself. The list is not copyrighted).

M. Hulot’s Holiday

The final Jaques Tati film (The Illusionist, which I had no idea was a Tati film until I read it in Ebert’s blog) will be airing decades after the man’s death. In preparation for the event, I will take my head knowledge about the filmmaker and convert it to experience by watching all of his celebrated whimsical comedies.

Playtime

The next adventure for Hulot.

Mon Ocle

The one after that. Really, for as big a fan of Keaton and Chaplin as I am, all these films just look awesome.

Monsieur Verdoux

I’m going to watch some more Chaplin over the summer. Never can get enough Chaplin. Some of his talkie stuff never interested me until I saw a lot of people claim this one as a masterpiece on par with his silent work. We will see people. We will see.

The Kid

One of the last essential Chaplin silent comedies that I have left to see. It’s an hour long and I even own it. Shouldn’t be too hard.

High and Low

Working on my Kurosawa. Getting away from reflective dramas and Samurai epics, I want to see some of the filmmaker’s variety this summer.

Stray Dog

This pic also reflects the above sentiment, and I geek out over the thought of a Kurosawa film noir.

Solaris

Tarkovsky’s Andre Rublev did nothing for me (I hear it’s a multiple viewer, so maybe I will get back to it eventually). However, as a sci-fi geek (who turned film elitist some time later), the key to my heart is through my inner nerd(I tried being more metaphorical by using blaster or lighstabre there, but realized they implied something entirely different). I get the feeling this will be a far more effective experience.

Mulholland Dr.

Too many people had this film on their end of the year best list for me to exclude it. Not sure what I will get. The only Lynch I’ve seen is Elephant Man (which I hear is by far his most traditional film). Looking forward to it.

Floating Weeds

There is a vague chance I will drop the entire rest of my summer’s plans and just watch Ozu. Floating Weeds has been on my radar for years (since Ebert called it one of his ten favorite movies of all time), but only now that I’ve seen several Ozu films do I think I’m really ready to appreciate it like it deserves.

Le Doulos

Last summer Melville was probably second only to Renoir for filmmakers to wow me. This summer I move away from his more established epics and watch some of his films that many of the New Wave filmmakers credited as influential in their work.

Bob Le Flambeur

Refer to the above comments on Le Doulos.

I Walked with a Zombie

I can’t get enough of Jaques Tourneur and Val Lewton. This is supposedly their best pairing (at least in the subjective opinions of my friends who’ve seen them).

Invasion of the Body Snatchers

More Lewton. His movies are amazing. I get the feeling that if I ever wind up making films, they will hopefully be like Lewton’s.

The Death of Mr. Lasarescu

I have a definitive favorite film of 2007 (No Country for Old Men), 2008 (Wall-E), and 2009 (Where the Wild Things Are). However, I continue my search for a definitive favorite film from 2006. This dark comedy has gotten a lot of positive feedback, and many tell me this is where my search will end.

Broadcast News

It seems minor, but I acted in a scene from it for a class and have read the screenplay. Seems a like a cute little film. Nothing mind-blowing, but that’s not necessary.

Punch Drunk Love

I’m going to give Paul Thomas Anderson another chance. If I like this, then tack Magnolia onto the viewing list. Otherwise, he will remain a guy who I really, truly do respect, but just can’t get into, like Scorsese.

La Dolce Vita

One of the most necessary films I haven’t seen; I confess I’ve only seen two Fellini films (8 1/2 and I, Vitelloni), and I consider one of them (8 1/2) to be a masterpiece.

The Lower Depths

Last summer Jean Renoir revived my love of cinema. This movie has been on my queue longer than I care to mention.

La Bete Humaine

More Renoir. I have a feeling I won’t be able to get enough of this guy over the summer.

The River

Still Renoir, but was recommended to me by a list of unsung classics. http://obscureforgottenunloved.blogspot.com/2010/05/40-critically-acclaimed-but-little-seen.html

Bela Tarr

No idea why it was in my queue, but when I saw it there, I read some critical response (which I must have also done a year ago when I first put it there) which excited me for it. It looks intriguing. I sometimes like reaching into a hat and seeing what I pull out.

Ride Lonesome

Also recommended in the aforementioned unsung classics list as the MOST under-appreciated movie of all time. As my top pick for that honor (Make Way for Tomorrow) comes in second on that list, I am excited to see this one.

Apocalypse Now

Still haven’t seen it. By definition that means I really need to. Forget what I said about La Dolce Vita. This is easily the most essential film on my list.

The Conversation

I have this incredible desire to see Tetro (for some reason I can’t really explain), but I feel like first, I should watch all the rest of essential Coppola. This and the above movie should suffice.

The Decalogue

The ten hour opus is something I tried to do last summer. It’s one of the most revered creations in cinema, and it definitely is one of the most acclaimed films I have not seen.

Metropolis: The Complete Version

Even taking into consideration Toy Story 3, Scott Pilgrim, and Inception, the return of Fritz Lang’s epic sci-fi masterpiece to the cinema is easily my most anticipated movie event of 2010.

The Asphalt Jungle

John Huston hasn’t really been on my radar for quite a while. All of his movies have somewhat underwhelmed me, but I’m going to give him another shot.

Barry Lyndon

I haven’t watched a Kubrick film since high school (almost four years now). 2001: A Space Odyssey is having a free screening near the end of the summer. I will almost certainly be attending that, but in the meantime, I’d really like to keep moving on in the man’s filmography.

The Killing

Early Kubrick excites me. Don’t know why. The movie has a great reputation as a top notch thriller.

The Stranger

I was stupid enough to believe the propaganda that Orson Welles only made one complete movie in his career, and it was the best movie of all time (Mr. Adarkin... I kid, I kid). Eventually I believed that he got two movies made (Touch of Evil, which had to wait forty years to get the director’s vision in front of an audience). Then earlier this year I saw The Trial, which absolutely blew me away. This summer I’m going to watch all the Welles I can get my hands on.

The Lady from Shanghai

It’s the only other Welles I can find on Netflix. I’m sure I will do more searching and hopefully find more.

I’ve also hoped to find some way to get my hands on some obscure silents (like stuff from Sjostrom, Pabst, Stroheim, and Lubitsch), but with no plan on how to get some of that stuff, I will have to keep scouring the internet for cheap ways of finding them.