Change

I was just thinking today about growing up. I was looking at a movie list that I made less than a year ago. There were a whole bunch of selections on the list that I would consider pretty amateurish to say the least. I strongly disagreed with many of them, on the basis that I now know a lot more about film and I think I could piece together a far more impressive list.

I don't always just think about movies (although even my non-movie related Facebook statuses seem to gravitate towards that subject). This idea of how quickly I have changed soon took a new turn. I thought of all of the things in the last year that I did without a second thought that I would never do again. They don't have to be huge things. Some of them are just little things (like how upset I would get when people would ask me to stop throwing things at their windows to let me in).

The truth is that I feel like a different person than I was one year ago. And a year ago, I felt like a different person than the one I was the year before that. At times, I can barely comprehend the person I was. And it makes me wonder, what things do I do now that will be incomprehensible to me a year from now? What habits to I consider commonplace now that I will completely have discarded soon? What attitudes will seem childish to me? Is it a part of growing up, or is it just me adapting to my circumstances?

I've often times criticized other people for being "crazy". But the more I see, the more I think craziness is a temporary mental state more than a permanent one, and it is a mental state I have often exhibited. I think the way to counter it is to always try to think rationally about everything you are doing. Looking back, my biggest regrets come from times when people couldn't tell me I was wrong. I have a tendency to either stand still or run as fast as I can (my parents have told me that when I learned to ride a bike, I would always speed up if I thought I was going to crash). It helps me in some ways. It is one of the attributes that helps me work on my films. However, socially and academically, its often times very negative, and when I obsess, it is hard for me to see the bigger picture.

Taking this to a slightly broader place for a second, I was reading some stuff about a kid who committed suicide because someone at school was mercilessly picking on him (it happens all the time). To any sensible adult, this would seem like the most absurd thing in the world; throwing away an entire life because of the negative feedback from one douchebag. However, I think the trouble was that this kid couldn't see the bigger picture. Sometimes, we just can't. It is so easy to fit the entirety of our lives into whatever size frame we feel like at the time. I personally just went through a stint of time where I couldn't see the bigger picture. I couldn't see any value in myself at all. The trouble was that I wasn't able to see what was working on the outside; that maybe the problems I was experiencing were a direct consequence of my attitude. I don't think there is ever a time when it isn't a good idea to step back and evaluate how we are living our lives.

Taking my final point even broader, I was talking to a friend about the Nazis the other day. We were talking a little bit about the relationship between morality and social norms. Had the Nazis won the war, the odds would be in favor of you and me adhering to at least some of the terrible (I'd say evil) policies exhibited by them. I truly think that World War II was a fight between good and evil, ideologically separated. It wasn't a religious or political war at its core. It was a war for the soul of mankind. Were we going to follow the Aryan ideal of race science and devalue the sanctity of life, or were we going to continue to try to extend freedom to the masses? This is so simple, and yet, look at Germany during the time of the war. Look at all of Europe. I watched the movie Open City over the summer. It was the first Italian Neo-Realist film ever made, shot within weeks of the "defeat" of Italy. It documents how people who had been friends before the war were torn apart, some taking the side of the Axis powers, and others choosing to fight and flee and give up their daily lives on a moral basis. What determined who would choose one way and who would choose the other? This same basic principle is also highlighted in Quentin Tarantino's Best Picture nominee, Inglorious Basterds, during which two people, a Nazi and a Jew in hiding, sit and discuss movies together. They might have been bound together by their love of cinema in a different time, but the wall between them is insurmountable, because it is the ultimate line that can be drawn between people.

Mankind has corrected himself in the past (look at the Reformation and the Renaissance), but it was always a reaction. Some event has always caused man to change. Even when I write, it never makes sense to just have a character change for no reason. Something has to happen to them. I believe that God also has the power to help people change. However, people don't always change, even when they try. It is a difficult thing for me to understand, and it can be depressing. Still, I use it to motivate myself to try to always look at the broader picture. Even when I can see no other options, I choose to wait for a clear mind. Imagine turning right on a crowded interstate when you can only see out the left window.

Even the wisest cannot see all ends. Even though at heart I am typically a pessimist, and thousands of things happen daily (some in my direct sphere of influence) that could easily cause me to lose all faith in humanity's worth, I press forward. Because only by doing that can I be productive. Only by trusting that God has a plan and I just can't see it can I move forward with the assurance required to make a difference in the world. I recognize that it is dangerous to impart my own idea of God's plan on my life (I realize that many of the worst evils in history have been done in the name of God), but it is nonetheless vital that I understand the worth of my actions as part of God's larger plan. It should make me consider even more the consequences of everything I do, and even when I cannot see the logic in doing what is right, I have a base from which I can be reminded that change is possible and necessary in this world.

People

So, I've been trying to complete some sort of screenplay for the last few weeks (I've got four different projects I am working on). I really want to shoot something before the Pixar lighting internship submissions are due. However, I feel like I'm kind of in a rut. I can't tell if it is just me being unmotivated, or if I've just grown tired of writing about the topics that seem most pressing on my mind.

Often times, my protagonists are running from something. They've done something they consider irredeemable, and they seek redemption, although I often don't feel like I want to give it to them.

On the other hand, I also use protagonists who come to some sort of realization that the rest of their world doesn't. This results in loneliness. When they take action to correct the loneliness, it backfires on them and everyone else. Just about everything I write turns out to be some sort of tragedy.

I also have a lot of trouble writing any sort of sympathetic supporting characters. In all three of my previous screenplays, every single one of my supporting players were completely irredeemable. They were hopelessly prejudiced in some way that is meant to cause the audience to reject them.

I also have trouble seeing any of my characters as likable. I don't love them, which I've been told is essential for someone writing a script. I relate to them, but I don't want them to succeed. If they succeed, that would hint that I believe there is success in following similar actions. Only their worst actions succeed, as that actually constitutes a failure. I almost want to punish them for being the way they are.

It's kind of odd. I wonder if perhaps I'm meant to get one, really good script out of this sentiment before I move on, or if this is going to be a running motif for the immediate future, or if I just need to try to break through the wall of my current emotions and write something super-light and fluffy. Not sure.

Avatar

This is not a review. I have not caved. I still will not see Avatar, but as the film is currently, unavoidably the most important topic in my favorite art form, I feel that I must address it. How can I address a film that I have not seen, and do not intend to see in the near future? Well, by bringing up points without insisting upon them. This is best done in the form of questions, which I will ask you, the reader. I will provide insight that I have gathered from watching other movies, and I will ask you how you really think Avatar relates to them. I am hoping to guide people through the process of elimination I have gone through in dismissing the film without actually seeing it. Let's see if my reasoning works.

1. Avatar has recently raked in over two billion dollars. This is not as impressive as it sounds when you figure in inflation, but it is a lot of money. Also, Avatar is yet to be dethroned at the box office, and it looks as though it could be something even more historic before the day is out. I have accepted this. Avatar, like it or not, is a piece of pop culture history. It is right up there with Jaws and Star Wars and The Graduate and The Sting and The Ten Commandments and all those other really, really big movies. But why? Why is Avatar a big deal? I recognize that it is a big deal. Why is that the case? I offer up my reasoning, based on the general consensus among the blogosphere.

3 years ago, I read an article that featured James Cameron, Peter Jackson, George Lucas, and other icons of spectacle entertainment filmmaking, saying that 3D was the future of event movies. 3D, which has been around since the fifties, had thus far been only a gimmick used to try to bolster sales of otherwise awful films. The flagship for the new 3D movement was going to be James Cameron's passion project, Avatar. It would be the first film built from the ground up in 3D (rather than scanned after the fact, as every other example of the genre). It was supposedly going to be the first, greatest example of how 3D would go from annoying red and blue to changing the medium of cinema forever. It was in this sense that Avatar was coined a "game changer". In the spirit of The Great Train Robbery and The Jazz Singer, the movie was meant to change the way we view movies forever. Regardless of story, character, or any other quality factors, if Avatar was able to do this thing (change cinema forever) then I would be willing to accept its popularity.

The first question I pose is, was Avatar actually a game changer? Did the movie you saw in theaters change cinema in the same vein as the dawn of sound or color? Did it legitimize 3D as the second coming of entertainment, taking it from a gimmick to a vital piece of filmmaking that will become a future mainstay of film forever?

2. Let's, for a second, say you answered yes to the last question. I'm not saying you are wrong. Again, I haven't seen the movie, so I can't say one way or the other. But I will ask a couple of other questions and cite a few more examples.

In 1903, the biggest movie was The Great Train Robbery. It featured groundbreaking shot variances and was generally exciting, something film prior had entirely failed to be. For ten years it reigned as the world's most popular film. The Great Train Robbery also, however, featured film coloration. It was a process in which film was painstakingly colored. This wasn't color film. It was film coloring. Gun smoke was painted orange. A dress was painted red. The entire frame was not colored, but one vibrant color was added to enhance the scene. This is what is known as a gimmick. The Great Train Robbery also spawned many films that featured this coloring process. So, in a sense, it spawned two movements. It changed the way films were shot and sold, and it caused a few films to be colored. Of course, coloring film didn't last forever. Even long before color film came along, that process was long dead. However, when The Great Train Robbery came out, its impact was felt in that way as well.

Here's the parallel I am drawing. The Great Train Robbery is now historic, not for any cheap color effects (no matter how much they impressed audiences at the time) but because it was, without a doubt, the most exciting, impressively directed, and realistically acted film to date. Its coloring technique died, but its legend remains. What category here do the effects of Avatar fall under? Are we going to wear 3D glasses to the movies forever? Will 3D on DVD be viable? Did Avatar change how exciting cinema could be, or did it temporarily give us something new to look at that excited us because we had never seen it before? When we are no longer blown away by things all around us (early film audiences screamed when a train drove past the camera in a shot), will we just grow tired of wearing the annoying, color-dulling glasses (that get smudges on them if we accidentally touch them after eating popcorn. Smudges that don't go away for the entire movie)? Avatar has inspired a lot of people to re-do their movies in 3D (which kind of defeats the point, actually, as Avatar was supposed to be the selling point for ground-up 3D). Are these movies part of an eternal change, or part of a movement?

3. Avatar's price was once estimated in excess of five hundred million dollars. That includes advertising. Cut that out, and you still have a movie that cost around three hundred million dollars to make. Most studios would not be comfortable doling that out on just any project. Now that the technology is there, how expensive will it be for the next project? Will it cost around the same (it won't drop a lot just because it's been done now)? How willing will audiences be to shell out money for the next example of this tech? How about the example after that?

In 1927, The Jazz Singer brought sound to film. It effectively changed film forever, as only a few people like Charlie Chaplin were capable of keeping silent film going in the face of the audience demands for sound. The effects of the change have been well documented (directly by Singing in the Rain and indirectly by Sunset Boulevard). Chaplin wasn't just a stubborn person. There was a reason why he kept making silent films. You see, film technology wasn't ready for sound yet. Recording equipment was cumbersome, and cameras had to be moved into sound stages (and utilize huge microphones that were hard to hide in shots). Because sound tech hadn't advanced as far as film tech had, nearly half a decade of film was considerably less artistically interesting because of the advent of sound technology. Had sound come later, then film could have eased into the tech and everything would have transitioned much more smoothly.

District 9 cost 30 million dollars to make. That is a tenth of the cost of Avatar. A tenth. I know I'm repeating myself, but you could make TEN District 9's for the cost of ONE Avatar. However, District 9 was a huge hit. It is up for a best visual effects nod at the Oscars, same as Avatar. Also, because District 9 cost less, director Neil Blomkamp was able to try more difficult things with it. Do you think a studio would allow a 300 million dollar epic to intensely discuss Apartheid or take a new, upcoming actor on a fairly unique, often unlikable journey? Probably not. I understand that Avatar is simple because it NEEDS audiences to like it in order to justify its cost. However, do we want the future of cinema to do this? Do we want movies to sell out on story in order to justify bigger, more spectacular effects? If that is the case, Avatar is just the beginning. There will come a bigger, more spectacular film, and then another, and then another, and story as propped by the likes of Spielberg and Jackson (master entertainers whose work Cameron has yet to come close to) will die on the big budget film altar. I for one want to return to the days when the big movies out were Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars. For those who also wish for that, does Avatar point us in the right direction? Is it a step towards the storytelling that made those films enduring classics? Would a Disctrict 9 approach (cheaper, less financially risky, helpful for more intensity and more risk-taking) get us there better? Would flooding the market with District 9's or Avatars help film more as a medium?

4. I really don't mean to be a wet blanket with this whole Avatar thing. It is not my intent to be contrarian (I love being contrarian, but that is not my motivation here). I just think we've jumped the gun on calling Avatar groundbreaking. Any film with lasting significance has had some story to enhance with its legend. It just feels like the plot points of Avatar have all been tread over a million times. I've yet to hear a single person defend the film's story, characters, or ideas. The very definition of a gimmick is something, unnecessary to a good story, used to fix a bad one so we don't notice it is so awful. Can Avatar take 3D out of gimmick territory if it uses the medium as a gimmick itself? Can it be a game changer if all elements but one are the same game we've been watching for a hundred years?

I'm not saying anything about 3D. Toy Story 3 was ground up 3D, and I am very excited to see the possibilities presented by the master storytellers at Pixar (Up was the first film that helped me realize that maybe 3D was could be more than a gimmick). But does Avatar deserve all of the awards and the prestige and the popularity that it is earning? It is getting all of the recognition of a movie that has changed cinema, and yet I think we are all jumping the gun there. Time will be the judge of that, I know. But in thirty years, will we look back on Avatar as fondly as we do on Star Wars? Or even Lord of the Rings for that matter (people always forget that Gollum revolutionized mo-cap and Massive is still the standard for giant, epic battles)? Big filmmaking requires a big vision, that goes beyond just the tech. The Wizard of Oz wasn't even close to the first film to be shot in color, but I defy you to name a movie before it that featured the technology. Your remember Oz because it was a good movie, not just because of its popularity. I have not seen the film, so disregard the following statement, but I think there is as much truth behind Avatar's declaration that it has changed film as there was behind 2012's assertion that the world might end in two years. All things pass in time. Only true art lasts.

The Oscar Nominations

February is here. Winter has officially separated itself from any of the holidays that make it the least bit enticing, and those of us who inhabit the extreme end of the northern hemisphere get to wade through another month of senseless, hopeless winter. Perfect for this time of year are the two big events that will occur over the next two weeks, Valentines Day and Oscar nominations (the latter being as big, only in the sense that I am a movie nerd, and the former having never borne any significance in my life aside from being the most depressing day of the year). For both of these days, expectations run wild. Lots of names get thrown around, and people rank and try to justify their selections. But ultimately, it is always just one big popularity contest, and a lot of deserving people get left out of the loop.

Below are my thoughts on the nominations from what has been a decent year in cinema. In spite of mindless action flicks like Avatar and Transformers raking in loads of cash (and mindless, I don't even know what they have going for them, flicks like Twilight setting some early records as well) this has been a decent year in movies. Sam Raimi returned with one of the best horror films of all time (although that has nothing to do with the Oscars, who ignored it). Spike Jonze gave us what could be the greatest film of all time about growing up (again, not mentioned by the Oscar selection committee). Science fiction was incredibly well represented, with big movies raking in cash, as well as small, introspective indies like Moon (I almost forgot about this one, considering my most recent reminder was the Oscar nom list on which this film is never once mentioned). Miyazaki pleased fans with another great animated film (do I hear an echo in here?)

There were some smaller victories. The Coens are up for best picture again (although the fact that they aren't always up for Best Picture is more a travesty than this is a victory). Fans will be pleased that District 9 is in the Best Picture category, although I think this was more of an attempt by the Oscars to boost ratings than any reward for anything good the film might have done (note the other movies on this list). Pixar brought their A game once again and Up became only the second animated film in history to get a Best Picture nod (okay, this was kind of a big deal, although let's be honest. It's only half a victory since there were ten nominations. It's not really in competition, and the inclusion of The Blind Side and Avatar [this one as a forerunner] basically cancels out any good vibe that decision might have created). Maybe they will finally win best original screenplay (the award they've been nominated for and deserved like eight out of the last fifteen years).

I don't claim to have seen a lot of films from the last year. I'm kind of catching up in that front. But, I have seen enough of the films on the list that shouldn't have been nominated to know that some of my pics should have. So, below, rather than post the flawed Oscar list, I will post my own personal list and link the Oscar list above for a point of reference.

Best Picture

Where the Wild Things Are

- Let's just ditch the whole list of nominees. It is broken. Even with ten nominations, there is no room among the Oscar elite for original thinking or bold choices. Both of which have defined the career of Spike Jonze and personify this film. It is the most important and powerful movie of the year (for my money, the best film to be released since Wall-E).

Best Director

Pete Docter (Up)

-It's high time Pixar got some directing recognition. These guys churn out some of the most engaging, intelligent, unique, well made films, and they do it consistently. They don't settle for crap like Avatar. They do traditional, entertainment filmmaking at a level that hasn't been topped since the original Star Wars saga. Like Stanton last year, Docter pushed the technology, not just for the sake of pushing technology like Cameron, but for the purpose of telling an incredible story.

Best Original Screenplay

A Serious Man (The Coens)

-Even though I mentioned above that Pixar deserves to eventually win a Best Original Screenplay nod, this is not their year. This year belongs to the Coens. Reading the script for A Serious Man is a revelation. It is filmmaking at a level not being matched right now. They take depressing, reflective topics and make them hilarious (almost a perfect mirror of life). It is Fargo for Jews. These guys should be a lock, even for the duller minds of the Oscar voters.

Best Adapted Screenplay

Where the Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers)

-Again, it's not up for competition, but I think Maurice Sendak (author of Where the Wild Things Are in book form) said it best in some AMC First Look thing. Spike Jonze took his book places that children's books can't go, but kept the spirit of the book and the ideas of the book fully intact. In fact, he didn't just keep them. He expanded upon them. He made them better. He took a book with less than thirty words and made it into something that speaks volumes.

Best Animated Film

Up

-I'd like to pick Fantastic Mr. Fox for this, as it is also an animated film among my five favorite movies of the decade. However, the first ten minutes of Up beat pretty much every film beneath it. Best Animated Film feels like a consolation prize. Up is TOO good for this award. It was one of the best years in the history of animation, and even so, Pixar managed to stay that much further ahead. Expect Toy Story 3 to get snubbed next year as a result of backlash for Pixar's surefire Oscar threepeat.

Best Score

Up (Michael Giachino)

-It was between this and Where the Wild Things Are. Listening to either of them provides about the same amount of euphoria (somewhere between skydiving and winning the Super Bowl, not that I'd know either feeling, as I've never been Skydiving and I am a Vikings fan).

Best Cinematography

Up

-Hey, if Avatar and Harry Potter could get this nomination with their 95% computer-rendered worlds, then I feel comfortable going the additional 5% and nominating Up. I can't help but see this year's Oscar list and long for 2007 when There Will be Blood, No Country for Old Men, The Assassination of Jesse James, and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly were all in contention. It was a different time.

Best Original Song

All is Love (Karen O, Where the Wild Things Are)

-Not nominated because Oscar rules about music are retar.... misguided. I would also push for Rumpus from the same album.

Best Visual Effects

Tie between District 9 and Where the Wild Things Are

-I can't nominate Avatar because I haven't seen it and don't intend to. Both of these two films pushed the boundaries of visual effects too. The former was made for 30 million dollars. The latter was one of the most stunningly beautiful visual experiences of the decade.

Best Actor

Max Records (Where the Wild Things Are)

-Hey Oscars. Go ahead. Give your awards to recognizable stars. At least the Globes had to courtesy to give Michael Stuhlbarg some love. You guys are as safe and awful as you've ever been. Here's one for you. I think young Max Records of Where the Wild Things Are gave as good of a performance as I have seen this decade. As I have seen all time. This kid's performance was the statistical equivalent of Anakin accidentally blowing up the Trade Federation Command Ship. It's so perfect that unless it actually happened, it would just seem contrived.

Best Actress

Oh just give it to Meryl Streep. I can't think of anyone else.

Best Supporting Actor

Chris Cooper (Where the Wild Things Are)

-Christoph Waltz is a lock for this award. I have no problem with that. But for posterity sake, I want to nominate one of the most impressive Voice Acting performances I have ever heard. Of all of the talented actors who leant voices to the Wild Things, Chris Cooper was one of the oddest picks, and also one of the most instantly distinguishably brilliant things about the film. He obviously understood the movie on the same level as Jonze and Eggers, and he pieced together something surreal. I don't even understand how a human comes to being able to do something like that.

Best Supporting Actress

Ellie from Up

-Best supporting actress is always hard for me. There aren't a lot of great character acting roles available to women. So I will go with a fully rendered performance, courtesy of Pixar. In her ten minutes on screen, she brought me to tears like twelve times (multiplied by the ten times I saw the film in theaters, so, more like over a hundred times).

Oscar Nominations