Half-Shot Contest #9
I still haven't found a good half-shot related to the term "reverend." (And since the last winner was The Cubicle Reverend, I should be able to find SOMETHING related to that name.)
So, until I find one, here's another half-shot for you....
Any guesses?
Disney back to drawing!
"TRADITION, TRADITION, DA-DA-DA-DA.... TRADITION!"
Disney returns to hand-drawn animation! Thank goodness.
There's a beauty and a personality to hand-drawn cartoons that CGI just can't replace. Don't get me wrong, I love what can be done with digital animation. But to let it completely replace other styles of animation that have their own strengths? A waste. Since Disney started incorporating CGI into their animation, I can't say their films have improved much. I still prefer classics like The Rescuers and One Hundred and One Dalmatians to the show-offy Aladdin or The Lion King. Disney's tradition is time-honored and full of amazing feats, and there's a cetain "wow" factor when you know that each cell was lovingly hand-crafted. I'm glad it will continue.
First Impressions of "Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story"
Just saw Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull story, which really lives up to that title. It's a Charlie-Kaufman-like leap into the absurd, as we are drawn into the comical lives of the filmmakers and stars trying to make a movie of this "unfilmable" novel. Maniacally non-chronological, and full of comedian Steve Coogan's direct-to-the-camera commentary (in which he pokes fun at his own Hollywood disaster Around the World in 80 Days), it runs along like an adrenalin rush, but ends up leaving you with a bit of a burned-out feeling... something like a sugar crash. I laughed a lot and I'm glad I saw it. But reports from my friends who assured me it would be a 2006-Top-Tenner... well, they're much more enthusiastic than I am.
There's a lot of talk about how versatile Michael Winterbottom is as a director, and there's no doubt about it. But what about Frank Cottrell Boyce as a writer? Good grief, this is by the guy who wrote Millions? And Code 46? And 24 Hour Party People? And The Claim?
Steven Coogan and company deliver comedy so dry it chafes, which quickly made me think of it as The Office recontextualized on a movie set. Winterbottom manages that same brand of improv that strays just far enough into discomforting situations that there's a sting in every scene, something that makes it funny and painful at the same time. (Has any film ever had so many penis-injury jokes?) And the emptiness and ridiculous excess of celebrity culture were all documentary-like: convincing and enough to send your eyes rolling.
Winterbottom's clever editing recalls Michel Gondry's fantasy-land style, but for all of the bells and whistles that surprised me along the way, it felt like watching five episodes of The Office back to back... which is probably why it's best to watch The Office one half-hour at a time. It's amusing enough to be engaging, but too insubstantial to really satisfy a significant investment of time.
Fun to see Stephen Fry, Kelly Macdonald, and Jeremy Northam of Gosford Park all together again. Shirley Henderson (Yes) is always a hoot, and it was good to see Naomie Harris again, who was so striking in 28 Days Later. And I was thrilled to see Elizabeth Berrington of Secrets and Lies again. Gillian Anderson's scenes were fleeting but memorable.
Coogan does his Steve Coogan thing, which is funny some, but not all, of the time. Rob Brydon is hilarious, especially when he's just sitting next to Coogan and getting on his nerves.
Some scenes seemed poised for hilarity and outrageous developments, but they never quite delivered. The "womb scene" for example, felt like it went on and on and just became unpleasant. The "romantic subplot" wasn't at all satisfying. Naomie Harris's enthusiasm for Bresson and Fassbinder must have been funny on paper, but it didn't work for me in the film.
For me, though, the opening and closing bits between Coogan and Brydon were the funniest things in the film. I realized, as I laughed loud and hard at the end-credits sequence, that I'd much rather watch Coogan and Brydon just sit around and talk than watch this movie again. The film just seemed to dissolve into the air as soon as I left the theatre, and I don't feel any need to go see it again. There were moments when it felt like the film might actually be about something--namely, the way that celebrity and movie-culture clash with responsibility and family life--and that all ends well, but it's not particularly profound either.
Perhaps it would have been contradictory for a film like this to strive for profundity. But as absurdist comedy, it had this "close-but-not-quite" feeling more often than not. There are echoes of Spinal Tap, Living in Oblivion, and the Christopher Guest improv-driven comedies here. But nobody would need to persuade me to watch those again. And Tristram Shandy felt rather long and, at times, uninspired... or at least not inspired enough.
Julia Jentsch on Playing Sophie Scholl
Cinematical has an interview with Julia Jentsch, the actress who deserves an Oscar nomination for her performance in Sophie Scholl: The Final Days. (Alas, the film is only nominated for Best Foreign Film. It deserved a screenplay nomination and a Best Supporting Actor nomination as well.)
Thanks to Jennie Spohr
Jennie Spohr is wrapping up an impressive endeavor over at Seattle's University Presbyterian Church. The film festival she hosted, entitled "Dreams of Our Childhood," inspired quite a few moviegoers to look at films with greater discernment, to appreciate more fully the possibilities and the power of big screen art.
Thanks, Jennie, for your hard work. It was exciting to see people gathering in a church to discuss the rich veins of truth and beauty in films like Born into Brothels, films that many churchgoers would ignore, consider too volatile, or judge irrelevant. You're a brave and creative soul. Keep it up!
I felt out of my league sitting on the two Born into Brothels discussion panels, next to guests who do a whole lot more than just sit around and write about movies. It was a privilege, a pleasure, and a chance for me to learn a lot more about a film I already love.
What Would You Show in a Film Festival About "Calls to Conscience and Action"
Having just seen Born into Brothels again, I'm inspired to consider what other films have done such a great job of making us care about wrongs that need to be righted in the world.
If you were to host a film festival in hopes of inspiring viewers to apply themselves to serve a good cause, what films would you show? What matters would they ask us to consider? Some films are downright preachy, and they end up being more irritating than inspiring. What are the works of art that make us want to put our hands to the plow?
What are 3 - 5 films you would screen at the CALLS TO CONSCIENCE AND ACTION festival?
Updates on Paul Thomas Anderson and Brett Ratner projects
THERE WILL BE DANIEL DAY-LEWIS!
While the list of films I cannot wait to see in 2006 has grown rather large, none of them match my eagerness for the next Paul Thomas Anderson film -- There Will Be Blood. So any news about the next film from the director of Punch-drunk Love and Magnolia makes me lean very close to the screen to make sure I don't miss a detail.
Cinematical grabbed my attention today with a link to a (very poorly written) story about the script that's short on detail but long on enthusiasm. It also has the first bare-bones description of what the film is about...
The film concerns a man named Daniel, an oil prospector in the early 1900's. His quest to find and extract oil leads him on a rather confounded path lined with madness. The crux of the story revolves around a small community of people, namely a poor downtrodden religious family the Sundays, and their involvement in Daniel's agenda. It is here that Daniel interfaces with his counterpart, the Sunday's second-eldest son: a young preacher of 'God's word' whose abnormal evangelical style has made him a local celebrity. Both Daniel and Eli Sunday are looking to 'mine' a commodity deemed invaluable: one for oil, the other-faith. The two are on a collision course that can only be resolved in blood. The truths of this story, for me anyway, revolve around man's eventual need to address the widening gap between reality and superstition. This script speaks volumes about the dangers inherent to nihilism as well as blind faith.
RATNER SECOND-RATES HIMSELF
Meanwhile, Brett Ratner is sending mixed messages about his X-Men three-quel. He's attacking people who are making premature judgments that the film will be a disaster. But he's also talking about how Bryan Singer, who directed the first two, is "better at it" than he is. I do think that it will be hard to beat Singer's fantastic work in X-Men and X-Men 2, but come on, man... if you want to squash negative rumors, don't go around talking about how other directors could do a better job than you!
I sat next to Ratner on the X3 set for a while a few months ago, and I haven't commented on my impressions because I'm still grateful for the opportunity I had to go behind the scenes. But I will comment, when it comes time to run a review. For now I'll just say that it's very interesting watching people jump to huge conclusions about the finished film before the film is even finished, their pronouncements based entirely on a few photographs.
And it's also strange how different an exciting scene revealed in the preview looks if you were there to see how the shot was put together...
It's hard to block out all of the stuff you know that's just outside the frame... like the head honchos who were off to the side arguing about the difference between "John Hurt" and "John Heard."
I'll admit, I haven't been a fan of Ratner's previous films. But it's far too early to judge his work on this film, unless you've been there working with him and watching early cuts. I and all X-men fans should be rooting for him. If the fans revolt early, who's to say he won't lose his enthusiasm for the project and do less than his his best?
Ignore the hasty reviews, Brett. Show us you've got a great action film in you! The best answer to nasty pre-reviews is to prove them wrong with something awesome.
The greatest Bush impersonator in the world?
Steve Bridges may be the best George W. Bush impersonator in the world. And he made quite a splash at the Jeff Foxworthy Roast hosted by Comedy Central. Here's a video that shows off what he can do. [UPDATE: LINK REMOVED because they added pornographic images to the page. Fools.] It's only the briefest sampling. He gets started on a routine about Cheney here that is pure genius, but this clip only shows the opening lines of it.
I've seen this man perform at Biola... his alma mater. Even up close, his impressions are uncannily accurate.
Here's a page full of clips. Enjoy. It's just a matter of time before this guy's name is a household word.
(via Relapsed Catholic via Seize the Dei)
The New York Times' Stephen Holden praises "Sophie Scholl: The Final Days"
The film has opened in New York, and Stephen Holden is impressed.
Even the Village Voice admits it's an admirable achievement.
And now, Steven D. Greydanus is sounding the trumpets and heralding Sophie Scholl: The Final Days as an A+ motion picture. He calls it:
...one of a very few films that accomplishes one of the rarest and most valuable of cinematic achievements: It makes heroic goodness not just admirable, but attractive and interesting.
I'm telling you... Sophie Scholl is the smartest Christian female hero to ever grace the silver screen. If you can name a better one, tell us.
Sophie Scholl: The Final Days (2005)
This review was originally published at Christianity Today.
-
A number of big names — Dame Judi Dench, Keira Knightley, Charlize Theron, and Reese Witherspoon — were Academy Award nominees for Best Actress in 2005. And Witherspoon, the winner for her role in Walk the Line, certainly deserved high honors. But could it be that voters overlooked a performance that's even more riveting, memorable, and inspiring than any of these?
You may think so when you see Sophie Scholl: The Final Days, an Oscar nominee for Best Foreign Language Film. In this German-made movie, Julia Jentsch plays the role of a valiant 21-year-old hero who stood up against the Nazis, and who boldly proclaimed her faith even as she denounced Hitler as a liar. Watch her stand strong against the relentless, ferocious challenges of Nazi interrogator Robert Mohr, played with similar intensity by Alexander Held.
If the real Sophie Scholl was anything like the character played by Jentsch here — and the extensive research performed by director Mark Rothemund and screenwriter Fred Breinersdorfer indicates that she was — then she deserves a place alongside history's most revered and celebrated Christian women. We haven't seen a comparable clash between a principled heroine and a determined, malevolent villain since Agent Clarice Starling matched wits with Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs. But where Starling and Lecter only met in a few fleeting scenes, this battle of the minds goes on and on, until you're breathless with the heat of it.
Working from records of Scholl's interrogation and incarceration that had long been unavailable, Rothemund and Breinersdorfer give us a fast-moving, feverish account of six days, a span of time in which the determined young woman goes from a covert freedom-fighter to a prisoner. In the opening scenes, she's an enthusiastic, appealing student with an irrepressible zeal for the truth. She helps her brother Hans (Fabian Hinrichs) and a covert operation called "The White Rose" produce and distribute pamphlets that describe how the Third Reich caused the massacre at Stalingrad and forced Jews into concentration camps.
But when she's arrested, after a nerve-wracking covert operation at the nearby university, the true tests of her character begin. The virtue and verve that Scholl demonstrated, first in deceiving her interrogators, and later in endeavoring to save her friends and family from execution, will amaze you, just as the real Sophie Scholl inspired Germans. Today, more than a hundred German schools are named after her, and Jentsch's portrayal of Scholl may just inspire more brave young souls to pursue their own quests of justice and truth against all odds.
Scholl stands out on the big screen for several reasons:
First, she's not made up to be glamorous. Hollywood often gives audiences short cuts to feeling sympathy for "the good guys" by casting super-appealing, beautiful figures in the role. Jentsch's portrayal of Scholl lets her strength come from her argument, not her sex appeal.
Second, the filmmakers don't rely on exaggerating the wickedness of the villain in order to make us root for Scholl's survival. Instead, they portray her bravery as so audacious, so intelligent, and so spirited that we cannot help but stand in awe.
Which leads us to the third unique characteristic of Sophie Scholl— she relied on God, not herself, for strength, and Rothemund, a professing atheist, portrays her prayers without flinching. How many Christian artists are so willing to thoughtfully portray the perspectives of unbelievers? The filmmakers' work is an honorable tribute, in that they did not edit this aspect of her life in order to provide something more palatable for mainstream audiences. (Unfortunately, not all critics are willing to acknowledge this. One prominent mainstream critic tells us it was Scholl's "faith in the future" that sustained her. I'm not sure what movie she was watching.)
But Scholl is not the only highlight of the film. Held's portrayal of Mohr is also award-worthy. Moviegoers have become accustomed to soulless big-screen Nazis, but Held gives us a Gestapo agent with a mind like an engine, and we can see the gears in his brain grinding as he analyzes Scholl's impassioned defense. He starts out looking to ensnare her. But as he sifts her words, his face takes on a haunted pall — he realizes, on some level, that he cannot win this fight even if he kills her. She has the moral high ground, and he knows it.
Some may criticize the film's other memorable villain — Nazi judge Roland Freisler (André Hennicke) — whose hysterical shrieking and gesticulating from the bench look like a textbook case of overacting. But records show that, indeed, this is a spot-on impersonation of one of Hitler's maniacal henchmen.
Martin Langer's cinematography is sufficient, but hardly imaginative. And greater attention to the early scenes might have helped acquaint us with Scholl's personality and past better. But the film's effect on viewers is undeniable. It won two Silver Bear awards — Best Director and Best Actress — at the 2005 Berlin International Film Festival, along with its nomination at the Oscars. And mainstream critics, some of whom jump at the opportunity to smack down faith-oriented films for shoddy craftsmanship, are raving about how deeply it moved them.
If this is not reason enough for you to hurry out and buy a ticket, consider one more remarkable aspect of this film. Rothemund and Breinersdorfer remember to consider something about their champion that most hero-movies forget — her parents. When we meet Scholl's mother and father, they are understandably distressed. But they are proud as well — proud that their daughter would rise to acts of courage and conviction; proud that she learned to care for the weak and the oppressed; proud that she would not merely swallow what her government told her, but followed her curiosity to the truth. Heroes do not spontaneously burst from the ether — they are raised.
That's the kind of heroism the world needs today, both from young people who care about the future, and from parents who set an example. So even if you know how the story ends, take your family, friends, and neighbors to see Sophie Scholl: The Final Days. It's one of those rare and wonderful films that offers a vivid portrayal of faith without compromising standards of excellence.