It’s the eponymy, stupid!

So here I am configuring Word 2007, and I discover that it can make blog posts. So I set it up to post on Blogger, and discover that I'm a poster on this blog—a fact that I had completely forgotten. Gee, says I, I guess I should post something.

Turns out that a few nights ago, Barbara and I saw a movie named—you guessed it—The Usual Suspects. In case I'm not the last person in the world who hasn't seen it, I won't reveal the plot, but I will recommend that you see it if you haven't already done so.

And once you do, you too will know who or what Keyser Söze is. Here's a hint—it's not a sled.

PS: I stole the title of this post from James Taranto.

Conquest of Space

Science Fiction fans take note. All others, well, read at your discretion.

As a kid, I didn't make it to the movies all that much, so I always looked forward to the science fiction offerings on TV. Many of the 1950s examples came from producer George Pal, perhaps best known for his adaptations of the H G Wells classics, "The War of the Worlds" in '53, and "The Time Machine" in '60. I also have fond memories of his "Destination Moon," from '50, perhaps the archetype of the goofy, adventurous space romp. It was touted as "Two Years In The Making!" and tried to be scientific, and for its day it did a pretty fair job.

In those days, all of these movies ran on TV several times a year. They were standard Saturday afternoon fair on Channel 5, and I watched them often. But there was one movie from this bunch that disappeared: "Conquest of Space," made in 1955. I saw it on TV when I was about 8 years old, but then it seemed to sort of, well, vanish.

"Conquest of Space," at least as well as I can remember, was a great movie for this genre. It was based on the space travel conceptualizing in a non-fiction book of the same name. This book featured illustrations by Chesley Bonestell, a respected space illustrator. Remember, this is way before Apollo, Mercury, even before Sputnik. We knew virtually nothing about space, or what spacecraft would look like, or how objects would behave in zero g. For these film makers, it was pure speculation, and I give them much credit. "Conquest of Space" was the first movie to feature a rotating, wheel-shaped space station, and a Mars rocket with separate fuel, descent, and ascent stages. Quite visionary for the mid-50s.

So... if it was such a good movie, why did it disappear from TV programming schedules around 1964? Well..... maybe it's because the general commanding the spaceship turns into a HOMICIDAL, RELIGION-OBSESSED, BIBLE-SPOUTING PSYCHO!!!

I mean, Holy Crap!

Last week, I saw that Netflix had added "Conquest of Space" to their collection. I was delighted, and popped it to the top of my queue. It is an excellent digital mastering job, extremely clean, with beautiful contrast and detail. I didn't remember much about the story... only that it involved a space station and a mission to Mars. I had absolutely no memory of the psychotic transformation that afflicts one of the central characters. He begins to feel that God doesn't want man to explore the planets, that a mission to Mars is the worst sort of blasphemy. He sabotages the mission, and even shoots his own son!

I mean, Damn! The scenes of his raving are intense, really dark, and make it clear why this movie faded out of the public eye. The greater question is how it was ever made in the first place. It is astonishing that a studio would have green-lighted such a script in the early '50s, especially considering that such films were aimed at a young audience.

As good classic science fiction and as a Hollywood curiosity, it's worth a look.

Who has time for movies? Me, once in a while...

I'd like to thank Netflix and some recent insomnia for allowing me to see a number of movies recently... and whatever luck that most of what I've seen recently has been pretty good. Quick rundown:

The Departed ****
I'm generally not a fan of Scorsese or DiCaprio, but I thought this was excellent. A dizzying spiral of who's-working-for-who and who's-betraying-who. Loved the parallel stories of the Matt Damon and DiCaprio stories - nice to see Damon has some range, here playing the bad guy for a change - with increasing tension as you know eventually they're going to come to a head. Jack Nicholson is over-the-top as ever, but there's a very nice understated Martin Sheen to balance him out. Pretty bloody, but not so much as a lot of gangster movies.

Children of Men *** 1/2
Dystopian near-future story, fabulous cinematography. Well-done overall.

Casino Royale ****
Worth watching for the few seconds Daniel Craig is in the blue bathing suit. Just kidding, husband of mine! Seriously, the best action movie I've seen in a long time, as it's just as character-driven as action-driven. The riveting opening action sequence involves "Free Running", starring the founder of this unique sport himself. The film tells the story of Bond just after he's been made a 00 agent, and he's a very different Bond... gritty, physical, ruthless, street smart, tough. Not so much the buttoned-down tuxedo-wearing martini-drinker of later films. Nice to see a smart, quick-witted Bond babe, too.

Curse of the Golden Flower ** 1/2
Thought this was going to be an Arty Kung Fu movie, along the lines of Hero... was disappointed that it was mostly Arty, not so much Fu. Depressing, tragic, full of opulent cinematography.

Cars ****
My 2-year-old son's favorite movie, I think he would watch it twice a day if I let him. Fortunately it's quite good, with two very nice voice performances by Paul Newman and Owen Wilson, and a little lesson about stopping and enjoying life rather than racing through and focusing on fame and glory.

The Devil Wears Prada ***
Light little movie, lots of fashion and a silver-haired and silver-tongued Meryl Streep.

The Prestige *** 1/2
Well-done, suspenseful, great performances by Michael Caine and Christian Bale. Rival magicians in 19th century England sabotage each other's careers and personal lives. I was shocked that I figured out the big twist of the end partway through the movie and turned out to be right. I never see these things coming but I thought this one was telegraphed... still a good movie. Disturbing the lengths to which a man will go for his art/career.

Munich ** 1/2
Very, very violent. Moving on some levels, but not sure it really worked. Seems like it wants you to sympathize with the Israeli assassins hired to retaliate for the murder of Israeli athletes by Palestinian terrorists, but that didn't work for me. Sort of questions the wisdom of retaliation and the endless cycle of killing the other side, but not enough.

CHILDREN OF HEAVEN

A nice look into a different culture, and a small but engaging story about childhood.

Children of Heaven is an Iranian film from 1998. The director is Majid Majidi, who has over a dozen films to his credit, several of them festival winners. This one was up for an Oscar, in fact, but lost out to Life is Beautiful.

It's the story of nine-year-old Ali and his younger sister Zahra, who live with their parents in a poor part of what I assume is Tehran. Chipped paint, ancient buildings and open storm drains in the street. We're talking poor, here: a single room, carpets but no furniture, some crockery, a cooking pot on a camp stove. The landlord comes by when Dad is out, to scream at Mom about the unpaid rent. Mom is sick, Dad is angry. There may be love in this home, but not much in the way of laughter.

Behind the opening credits, we watch a cobbler repairing a torn pair of pink sneakers, and the story is set in motion when Ali loses them on the way home. They were his sister's only shoes, and now she has nothing to wear to school. He suggests they share his sneakers until they can figure something out. She'll get them in the morning, he'll get them in the afternoon.

There are some side excursions from this narrative, but that's the main line. Of course, she'll be embarrassed, wearing dirty boy's sneakers that are much too large. She'll be delayed, so he'll be late. The Vice Principal will see him, ruler in hand, and demand explanations.

What struck me most was how consistently grim, authoritarian and unreasonable was the world of the adults. They almost never smile, are suspicious of the children and quick to anger. Think Oliver Twist in Persian. I wouldn't want to be a kid in the world of this film, and I can't remember if that's how adults seemed to me when I was a lad.

One of the few bright moments comes when Dad and Ali bicycle to the rich part of town, to find work as gardeners. Dad is as humbled by this world of money, mansions and faceless intercoms as his son is by the adults of his own neighborhood. But one old man agrees to put him to work, and Ali spends an afternoon playing with this man's grandson while Dad mulches flowerbeds and sprays fruit trees. Dad gets to do good work that he enjoys, and Ali gets to be a kid.

The big finale is a foot race, in which the third prize is a new pair of sneakers. It's beautifully shot, and great to watch as Ali tries desperately not to win, but to come in third. Winning would be comparatively simple, when you think about it. Third is much harder.

I don't know if I'd call it "heartwarming," which is a word that appears in many reviews. But it was watchable and sometimes touching.

On the Great Low-Budget Drama

Let us reflect briefly on the simple, unpretentious drama. The anti-blockbuster. The kind of movie that no one lines up for, and that often is never advertised on TV. Yet these small, humble, overlooked films are sometimes the best examples of film making.

What am I talking about? Well, "Monsters Ball" and "The Woodsman" are great examples. A powerful story, light-handed direction, and a group of fabulous actors. That's what it takes. But these are the movies that don't get much press, and even less buzz among fans. Such movies rarely draw major stars, and unless they do, they are sure to get little financing. (and there's a sort of uncertainty principle at work here.... when such films DO draw major stars, and big money, they often become too Hollywood... and then fail to realize the script's original potential.)

I've recently seen two films that got it right.

"The Trip to Bountiful" (1985) was written by Horton Foote, adapted from his stage play, and directed by Peter Masterson. It's not a great movie, but just see it for Geraldine Page's leading performance. She's an old woman, living with her son and daughter in law, desperate to see her old home one more time before she dies. Ms. Page won the best actress Oscar that year, and it's easy to see why.

Sadly, the movie as a whole never really feels like a movie. It is very visibly a stage adaptation, and at times you can darn near feel the proscenium just off camera. A better director would have made it more cinematic, and that would have helped. But don't let this deter you. The story is outstanding, and the actors are all first rate.

Horton Foote (also of Tender Mercies fame) has a very recognizable world view: "Life goes on." There are never any dramatic turns of fate in his stories, no miracles. The cavalry never comes to the rescue, and there is never a Hollywood ending. His is an honest view. He believes in what seem to be very small victories, which nonetheless are very large for the characters involved.

But now, a real gem.... "Affliction" (1998), written and directed by Paul Schrader. Wow.....

This is a "must see" film, in my opinion. Consider...
- A fabulously real character study
- probably Nick Nolte's best performance ever
- great roles by Sissie Spacek and James Coburn
- scene direction that is so simple and fluid it's virtually invisible

If I had to pick a perfect example of a a truly GREAT low budget drama, this would be it. It's not a perfect movie, but it's darn close.

I'm reluctant to say too much about it. It's dark, disturbing, and brutally honest, and just a great, great movie. High art, this film. Please give it a look.

PS: ...and I just thought of another one: "The Sweet Hereafter," 1997, writen and directed by Atom Egoyan, adapted from the novel by Russell Banks. If I had to compare them, I think this is an even stronger film than "Affliction."

Why Do Movies Suck?

This isn't a review of my own (I regret to say), but it is a pointer to a David Weinberger article that was published in the March 2007 issue of the Journal of the Hyperlinked Organization (JOHO). I've been a fan of his writing for years, and am sad that his newsletter has largely been replaced by his blog. I haven't quite evolved into the person I want to be -- a person who will be able to keep up with things in the blog world. But I'm trying.

Anyway, it's an interesting observation. It would be a good conversation starter, especially with some snacks nearby, and a glass at hand. You can read it here.

Six Feet Under

Six Feet Under was an HBO series that ran for five years, completing its run in 2005. All of the episodes are now available on DVD and if you've never had the pleasure of indulging in this provocative drama, I heartily recommend that you do so. I recently watched the entire series and continue to find its all-too-human characters and all-too-realistic situations invading my thoughts.

The series centers on the Fisher family, who run an independent funeral home in LA. The scripts are laced with wit, philosophy and black humor. With the central characters constantly confronting death, how could it not be? All of the characters, both major and minor, are fully realized human beings with endearing qualities as well as frustrating ones, flaws as well as virtues. They are some of the most three dimensional, complex characters that I have ever encountered in any medium. And they are depicted by marvelous, nuanced performers from the actors.

Nathaniel, the patriarch of the family, meets an untimely demise in the first few minutes of the initial episode. However, he still appears to his family members from time to time to chat with them and give them his take on their current situations. These visitations are not depicted as paranormal phenomena. Rather, they are projections of the living characters, imagining what the late Nathaniel might have to say to them at this time. It may sound hokey, but the device is seamlessly integrated into the narrative. Other deceased characters also take advantage of the opportunity to berate and advise.

Nathaniel's widow, Ruth, is an amazing admixture of middle-aged confusion, longing, whining and at times, a surprising wellspring of maternal strength and warmth. It is actually her sons, David and Nate, who run the family business. David begins the series as a closeted gay man and over the course of the show he slowly emerges. He and his partner, Keith, have more than their share of ups and downs. But they are the most realistically portrayed gay characters that I have encountered on the screen. The youngest Fisher is daughter Claire. We meet her in adolescence and watch as she grapples with rebellion, angst and hormones to become a quirky, talented young woman.

The series is laced with dark humor and each episode opens with the last few minutes before the death of a character. This is usually someone we have never seen before, but somehow the death will be integrated into the plot before the final fade to white, which is utilized in the series instead of the ubiquitous fade to black.

Before I began viewing, I had heard nothing but accolades for the final episode. I was not disappointed - it was nothing short of magnificent, building on everything that had come before. It is well worth your time to check out this series and at this date you have the advantage of never having to wait months for the resolution of a cliff-hanger, as those who viewed it over the course of five years often had to. It's a big commitment in terms of time, but well worth the investment.