Monday, August 16, 2010

Number 35: We've All Read Books, It Doesn't Make You Special (And Neither Does Disliking The Expendables)

I've just seen Sylvester Stallone's The Expendables, I loved every minute of it, and you're not smarter or more cultured than me if you didn't. Here's why:


First, I have an English degree and here's what I realized when I picked up my diploma. Most of my time in school was spent catching up. What I mean is, taking two semesters of Shakespeare, reading Thoreau or Whitman, or writing pages upon pages about Orwell, Salinger and Fitzgerald brings me simply to a starting point. It only serves to catch me up with what history already testifies to, that these men matter and that the art they created was timelessly important. The fact that you can graduate college without getting a healthy sampling of their work is a travesty, not because everyone should be a literary enthusiast, but because their work is a significant part of how we got here and their voices are still relevant today. It's fundamental. Knowing of their work, to me, seems no more a thing to boast in than knowing what started World War II. To be sure there is always deeper understanding to be found with focused study, but my point is that simply having a spot on your bookshelf for Faulkner doesn't strengthen your opinion. It is, or at least should be, a pre-requisite. Enjoying such work mustn't be required, but acknowledging it should be an unspoken starting point for discussions about art.


I see music in much the same way. Many, myself included, are often quite proud of themselves for loving the Beatles or listening to Dylan. Ironically, this feeling of superiority is only possible because we've allowed these artists and others like them to be labeled as trends or types which some are into and some are not. They are not. They are absolute truths of music. Dylan matters. The Beatles matter. Personal enjoyment of them does not, but acknowledgement of them should be assumed.


I say all that to say that these are often the types of things which people, and again I do not separate myself from their number, tend to believe will bolster their argument when it comes to matters of art and culture. The point I intend to make is that to be 22 and think that my opinion of a movie is inherently superior to someone else's because I get Shakespeare is laughable. If you've read Hamlet it doesn't make you special, it means you're mildly educated. It is one of the greatest works of literature in the English language that exists. That's not my opinion, thats hundreds of years worth of the opinions of people who have read more than you or I ever will. To have read it simply means you might be close to getting out of the negatives with regards to exposure to the art that matters historically. If you haven't, I don't look down on you because you undoubtedly have been exposed to things in a different field which are of equal importance to that field. I probably know nothing of those things. I know nothing about cars. But if I were to have a conversation with a mechanic, he would not get pretentious because he knows how an engine works. Its fundamental. The fact that I don't know how an engine works means I'm behind when it comes to knowledge about cars, it doesn't mean that he's ahead. All I'm saying is that much of what we allow to inflate our intellectual ego should actually serve to humble us. We have to realize that even if we read the entirety of the Top 100 English Language Novels of All Time, we've merely approached a base knowledge of how we got to this point in cultural history. In my own experience, whenever I give myself too much credit for the things I've read, listened too, or seen, discussions about films or literature or music become pissing matches, an opportunity to prove how enlightened one is by praising a slim category of works and judging everything else by their standard, making most things easily dismissible.

What does any of that have to do with The Expendables? Quite a bit actually. Whenever you enter into a discussion about a movie, different people come at it from different points of view. Inevitably, there is someone in the discussion who fancies themselves an intellectual because they've read a few 50 year old books. Secondly, because I have read reviews of this film in which people who I'm sure view themselves as highly cultured bash the movie. It is a bit like Jordan's Bulls facing off against the WNBA's Chicago Sky. The Expendables is not high art. Anyone who claims it is, is an idiot, and anyone who is proud for pointing out that it isn't, is an even bigger one.


Have you seen the trailers for this movie? More people die in the TV spot for The Expendables than did in the first Gulf War. Have you seen the cast? Sly Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren (is that the guy who played Ivan Drago in Rocky IV? Yes), Randy Couture, Steve Austin, Terry Crews and Mickey Rourke. Not to mention small appearances by Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger. This movie never hid what it was trying to be. And it delivered. In fact, I'd say it might be my favorite movie involving any of these guys, with the exception of Mickey Rourke (whose actual acting abilities stick out like a sore thumb in this group.) To the film's credit, it did not ask much of the cast. Dialogue was limited to witty quips in the middle of wildly entertaining action sequences. The most and perhaps only deeply meaningful piece of dialogue is actually more of a monologue, with Rourke reflecting on his days as a killer and Stallone nodding along. The point is, the filmmakers, Stallone primarily among them, deserve a great deal of credit for being honest with themselves and with us. Those with acting chops were given the bulk of the character building responsibilities, while the rest were asked to blow things up and kill people. They never bit off more than they could chew, shoot or detonate.

If you don't go to see The Expendables, I have no issue with you. I avoid movies all the time for a variety of reasons. I don't go see Nicholas Cage movies because I know I'll hit a child on the way out if I do. If action movies aren't your thing, I can understand. Nine times out of ten, I want a movie with meaning and significance that goes beyond the couple hours spent watching it. I love to watch great actors with a great script and a great story. I think it ultimately makes for a better movie. I get it if The Expendables seems like a waste of your time. My only point is this; If you do take the time to see the film, leave your moleskin at home. This movie never asked to be a part of that discussion. If someone tries to convince you that this movie deserves awards, acclaim or more than two and a half hours of your attention, then by all means curb-stomp them with your cultural heel. But for those of us who went in knowing what we were paying for and were happy to get just that, spare us.

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Number 34: Speaking Up For The Defense Of Marriage

I feel that given the current plight of marriage in this country I felt it was finally time for me to speak up on the issue. As someone who is about to be married and someone who hopes to follow Christ in everything I do, I feel compelled to look to his words on the matter as it continues to be a significant part of our national discussion. I hope you'll join me in defending marriage as God intended it.


"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

Matthew 5:32

Now, who's marching with me?

Number 33: Of Things To Come

It's not that I haven't been writing.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Number 32: Dead You Everywhere

Most household dust is made up of human skin. There are little pieces of dead you everywhere. I bet you'll feel kind of weird next time you clean your house.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Number 31: Sherlock Holmes Review

If there is one fact, fact my dear Watson, which can be taken from “Sherlock Holmes” it is this: there are still smart, well acted adventure films being made and while this may serve as the last nail in Nicholas Cage’s proverbial coffin, it is a fact which should be celebrated by the over-charged movie-going masses. Director Guy Ritchie does not rely on the audience’s knowledge, or lack there of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s now hundred year old character as a crutch. Instead, he he has presided over an engaging adventure with mass appeal, literary junkie or not.
Robert Downey Jr. stars brilliantly as the fascinatingly eccentric Sherlock Holmes alongside the perfectly casted Jude Law as his side-kick Dr. John H. Watson. Throughout the film the two exhibit chemistry not unlike Paul Newman and Robert Redford in “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.” The duo verbally dances through the film, riding the line of hokey and hilarious to perfection. As Holmes, Downey Jr. is fantastically engaging and convincing. Law is no different, playing the perfect other half, though being an actual Londoner can’t hurt when it comes to believability. Rachel McAdams rounds out the cast (make that the part of the cast that puts people in the seats) as Holmes’ criminal love interest Irene Adler.
Watching the film on mute will leave no doubt as to why it earned an Oscar nomination for Art Direction. The film looks stunning, portraying a hazy turn-of-the-century London. Turning the sound back on will reveal the films Oscar nominated original score, which adds a great deal to the film, but especially to its brilliant opening and closing credit sequences. With regards to direction, Guy Ritchie is a star here in his own right. In particular, two slow motion fight scenes, narrated by Holmes are perhaps the film’s most memorable moments and while exaggerated reality in a fight scene is nothing new, Holmes’ step by step self-instruction on how to defeat his opponent brings unique flair to a common device.
“Sherlock Holmes” is a movie that should alienate no one. The dialogue is smart, the cast is attractive and the explosions are big. In fact, one of the film’s few flaws is an ending which feels slightly sloppy as a setup for the obvious sequel. But even that, should be quickly forgiven. After all, we know that another “National Treasure” will likely be made, but as long as there are those striving for what “Sherlock Holmes” accomplishes, there is still hope for the genre.

Number 30: Up in the Air Review

A caveat before you gather your friends for a viewing of Jason Reitman’s latest film; if you’ve hardly gotten over the awkwardly charming, mall-indie phenomenon that was “Juno” and have spent the years since its release seeking out every oh-wow-it-looks-like-someone-handwrote-the-title film in existence, don’t be fooled by clever marketing. Despite the fact that the words “From the Director of ‘Juno’” are almost as prominent on the DVD’s cover as the title of the film, this is not that. That is not say, however, that fans of Reitman’s previous work will not be pleased with “Up In The Air,” starring George Clooney, Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick, all in Oscar nominated roles. While Reitman’s fingerprints are present, here he trades in the sexual naiveté of the barely-pubescent for the unsettling reactions of the newly unemployed.
It should be noted that “Up In The Air,” aptly given a winter release to theaters, is not particularly uplifting. Then again, neither were the last two years and that is where “Up In The Air” finds its context. While the film does elicit the occasional laugh, thanks in no small part to the contributions of Jason Bateman and Zach Galifianakis, it is ultimately the sobering tale of identities in crisis.
George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, (not to be confused with the singer-songwriter of the same name responsible for the Oscar winning theme from “Crazy Heart”), the film’s occasional narrator and a man who receives a paycheck for notifying employees across the country that they can no longer count on theirs. That is, he fires people on behalf of companies who’d rather not do the deed themselves. Not surprisingly, Clooney is great, portraying a man who finds more comfort in the airport conveniences earned by his frequent-flyer status than the presence of any meaningful human connection. Still, he finds a kindred spirit, also “turned on by elite status,” in Alex Goran played by Vera Farmiga. Her talent for portraying a strong female character is on display here and she more than holds her own opposite the imposing Clooney. Stellar performances by both are to be expected. After all, Clooney is an Oscar regular and Farmiga even stands out in the Hollywood who’s who that was “The Departed.” Anna Kendrick, however, is the surprise here as determined newcomer, Natalie Keener. Her idealist youth collides with Clooney’s jaded age, exposing the flaws in both and providing the film with its poignant theme.
Upon seeing the film, a friend remarked to me that it is “basically just people sitting around talking to each other.” After several condescending sarcastic remarks, I found myself unable to completely disagree. “Up In The Air,” yet another film based on a book, watches like one. Stunning shots from 30,000 feet serve as breaks between what can be slow moving dialogue-heavy chapters. It is a movie entirely dependent on above average performances by its actors, and it is precisely because of those performances that it works. “Up In The Air” is not an escape from reality. If anything it is an immersion in it that is mostly troubling. It is not a film that can be watched so much as dealt with and in that regard, what is an achievement for the filmmakers is a heavy handful for the viewer.

Number 29: Precious Earns the Hype…Eventually

If you haven’t at least heard about Precious by now then I’d love to know the rock you’ve been living under and if there’s anyway you could make room for me. Anyone able to miss the overwhelming, Oprah-induced buzz about this film has beaten the odds and just may be rewarded for it. For the rest of us, when a movie garners as much pre-Oscar attention as this one, The English Patient syndrome seems to come with it; “How could you not like Precious?” So if you’re like me, having heard all the praise but missed the chance to see the movie in theaters, this DVD can be an intimidating one to approach. Few films live up to such high expectations and at first, Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire, directed by Lee Daniels, is no different.

Starring an unknown-until-now Gabourey Sidibe, the film starts out slow, featuring a good bit of narration by Sidibe as the film’s main character Precious. While Precious’ uneducated speech lends a telling voice to the story, it also lessens film’s reliance on Sidibe’s on camera performance, allowing her to walk silently through several of the film’s early scenes. As we begin to learn Precious’ predicament in life, we are more compelled by the intellectual knowledge that these circumstances are hard than by the evidence we see on the screen. When we meet Mo’Nique as Precious’ mother, we are shocked but that is where it ends. A flurry of swearing and insults lets us know that Precious’ home life is bad, but at first meeting, Mo’Nique’s portrayal of Mary comes off as a caricature of a bad mother and not much more.

However, in the middle Precious finds its stride and doesn’t look back. Paula Patton seems to initiate the comeback as Ms. Rain, an alternative school teacher who takes a special interest in Precious. While Patton’s performance is decent, it is the character she portrays who brings just enough hope to the film to keep us in our seats and from there Precious grows and grows into the film you may’ve been hearing about.

Surprisingly enough, especially if the word Glitter means anything to you, Mariah Carey helps the film along nicely in the role of social worker Mrs. Weiss. While the role is admittedly not overly demanding, Carey exceeds any expectations even her mother could have for her and is a player in the pinnacle of the film. In what turns out to be the final scene a shaky camera zooms in and out of the actor’s faces as if even the camera operator was feeling the tension and weight of the moment. It is here that Mo’Nique earns her Oscar for Best Supporting Actress and while Sidibe doesn’t quite earn her Best Actress nomination, her performance, like the film, gets better with every scene.

In a season fraught with acclaimed post-Oscar releases, Precious comes like a wave; small if not underwhelming at its beginning but a towering, undeniable force at its end. Whether you have managed to sidestep the freight train of hype or found yourself caught in its headlights, give Precious a chance to the end and you might want to get on board.