I'm glad you guys liked this film. The first time I saw it, I was blown away. There are so many things about it that I loved. Every character was perfectly cast and I would go so far as to say that if any big time "Stars" were in it, it would have ruined it. You truly believe that these characters are going through these tough times. I was in my late teens and early twenties in the early 80's and I remember that recession, I also remember it was even more difficult in England.
So the scene where Billy is dancing in pure frustration after his family has had the fight with his teacher to the song Town Called Malice by The Jam is not only pure brilliance but absolutely perfect when you read the lyrics to that song and understand that when it came out in the early 80's it shot to number 1 within a week partly, I think, because of it's lyrics and it's commentary on the times.
Prior to suggesting this movie to this group I had some friends watch it and some them thought it had a hidden gay agenda (hence Andy and my discussion) but I didn't think so. To me the theme was purely - be who are, and find what you love doing and do that for a living. That message is driven home so strongly at the end when the strike is over and you see Billy's dad and brother heading back down into the mine on the elevator; and the look on their faces says it all. I can relate to that look - it's same look I have as I'm driving to my current job. It's not in a mine - but it's just as dark :)
The only part of the movie I didn't think was accurate (and I may be wrong) was all of the cursing (F bombs in particular) that was depicted among the family. I'm from working class Northern Ireland and so is my mother and father. I've never heard my family speak that way and according to my mother it wasn't that way when she was growing up. And even now when I ask members of my family that are still in England and N. Ireland they say that it's not how movies portray it. Maybe there are working class areas of England that conversation is continually laced with profanity but I've never heard of or seen it. To me it actually just becomes distracting.
I think we all hope to be Billy Elliott some day (if we're not already there)... finding what makes us jump out of bed every morning and excited to keep moving forward.
It's interesting to see Jamie Bell grown up now... recently in the King Kong remake and also in the new movie coming out soon called Defiance with Daniel Craig. I think he's got a bright future.
-Karl Huddleston
Monday, December 22, 2008
Debate: In Cold Celluloid
by Jason Pyles / December 22, 2008
Ever since the gangster pictures of the 1930s, there has been considerable debate about the portrayal of violence in film — is it exploitative? — or does it serve a meaningful purpose? It’s such an age-old controversy, many people are altogether weary of the discussion. But I have a different question, though it is related to this topic.
In 1967, Richard Brooks released a film called “In Cold Blood” that is an adaptation of Truman Capote’s novel by the same name. Both tell the grim but true tale of two zeros who planned to rob a Kansas farm family and slaughtered them all in the process. The phrase “senseless deaths” has never been more fitting.
(Interestingly, the film stars Robert Blake as one of the killers; you might remember that around 2002, Blake was arrested for the murder of his second wife but was later acquitted in 2005.)
Relative to the explicit and graphic nature of present-day movies, “In Cold Blood” is tame, perhaps even mild enough for a PG rating — minus the profanity.
But here’s the issue: The film is shot in the actual home of the murdered family. This begs an obvious moral question. What was the merit in shooting the film in their home? The reasons must have pertained to authenticity and perhaps because it’s somewhat intriguing, but are these reasons justified? I suspect that it had less to do with artistic motives and more to do with cashing in on a fascinated nation’s curiosity.
Yet, I can’t help but wonder if the same heinous event befell my family — heaven forbid — how would I feel if Hollywood wanted to tell the story within the walls of our sacred home, where the horrific acts occurred?
In his 1968 review of “In Cold Blood,” Roger Ebert wrote this:
“And every detail of the film, from the physical appearance of the actors to the use of actual locations like the Clutter farmhouse, was chosen to make the film a literal copy of those events. I do not object to this. Men have always learned about themselves by studying the things their fellows do. If mass murders of this sort are possible in American society (and many have been), then perhaps it is useful to see a thoughtful film about one of them.”
My Take:
I’ve heard this argument before, but I don’t buy it. I think it’s imperative for us to realize that monsters exist and such dangers are possible, but to me “In Cold Blood” crosses the line with its shooting location. When I watched “Breakdown” (1997), for example, I thought it a valuable cautionary tale, but it was fictitious; whereas, “In Cold Blood” unfortunately happened. (And regarding violence in film, most people think it’s fun to be scared. Fine. So fictitious horror is one thing, but when we watch the “Saw” movies for their “entertainment value?!,” I think that’s sociologically problematic.)
Please feel free to post comments and discuss this question.
[ Note: I might mention, as a mere afterthought, that we’re probably more familiar with the more recent Philip Seymour Hoffman film, “Capote” (2005), about the journalist and author who followed the story and conducted extensive interviews with one of the killers. ]
Ever since the gangster pictures of the 1930s, there has been considerable debate about the portrayal of violence in film — is it exploitative? — or does it serve a meaningful purpose? It’s such an age-old controversy, many people are altogether weary of the discussion. But I have a different question, though it is related to this topic.
In 1967, Richard Brooks released a film called “In Cold Blood” that is an adaptation of Truman Capote’s novel by the same name. Both tell the grim but true tale of two zeros who planned to rob a Kansas farm family and slaughtered them all in the process. The phrase “senseless deaths” has never been more fitting.
(Interestingly, the film stars Robert Blake as one of the killers; you might remember that around 2002, Blake was arrested for the murder of his second wife but was later acquitted in 2005.)
Relative to the explicit and graphic nature of present-day movies, “In Cold Blood” is tame, perhaps even mild enough for a PG rating — minus the profanity.
But here’s the issue: The film is shot in the actual home of the murdered family. This begs an obvious moral question. What was the merit in shooting the film in their home? The reasons must have pertained to authenticity and perhaps because it’s somewhat intriguing, but are these reasons justified? I suspect that it had less to do with artistic motives and more to do with cashing in on a fascinated nation’s curiosity.
Yet, I can’t help but wonder if the same heinous event befell my family — heaven forbid — how would I feel if Hollywood wanted to tell the story within the walls of our sacred home, where the horrific acts occurred?
In his 1968 review of “In Cold Blood,” Roger Ebert wrote this:
“And every detail of the film, from the physical appearance of the actors to the use of actual locations like the Clutter farmhouse, was chosen to make the film a literal copy of those events. I do not object to this. Men have always learned about themselves by studying the things their fellows do. If mass murders of this sort are possible in American society (and many have been), then perhaps it is useful to see a thoughtful film about one of them.”
My Take:
I’ve heard this argument before, but I don’t buy it. I think it’s imperative for us to realize that monsters exist and such dangers are possible, but to me “In Cold Blood” crosses the line with its shooting location. When I watched “Breakdown” (1997), for example, I thought it a valuable cautionary tale, but it was fictitious; whereas, “In Cold Blood” unfortunately happened. (And regarding violence in film, most people think it’s fun to be scared. Fine. So fictitious horror is one thing, but when we watch the “Saw” movies for their “entertainment value?!,” I think that’s sociologically problematic.)
Please feel free to post comments and discuss this question.
[ Note: I might mention, as a mere afterthought, that we’re probably more familiar with the more recent Philip Seymour Hoffman film, “Capote” (2005), about the journalist and author who followed the story and conducted extensive interviews with one of the killers. ]
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The Worst Movie Ever Made
Not "Billy Elliot." My post for "Billy Elliot" is below this one.
Jason here. I have an idea: We soon will be entering our third wave of movie picks (by those who are still giving movie suggestions). What if, this third time around, we have a competition to see who can pick "the worst movie ever made" (which, I realize, is an impossible determination, much like "the all-time best film").
Why subject ourselves to this exercise?
Well, it's one thing to write interestingly about good films, but it's a whole other matter to try to write something useful about terrible films. And Barrett Hilton, the great filmmaker apologist, has often cautioned me in the past not to be too critical of another person's art.
Thanks to Barrett, I've spent more time trying to find redeeming traits in movies I dislike, and I've found it beneficial, primarily because I can enjoy more about more films.
And beyond that, I've been studying the film criticism of Stanley Kauffmann, who never gets angry, personal or vicious during his critiques; he simply describes what went wrong.
And at the end of this painful, third wave, we can all vote for the worst movie. I already have my pick in mind, and it's not that old. The only rule is that it can't be your cousin's homemade film; it has to be something that was actually released, meaning, we could all rent it somewhere.
Let me know who's in. E-mail your picks to me at ConsideringTheCinema@gmail.com.
Jason
Jason here. I have an idea: We soon will be entering our third wave of movie picks (by those who are still giving movie suggestions). What if, this third time around, we have a competition to see who can pick "the worst movie ever made" (which, I realize, is an impossible determination, much like "the all-time best film").
Why subject ourselves to this exercise?
Well, it's one thing to write interestingly about good films, but it's a whole other matter to try to write something useful about terrible films. And Barrett Hilton, the great filmmaker apologist, has often cautioned me in the past not to be too critical of another person's art.
Thanks to Barrett, I've spent more time trying to find redeeming traits in movies I dislike, and I've found it beneficial, primarily because I can enjoy more about more films.
And beyond that, I've been studying the film criticism of Stanley Kauffmann, who never gets angry, personal or vicious during his critiques; he simply describes what went wrong.
And at the end of this painful, third wave, we can all vote for the worst movie. I already have my pick in mind, and it's not that old. The only rule is that it can't be your cousin's homemade film; it has to be something that was actually released, meaning, we could all rent it somewhere.
Let me know who's in. E-mail your picks to me at ConsideringTheCinema@gmail.com.
Jason
Accepting Billy Elliot
by Jason Pyles
Perhaps the movie’s brief reference to Gene Kelly reinforced the notion, but “Billy Elliot” continually reminded me of the “Singin’ in the Rain” (1952) number where Kelly repeatedly sings, “Gotta dance!”
It’s evident throughout this film that Billy Elliot’s gotta dance.
I love people like that — people who are implacably determined to do what they love. One thinks of the Chris Smith documentary, “American Movie” (1999), where the persistent, aspiring filmmaker, Mark Borchardt, absolutely has to make movies, at all costs, no matter what. I fancy myself as that kind of a person, too, but a movie critic sort. Passion often gives way to obsession.
Now, I wasn’t privy to Andy and Karl’s inside joke about this film’s “arguably homosexual agenda,” but I’ll proceed notwithstanding.
Above all, the grand theme of “Billy Elliot” (which dwarfs any homosexual agenda) is acceptance.
Acceptance is the electrical current that moves the film’s characters (and is perhaps what Billy feels when he’s dancing). His whole family still struggles to accept the loss of the mom, Jenny Elliot, particularly Billy and his father, Jackie.
Tony, the brother, has trouble accepting pretty much everything, from the scabs crossing the picket lines to his brother’s general existence. But Tony’s turning point regarding acceptance occurs when he can at least appreciate his father’s loss of conviction to maintain the strike. He embraces his father, and later, Tony figuratively embraces his brother’s ambitions.
Naturally, the movie’s glaring neon-sign issue of acceptance is Billy’s desire to become a danseur (or male ballet dancer). But there are also acceptance themes prevalent with Billy’s friend Michael, and his inclination toward cross-dressing and presumably homosexuality.
All this isn’t to say that homosexuality isn’t important to the film, or, at least, to its director. Stephen Daldry’s film that followed “Billy Elliot,” in 2002, was “The Hours,” starring Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore and a nearly unrecognizable Nicole Kidman. That film was adapted from a Michael Cunningham novel based on writer Virginia Woolf and her book, “Mrs. Dalloway.” It’s an intriguing and unusual film, but it’s even more replete with undertones of homosexuality than “Billy Elliot.”
A little, informal research suggests that even though Daldry has a wife and a child, he is also quoted as admitting he’s gay. What can be definitively concluded from all of this? Nothing — except maybe that “Billy Elliot” has an “arguably homosexual agenda.”
Note: If you appreciate Stephen Daldry’s work (as I do), watch for his current film, “The Reader,” starring Ralph Fiennes and Kate Winslet.
Perhaps the movie’s brief reference to Gene Kelly reinforced the notion, but “Billy Elliot” continually reminded me of the “Singin’ in the Rain” (1952) number where Kelly repeatedly sings, “Gotta dance!”
It’s evident throughout this film that Billy Elliot’s gotta dance.
I love people like that — people who are implacably determined to do what they love. One thinks of the Chris Smith documentary, “American Movie” (1999), where the persistent, aspiring filmmaker, Mark Borchardt, absolutely has to make movies, at all costs, no matter what. I fancy myself as that kind of a person, too, but a movie critic sort. Passion often gives way to obsession.
Now, I wasn’t privy to Andy and Karl’s inside joke about this film’s “arguably homosexual agenda,” but I’ll proceed notwithstanding.
Above all, the grand theme of “Billy Elliot” (which dwarfs any homosexual agenda) is acceptance.
Acceptance is the electrical current that moves the film’s characters (and is perhaps what Billy feels when he’s dancing). His whole family still struggles to accept the loss of the mom, Jenny Elliot, particularly Billy and his father, Jackie.
Tony, the brother, has trouble accepting pretty much everything, from the scabs crossing the picket lines to his brother’s general existence. But Tony’s turning point regarding acceptance occurs when he can at least appreciate his father’s loss of conviction to maintain the strike. He embraces his father, and later, Tony figuratively embraces his brother’s ambitions.
Naturally, the movie’s glaring neon-sign issue of acceptance is Billy’s desire to become a danseur (or male ballet dancer). But there are also acceptance themes prevalent with Billy’s friend Michael, and his inclination toward cross-dressing and presumably homosexuality.
All this isn’t to say that homosexuality isn’t important to the film, or, at least, to its director. Stephen Daldry’s film that followed “Billy Elliot,” in 2002, was “The Hours,” starring Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore and a nearly unrecognizable Nicole Kidman. That film was adapted from a Michael Cunningham novel based on writer Virginia Woolf and her book, “Mrs. Dalloway.” It’s an intriguing and unusual film, but it’s even more replete with undertones of homosexuality than “Billy Elliot.”
A little, informal research suggests that even though Daldry has a wife and a child, he is also quoted as admitting he’s gay. What can be definitively concluded from all of this? Nothing — except maybe that “Billy Elliot” has an “arguably homosexual agenda.”
Note: If you appreciate Stephen Daldry’s work (as I do), watch for his current film, “The Reader,” starring Ralph Fiennes and Kate Winslet.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Billy Elliot; the happiest movie I've seen in a while, by Andy
Karl suggested this movie, notwithstanding its arguably homosexual agenda (haha Karl; inside joke). I truly enjoyed this movie, and I have to say that this film was the most heart-warming, uplifting film I've seen in quite some time.
First things first - I quite enjoy using the word "poof" now. It's so much less vulgar, and way more in line with my feelings towards others and my political persuasion.
If you haven't seen the movie, I recommend watching with subtitles. The far-north English accents were very difficult to understand, even for my Irish friend.
I guess the movie doesn't have any major plot arcs, and it seems satisfyingly predictable; but I don't think that detracts from the movie's brilliance. Frankly, I like a good straight-forward, know-it's-going-to-be-ok, happily-ever-after movie. Yes, we all know that Billy's dad will eventually come around, but it's fun to see it happen.
The kid who played Billy was fantastic too; probably a performance worthy of some acclaim.
Anyway, if "F" words don't bother you (and they don't me), this movie should leave you feeling pretty good.
by Andy
First things first - I quite enjoy using the word "poof" now. It's so much less vulgar, and way more in line with my feelings towards others and my political persuasion.
If you haven't seen the movie, I recommend watching with subtitles. The far-north English accents were very difficult to understand, even for my Irish friend.
I guess the movie doesn't have any major plot arcs, and it seems satisfyingly predictable; but I don't think that detracts from the movie's brilliance. Frankly, I like a good straight-forward, know-it's-going-to-be-ok, happily-ever-after movie. Yes, we all know that Billy's dad will eventually come around, but it's fun to see it happen.
The kid who played Billy was fantastic too; probably a performance worthy of some acclaim.
Anyway, if "F" words don't bother you (and they don't me), this movie should leave you feeling pretty good.
by Andy
Hitting Jason with a "Brick," by Andy
Jason - I'm not convinced that anybody but me and you are actually participating in this site. I sort of don't care, as long as you've got a good cue of movies for me to watch. Did you know that I canceled cable so that I could focus on my film bibliography? Anyway, sorry you had to watch "Brick" again. I know it's not your favorite film.
I'm a huge fan of pretty much anything with Joseph Gordon-Levitt. 3rd Rock included. All that said, I did really like "Brick," notwithstanding it's almost nonsensical prose and ridiculously overly-dramatic characters.
Why did I like it? Two reasons, I guess. I always like a good murder mystery, and this one doesn't disappoint. We don't find out until the very end what happened to the dead girl. I felt it unraveled at a fairly even pace, and I thought Joseph's character did an excellent job of persevering in his investigation.
Second, I happened to love the confusing dialog. Maybe it's because I am a criminal defense lawyer and I'm secretly put-off by how stupid my clients are, even in their confusing lingo. I enjoyed the almost code-like language the kids in the move used. BTW, it's not language that is used in Provo, Utah, even in the most sophisticated drug scene.
All that said, yes, I realize it is not a good example of either drug culture or high school. The characters are far too serious to be drug addicts or high school students, and life is way too depressing in their little town. But I don't think we can blame all of that on the director or writer; it is after all a murder mystery. Such movies are rarely full of fun and happiness.
Jason - I miss you buddy. I wish you were here in Utah to watch these movies with.
Andy
I'm a huge fan of pretty much anything with Joseph Gordon-Levitt. 3rd Rock included. All that said, I did really like "Brick," notwithstanding it's almost nonsensical prose and ridiculously overly-dramatic characters.
Why did I like it? Two reasons, I guess. I always like a good murder mystery, and this one doesn't disappoint. We don't find out until the very end what happened to the dead girl. I felt it unraveled at a fairly even pace, and I thought Joseph's character did an excellent job of persevering in his investigation.
Second, I happened to love the confusing dialog. Maybe it's because I am a criminal defense lawyer and I'm secretly put-off by how stupid my clients are, even in their confusing lingo. I enjoyed the almost code-like language the kids in the move used. BTW, it's not language that is used in Provo, Utah, even in the most sophisticated drug scene.
All that said, yes, I realize it is not a good example of either drug culture or high school. The characters are far too serious to be drug addicts or high school students, and life is way too depressing in their little town. But I don't think we can blame all of that on the director or writer; it is after all a murder mystery. Such movies are rarely full of fun and happiness.
Jason - I miss you buddy. I wish you were here in Utah to watch these movies with.
Andy
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Hitting the Brick
by Jason Pyles
He may look like that sloppy band nerd who, like me, still rode the bus to school in 11th grade, but Brendan Frye is one scrappy dude — a kid who’s all heart. I love how he casually folds up his glasses, places them in their hard, protective case, and proceeds to throw down — with anybody who provokes him. At one point, “The Pin” even suggests that Brendan may be a little nuts, and in fact, he just might be. There are certain people out there whose intensity and determination are nothing less than frightening.
Brendan is one such character, a good character. And since “Brick” is often considered a modern film noir, I can concede that Brendan follows suit with many film noir protagonists: His stamina and rugged ability to take a beating during his pursuit fits the description. Like other noir personalities, his endurance is remarkable.
Both of my viewings of “Brick” have come at the recommendation of Mr. Andy Howell. He’s fond of this film, as I’m sure you’ll read in his post. I appreciated and enjoyed this film more this second time around, but my initial reservation still stands: These kids’ lingo is inaccessible to me; the movie has too much slang for its own good. I suspect that the writer and director, Rian Johnson, was going for authenticity, but it’s so extreme, Johnson crosses over authenticity right into artificiality. It’s the difference between eating marshmallows and eating Marshmallow Peeps.
But during this second viewing, something else gnawed at me even more: These kids take themselves way too seriously. This may sound like a condescending judgment statement, but allow me to explain. Yes, it’s true that teenagers generally have heightened emotions and overly dramatic reactions to their day-to-day issues (not that drug wars, teen pregnancy and murder are trivial problems). But in “Brick” the teens are unbelievably serious all the time. These kids are like zombies because they hardly ever lose their sober, gloomy tone. Nearly every minute of their lives is deadly serious. Contrast the down-time versus the intense moments in Jacob Aaron Estes’ “Mean Creek” (2004) or “Stand By Me” (1986).
The most brilliant aspect of “Brick” occurs at “The Pin’s” house. Most of the film gives us an eerily “adultless” world. But at the lofty crime boss’s house, we see Brendan, The Pin and Tugger politely responding to The Pin’s sweet mother’s hospitality. Hilarious — but more importantly, these brief moments illustrate how the teens in this movie are in their own little world that, again, they take far more seriously than the few surrounding grown-ups do.
P.S. Oh, and what’s with all the fixating about where they eat their lunches?
He may look like that sloppy band nerd who, like me, still rode the bus to school in 11th grade, but Brendan Frye is one scrappy dude — a kid who’s all heart. I love how he casually folds up his glasses, places them in their hard, protective case, and proceeds to throw down — with anybody who provokes him. At one point, “The Pin” even suggests that Brendan may be a little nuts, and in fact, he just might be. There are certain people out there whose intensity and determination are nothing less than frightening.
Brendan is one such character, a good character. And since “Brick” is often considered a modern film noir, I can concede that Brendan follows suit with many film noir protagonists: His stamina and rugged ability to take a beating during his pursuit fits the description. Like other noir personalities, his endurance is remarkable.
Both of my viewings of “Brick” have come at the recommendation of Mr. Andy Howell. He’s fond of this film, as I’m sure you’ll read in his post. I appreciated and enjoyed this film more this second time around, but my initial reservation still stands: These kids’ lingo is inaccessible to me; the movie has too much slang for its own good. I suspect that the writer and director, Rian Johnson, was going for authenticity, but it’s so extreme, Johnson crosses over authenticity right into artificiality. It’s the difference between eating marshmallows and eating Marshmallow Peeps.
But during this second viewing, something else gnawed at me even more: These kids take themselves way too seriously. This may sound like a condescending judgment statement, but allow me to explain. Yes, it’s true that teenagers generally have heightened emotions and overly dramatic reactions to their day-to-day issues (not that drug wars, teen pregnancy and murder are trivial problems). But in “Brick” the teens are unbelievably serious all the time. These kids are like zombies because they hardly ever lose their sober, gloomy tone. Nearly every minute of their lives is deadly serious. Contrast the down-time versus the intense moments in Jacob Aaron Estes’ “Mean Creek” (2004) or “Stand By Me” (1986).
The most brilliant aspect of “Brick” occurs at “The Pin’s” house. Most of the film gives us an eerily “adultless” world. But at the lofty crime boss’s house, we see Brendan, The Pin and Tugger politely responding to The Pin’s sweet mother’s hospitality. Hilarious — but more importantly, these brief moments illustrate how the teens in this movie are in their own little world that, again, they take far more seriously than the few surrounding grown-ups do.
P.S. Oh, and what’s with all the fixating about where they eat their lunches?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
