Success in America: Pain and Gain + The Great Gatsby

Spoilers EVERYWHERE.

This past week I saw two very different films:

Pain and Gain, by Michael Bay:

And The Great Gatsby by Baz Luhrman

I'm pretty sure- and stay with me on this- that I've just seen the same story in two different movies, set 70 years apart.

But Catherine, you say, what the hell are you talking about? One's based off a true story from a magazine article (obviously embellished for hollywood) and the other is based of a classic work of American Literature that is both timeless and studied in high schools around the world.

What ties these stories together so very much is the theme of Success. More specifically 'The American Dream'.

First, what is The American Dream'? As a Canadian I wiki'd it and it explains it's the idea where one can achieve social and financial success through hard work. This would work in a perfect world, but let's face it, real life is different, and wisdom, preparedness, and a little luck is best taken into account with this philosophy.

Gatsby and Pain and Gain, both, are set in times of great profit and decadence. In Gatsby, it's the economic boom of the 1920s in New York when alcohol was officially forbidden and no one followed it, and in Pain and Gain, set in Miami in the 1990s when Clinton was in office, the internet was just picking up, and neon colours were in vogue.

In Pain and Gain, Daniel Lugo feels cheated out of his due.  He works hard at his job and seems to get nowhere for money; he dedicates his life to fitness and is a strong believer in the philosophy that hard work will pay off (somehow). Through the guidance of a self-help guru, he learns potentially more motivation (almost verging on brainwashing). He can achieve his goals if he only need reach out and take them- in this case, taking on the entire life and possessions of a jerk entrepreneur he met at the gym Lugo works at.

Gatsby? Jay Gatsby comes from this side of nothing and always believed he could be something; he could gain his fortune, that things would turn out in his favor. While young, he happens to fortuitously save the life of a drunk millionaire of old money, and transplants himself into the same lifestyle. He loses a potential inheritance and becomes enveloped in stock fraud with a very high ranking gangster, thus becoming exceedingly rich (however fragile this money may be). He also chooses to 'be somebody' through the motivation of falling in love with Daisy, a woman of Old Money who turns Gatsby down because of his station in life.

Both achieve their goals of being wealthy and popular. However, through their own human fault and what could be said is the outside actions from those close to these heroes, the moments of victory for these men is short lived, and the key points that mark falls from grace are accidental deaths. For Lugo, a gangster is killed after a 50lb weight plate crushes his head during a kidnapping attempt by Lugo and his friends. For Gatsby, a woman is struck and killed by a car while Gatsby and his would-be beau are driving home after an emotionally charged argument with the husband of said beau.

So with that being said I still wonder about these films. Ultimately they show that those who strive to achieve their goals through dishonorable means will lose their prizes in the end. While we should leave these films saying 'We must follow a righteous path in order to hold our winnings forever', I can't help but wonder if another interpretation of this film is the message that 'The higher they win, the harder they fall', or even more: 'The nail that sticks up is hammered down'.

Ever get the feeling the life drawing model is doing the same pose over and over?

 1 minute

 1 minute

 10 minute

 11 minute

 

9 minute

Arts

 

20 min

 

2 min

 

10 min

 

10 min

Fun with brush pens and lumpy women

Yeah, the title pretty much sums it up.

Watching Everything the Oscars Nominated 03

Ooh Today was special. Today was:

Animated Shorts Day!

Thanks to the people at the TIFF Lightbox theatre.

So! First of all there was:

I'm kind of wondering why this short was nominated. It seemed to be trying too hard with stereotypical Simpsons jokes and the shots chosen (on a 2D screen) were quite obviously trying to play for stereoscopic 3D. Having Hans Zimmer do the soundtrack for this short was unexpected, and it stands out in a good way on a certain scene where I am convinced James L Brooks did what sometimes appeared in the Simpsons, wherein a character is directly imitating the acting in a scene from a great work of cinema/theatre. It looks jarring placed next to the usual Simpsons animation. The Simpsons Movie did a better job for Oscars.

Then there was:

Aaand I loved this. The animation in this one wasn't entirely smooth. It looked like some scenes were just slightly faded keys and others were fully inbetweened, however the faded-keys only ever happened when the character (Either Adam or Dog) was very, very small in the shot.
Which, I will say, was a lot. This film was made to be seen on a giant screen. The layouts were beautiful, looking very similar to Impressionist paintings, and in many shots they were the focus. The characters were so small in screen I question how this may transfer to television or even smaller computer monitors. As a storytelling device, however, I loved it. I did also like the interaction between Dog and Adam (and the acting was truly what one could expect being the 'first man' and 'first dog' meeting up at the time). The film was also slowly paced, but seemed more like it was meant to tell the audience to be patient rather than trying to stretch time. I really enjoyed the color palette used, and when Adam is (inevitably) kicked out of Eden, and it presents a truly bleak picture of things. The subtle suggestion and transfer of the bright, colourful garden to this scene is also very well done, and very quiet. The poses and acting are great, and I'm almost sure the entire thing was done using pencil-and-paper, which is just amazing. Thumbs up.

Next was Fresh Guacamole by PES who I'm sure released this short earlier last year (possibly even earlier than that) as I have seen this clip before. The audience (which was notably older, and notably rich, although that may have been because it was a Friday Afternoon) laughed the most at this, probably because they were delighted at what non-food props were used to fill in for ingredients. I think this short was entirely meant as a technical stretch. PES did another short before this: 'Western Spaghetti' using the same style, same 'props as food' thing, and this worked out nicer. I was entertained, but I'm not sure this deserves an Oscar for it.

Paperman I've seen before Wreck-It Ralph, and in this I was quite pleased with the animation. It was smooth, masterful, and that weird combination of 2d and CG that it invented. I enjoyed the humor and acting more, and Disney knows how to be snappy when it comes to set up and punchline jokes. The first time I saw it I wasn't big on 'magic paper airplanes' but whatever, the music makes it all 'It's oh so magical!' and my heart was all 'Look the world is helping them be together!' so I'm pleased but not in shock over this short.

Head Over Heels is about an old man and his wife living on separate planes of gravity in the same house. It was fun to see the execution of this story, and stop motion is always fun, although I wasn't sold either way from it. I enjoyed how the story was resolved, which was creative, and I hope the people who worked on it get their due recognition. Not sure if it deserves and Oscar.

And those are the noms! I'd like Adam and Dog to win, but I have a feeling Paperman will, being so progressive in sticking 2D on 3D and being in black-and-white-40's land. If not, then Paperman will win the technical Oscar and, Adam and Dog will win the Oscar in general.

Watching Everything the Oscars Nominated 02

Yup, this past week as part of my 'Watch Everything Nominated for Oscars' this year I actually went and watched Zero Dark Thirty in theatres.

My review of this kinda requires some forwarnings:
1. I am not American. I strongly got the impression that this film is sort of geared towards Americans.
2. I had no idea until after seeing the film that there's controversy about the torture/interrogation scenes.
3. I have seen nothing else that Kathryn Bigelow has done. Nothing.
4. I don't know what's been embellished for film and what legit happened in RL or was spoken of in the book.

Let's begin.

I remember reading somewhere that there are two kinds of films - those driven by character, and those driven by story. Character driven films are like 'The Avengers' because the plot is just 'Loki wants to take over Earth' and we just pay attention to how the characters interact and play with one another - we remember Tony Stark/Bruce Banner, and the Black Widow/Hawkeye interplay.
 Zero Dark Thirty I can safely say is a story-driven film.

Sure, the character of Maya (Mya?) should theoretically be a character I should find appealing, especially because for the ENTIRE film there is NO hint at her being a love-interest. NONE. Which I think is a great thing for the film (it also passes the Bechdel test as statement of fact; I don't think a movie is good or bad whether or not it passes this test, but it's a nice sticker on their nametag, so to speak, so long as the qualifier of 'The two don't speak about a man' doesn't apply when any conversations cover Osama bin Laden) especially because there are literally two women in this film as characters: Maya, and her friend (who is only in it for half the movie) and that's IT.
   This makes sense for this film because I can completely understand how the CIA and a lot of the military is still a boys-club, again as a statement of fact.

As a Canadian I can say I didn't get the real impact of this film. I was young when 9/11 happened, and (as a compliment to the actors) I truly got the impression that everyone involved in the search for bin Laden took 9/11 personally, and that was what was driving them. Rightfully so, I suppose, or else they wouldn't keep working at it for 10+ years.

There was also a good job of the film to introduce the process-and-follow-through of the giant web of information, suspects, and informants involved in this search. I kept up with 80% of it, and not having immersed myself in the media and history of this whole story, I call that a compliment.

The film itself is not beautiful - it has good camera work but doesn't have any gorgeous cinematography. I guess in a film like this it's not very necessary; having a shot you'd keep as a wallpaper on your computer draws you out of the mood this film sets; it's not supposed to show off grand vistas and the like. You're not supposed to have your breath taken away, you're supposed to be holding it because who knows what could go down next. Whether it was story-intended set up or not, there are a few scenes that impress how dangerous working with this case (is?) was, and so it's better if the audience isn't pushes away. There was some fun camera work involving night-vision-goggles near the end of the film that I enjoyed at first, but was a little trying as it went on.

I will say for pacing that I got bored. Yup- after hour 2 I just sat back and looked around; I knew what was happening was probably very important to impress that working on this case after a presidential election where Obama was to be Commander in Chief would mean many different struggles for Maya and her team, but they had lost me.

For acting, it was 8/10. I could outright frame the two scenes (the only two!) where Maya is in a head-on shot where she's foaming-at-the-mouth angry or relieved-and-crying that are just trying so hard to be the Oscar-nominee-sequence like in Wayne's World. It has no element of narm  in it at all, it's just obviously framed that way just in case Jessica Chastain get's an Oscar nomination from it.

For the interrogation/torture sequences they weren't super shocking; maybe it was because it was a film that I assumed it was 'Movie Land' actions? As things went on between interrogatee and interrogator the steps and theories behind the actions done were explained to the audience by themselves, so I still have no real sure opinion on it. Maybe because it wasn't as much an asshole move as the photos from Guantanamo were, or Bigelow chose to avoid the more graphic-bloodthirsty scenes? I'll have to rethink this in the future.

I think Zero Dark Thirty covered this era in American history well, for being the only film to cover it that wasn't a documentary (which could be saying something). I do wonder if it was nominated for Best Picture just because it relates to 9/11. Zero Dark Thirty is a good film, don't get me wrong, but is it a great one? Is it worth Best Picture?

Watching Everything the Oscars Nominated 01

As a challenge to myself, and because it would be really easy thanks to my internet provider, I've decided to watch most of everything nominated for the Academy Awards. It also helped that I've seen roughly 5 or so of what's there, and that a local film festival theatre is showing ALL the nominated shorts (both animated and live-action) in the upcoming week, so that'll be handy.

So tonight, I decided to try my hand at watching a film nominated for best screenwriting:

Moonrise Kingdom

Dir. Wes Anderson

It's the story of a boy and a girl who are roughly 12 or 13 living on a summer-camp/cottage island in 1965. They meet up, fall in love (as much as 12 year olds can), and decided to run away from their respective miserable living conditions, and adventures ensue.

Let me begin by saying that this is a Wes Anderson film and I don't understand Wes Anderson's humor - years ago friends sat me down to watch 'The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou' (by Anderson) and I just didn't Get It (tm). The shots were great, the costumes wonderfully graphic, and the entire film looked like it was appealing. But it was lost on me. So for all intents I started watching this film while reading a book - I expected to pay half attention.

About 15 minutes into the film, I started actually paying attention. The characters were interesting, in a strange way. Yes, this film was about a 12 year old boy and girl falling in love and running away, and no, these two act nothing like actual 12 year olds, but instead like how 12 year olds think they're acting like when they are 12 and oh so mature and refined compared to their peers. Based only on the story summary and the poster, I could say the young boy looks a heck of a lot like Rushmore (another Wes Anderson film) but I haven't a real clue.

 The much more relate-able story is how the parents and adult characters act (which is to say, not nearly as refined as the young couple, and much more human and less a front) when faced with their daughter gone missing, and a boyscout in their charge run away from camp on a large and mostly unbuilt island. 

So screenwriting-wise, this works great. Cinematography-wise it looks lovely, and almost too put-together. Each opening shot looks like a storybook and being set in the 1960's the colors are bold while everything is under a sepia tone people like to think the 60's were always like before hippies and soft-filter came in in the 70s.

I enjoyed it. It's not taking my breath away, it's not changing my life, but I can say I saw it, and that's good enough for me, right now.