American History X

Starring: Edward Norton, Edward Furlong, and Avery Brooks
Directed by Tony Kaye
Year: 1998
IMDB / Wikipedia

Every time I watch this movie it is with a lump in my throat and a beating heart in my chest.

Before I put this movie on I thought about what I might say here. Would I comment about the socio-political themes? Would I talk about the hero’s journey-style quest of Derek Vinyard (Norton)? How about a commentary about how it’s not always about the sins of the father; the sins of the elder brother can weigh on a family just as much? I could write at length about these topics because they reach so far outside the film that it would be hard not to associate an impact within your own life.

What I want to talk about is symbolism. I have come to find, through years of study, that writers do include symbolism in their work, as do painters, sculptors, orators, and every other variation of artist you can imagine; but sometimes it is an illusion. Good symbolism is deliberate but subtle. Knowing this, many look to find symbols in anything and everything in every piece of art that has been and will ever be. To add in symbolism that is not there or fits an agenda thought up by the reader or critic often says more about the appreciator than the artist.

This film is no stranger to symbolism. There are symbols with water, with the colors black and red, and with the sky. These are the symbols that I noticed that, I feel are there deliberately, but others may find more. The only definitive authority on the matter of symbols in the film are its director, Tony Kaye, and the writer, David McKenna. Outside of those two people, everything else is speculation.

I can sit here and speculate that water symbolizes death and transition; that red means rebirth and hatred; that black means regret and the past; that the sky symbolizes the unyielding passage of time; and I could even bring up examples of each that prove my hypothesis. The problem is when I start to say that my ideas, founded by my interpretation of the facts, are correct instead of what they really are: my assertions that fit my agenda.

There was a time I made a life choice by going head-to-head with a superior on the merits of the New Criticism movement. She contended that there are correct answers in everything in art; that it was required to get all of the answers right in order to fully appreciate the piece. My contention was that, even if I do not understand every aspect and every minute detail of a piece of art (in this case, literature) it does not mean I cannot have an appreciation of the work even at a scholarly level. The argument came down to her telling me that being passive about art degrades the efforts of the artist and me telling her that not everything is a symbol for something else and sometimes ambiguity alongside the reader’s power to infer makes the appreciation more personal and profound. My point flew in the face of her Doctoral thesis and, being my superior, she decided that I wasn’t a proper fit for the position. But, to this day (surprise, surprise) I still find myself debating the point. Does every word, every scene, every brush stroke mean something?

With a film like this one, everything is done deliberately. Every scene, every word, and every motion means something. There are those that contend that an actor exiting stage-right means something completely different than a stage-left exit, but who has time for that level of analysis? Artists must make choices as to what is important in a work and what is not (hence why you don’t see too many people use the restroom on screen or in books unless something profound happens) and Kaye pointed out what was important and what was not in each frame. This led to the symbols being subtle, beautiful, but relatively easy to find and interpret, even for a casual viewer. The boldness and passion of the story does more for this film than any symbolism and that, truly is the merit of a good story. If you have to go over something with a fine tooth-comb in order to find its value it may end up being a piece of fool’s gold.

Most Valuable Actor: Edward Norton as reformed neo-Nazi gang leader Derek Vinyard. Norton is a great actor with limited range (in my opinion) but when he finds a good role he embraces it and makes it timeless. Here, he comes home to his family together after he is released from a 3-year stint in prison to find the family is in disarray and his younger brother is walking the same path that led to his incarceration.

Trailer:

American Gangster

Starring: Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe
Directed by Ridley Scott
Year: 2007
IMDB / Wikipedia

This film only has two stars. The rest of the cast was trying to keep up in their supporting roles. But, for what it’s worth, they came up short against two of the best actors to come along in a great long time. I could make an “Ebony and Ivory” joke here, but I won’t because it’s more than that. These two actors have graced the screen together twice, here and in the Sci-Fi thriller Virtuosity made 12 years prior. Both good films, but this one stands alone not only in each actors’ respective catalogs, but also in the Crime Drama genre itself.

The story is based on the real life events surrounding the rise and fall of Frank Lucas (Washington) who comes to power in the Harlem heroin game after his mentor passes away. On the other side of the law is the last good cop in New Jersey, Richie Robbins (Crowe) who is made the head of a Federal task force team out of New Jersey whose focus is to bring down the heads of the drug business in the area. Along the way a web of corruption, rivalry, and lies are woven as these two men’s lives, both on and off the street, are paralleled until they finally meet.

In another dimension, Michael Mann could have made this film. However, I feel he would have done it in his over-stylized-yet-minimalistic sort of way that would detract from the characters drawing influence and motivation from their surroundings into a film like Heat where the characters shape the environment. In this film, it was central to the plot to show that each character had a driving interest outside of themselves and their own sense of self-preservation and that would have been lost had this been a Mann-driven film. Thankfully, Ridley Scott held the reigns of this film and made it everything it should have been.

This movie was poised and, depending to whom you speak, fulfilled its promise to be the next Scarface, a film that glamorized and decried the life of crime simultaneously. It can be said that not every criminal was truly a bad person to the core. Some were amiable, downright friendly, but they made choices that defined them on a wider scope than any personal relationship. And it’s true, some people choose the life of crime because they felt there was no other way to put food on the table for their families and their want was for a better life, not to commit evil; but it rarely turns out the way they hoped. This film, like so many other crime rise-and-fall movies in the genre shows the consequences. No one gets away clean–no one exits the story how they entered–they are all changed forever and must live with the consequences of their actions.

But, where this movie sets itself apart from the rest, what made it better than Scarface, and probably why the true events made such a good candidate for a motion picture was that both the main characters wanted the same thing in the end. To that end, they worked toward a common goal and they both came out a tad more righteous in the end. If you have the means (and I think Netflix still offers it this way) get the extended/unrated/director’s cut version of the film. There’s a few added scenes which give substantially more context than the standard theatrical version (and don’t get my started on the butchered television version) especially an extended ending.

Most Valuable Actor: Denzel Washington’s portrayal as Frank Lucas was more an homage than a re-imagining as he plays the role of a hard-edged gangster with a strict moral honor code sublimely. In all honesty, the reason he’s here and Crowe isn’t is because his storyline was far more interesting because he made it so. That’s something remarkable in a film like this.

Trailer:

American Dreamz

Starring Hugh Grant, Mandy Moore, and Dennis Quaid
Directed by Paul Weitz
Year: 2006
IMDB / Wikipedia

Some of the most enjoyable moments in cinema are when the audience is not only in on the joke but also a major part of the joke; those moments when we laugh at others but at ourselves as well. I will admit that I have been known to watch American Idol now and again but I don’t know if I could tell you who won last season. Or the season before. Or the season before that one. But, when I see this movie I feel that I know the subject, I know the audience, I know myself, and all three are deserving of laughs and a bit of ridicule. So I laugh. Not too many others did, however. On many notes this film hits really close to home and that tends to make the people who devoutly follow this show and other like it uncomfortable.

This is not the send-up the we wanted, but it was the send-up we deserved.

This film is the perfect satire because it takes to heart the defining principle that makes American Idol what it is: it makes something out of nothing. This is a movie that does its job taking on reality competitions and manages to spoof George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the war on terror. It chronicles the lives of two contestants on the show (Mandy Moore and Sam Golzari), the show’s creator (Grant in a well-spun imitation on Simon Cowell), and the simple-minded POTUS and his Chief of Staff (Dennis Quaid and Willem Dafoe, respectively) and how each of their ambitions and futures are on the line with the latest season of American Dreamz.

The story isn’t much more than you might find with a single-camera mockumentary (a la Christopher Guest) but the storylines do not need to intertwine to make them compelling. In a way, this movie portions out the story in single-serving human interest pieces as if they were the filler in between songs on the show. To beef them up, the stories are given twists that border on the absurd but still have an aura of plausibility to them. If someone told me the events of this actually happened on Idol or on some other reality talent show I wouldn’t bat an eyelash believing it. That’s how spot-on the satire is.

But, with the story being what it was, it forces the viewer to reflect on what is celebrity and what is sheer talent. I could go on and on about the distinction of the two, how celebrity used to mean something but now anyone can be a celebrity, and how talent has taken a backseat to embellished back-stories and sex appeal. I could, but you probably already know the argument and possibly agree with it. This film shoves it in your face to make you feel awful for perpetuating such nonsense. And, since it lambastes the most popular show in the world, it didn’t resonate well. To everyone who felt belittled or embarrassed by this film, my advice to you is get over it, grow up, and realize that you may not be the problem, but you’re not forthcoming with any solutions.

Most Valuable Actor: Sam Golzari as the sleeper-cell terrorist-turned American Dreamz hopeful whose character takes the logical and even-handed path through the war on terror and the war on the American eardrums as he is easily the most likable character in the film.

Trailer:

Young Adult

Starring: Charlize Theron, Patton Oswalt, and Patrick Wilson
Directed by Jason Reitman
Year: 2011
IMDB / Wikipedia

Every now and then, I will find it necessary to break protocol to tend to my extremely large Netflix queue. This is one of those times. 

Now, this is the kind of movie that gets me amped.

That’s an odd statement to leave hanging there, so I will elaborate. There are a few select films that get my creative juices flowing. I have found that, when it comes to my writing, I have to be in a certain zone in order to get out the exact words and tone I want or else everything will end up sounding the same (read: sound just like reading my blogs). But a movie like this one and a couple of others, allows me to take some stock in my creative conscious and work some things out. Call it what you will, but it works for me.

The common thread between movies that inspire me is that writing is at the central core of the narrative. In this film, Charlize Theron plays an author whose head is still filled with the ego and glorious memories of her time in high school. She never let go but wielded that inot a successful career ghostwriting young adult literature. She wakes one morning feeling a massive hole in herself that she is convinced will only be filled by her high school flame (Wilson). This is driven home when a birth announcement arrives from the old beau and his wife which prompts her to pack up mid-draft and head from her place in the big city to the small town from whence she came.

There are many motifs and symbolism in Diablo Cody’s screenplay (just like there were in Juno as well) about how people can be physically or emotionally damaged and find common ground, how perception and reality have finite shelf lives, and that moving on is a healthy part of life. But what I keep coming back to is something more on the surface in that there are so many people all over this country that hold onto the past like it is the only thing keeping them from drowning in the present.

In 2009 I was invited to attend my 10-year high school class reunion. The invitation came via Facebook since that’s how my generation communicates with one another these days. Perusing the guest list and, though the invitation had only been sent a few hours prior and the event wasn’t for six months, there were already a few dozen confirmed attendees. Looking at that list I found a roll call of all of the people in high school that were popular or were having the time of their lives. While I was unpopular and had only a few close friends, these were the people partying every Saturday night, having lots of sex, and being elected royalty of whatever dance was happening at the time. These were the people who, in the words of Billy Joel, “peaked too early.” The comments on the event even alluded to this with the focus on getting as shitfaced as possible like they did back when they were 16. Thankfully, I had an event that same day so I declined to go.

But, since then, I find myself wondering about those people I knew in high school who felt like their best days were behind them. Were they really happy now in their lives or were they simply waiting for time travel to be invented so they could go back to 1998 and hang out in the “Senior Cubbie” and have a killer time at some springtime rager? Were they willing to move past that, make new memories or were they destined to start every conversation with, “Remember when …”? I want to pity them but they did it to themselves and only they can adjust their head. As for me, the few people I liked in high school are people I still talk to today. If someone offered me a million dollars to go back in time and re-live high school I would tell them to go fuck themselves.

And the movie, in its own way, tries to convey the point that you cannot ever go home again. Recapturing a moment in time is like trapping lightning in a bottle and, ultimately, a fool’s errand. What I did come away with was something I can use to grow on and that will help me move forward myself. I had been stuck in neutral for so long that I think I’m finally ready to take something I’ve been sitting on forward. That makes this movie a definite keeper.

Most Valuable Actor: Patton Oswalt as Matt. Aside from the horrific beating I was this character in high school. I was nerdy, geeky (despite being an “athlete”), and I didn’t have too many friends but I did have a quiet dignity. Oswalt plays this role close to the chest as I think this was more biographical than he’s probably willing to admit. This makes the pain a bit more real and gives an intense amount of credibility to the character. Some of us will forever be relegated to watch the lives of more interesting people from the sidelines of life hoping that they may make eye-contact with us as they come off the field.

Trailer:

The Birdcage

Starring: Robin Williams, Gene Hackman, and Nathan Lane
Directed by Mike Nichols
Year: 1996
IMDB / Wikipedia

Last night I did something I have never done before: I watch a movie in a park. It wasn’t a large event, only about 10 people showed up, but it was fun. The night air was crisp, there were margaritas flowing (Note: if you are a member of the local authorities there was definitely no alcohol), and a good movie up on the screen.

When I tell people that I enjoy The Birdcage I am usually met with a lot of skepticism. Though I am a staunch supporter of gay rights I seem to come off as a morally conservative homophobe. The opposite couldn’t be more true and (this is going to sound really bad) this movie helped me realize that gay marriage is OK by me.

The film centers around a gay couple in South Beach, Florida (Williams and Lane) and their son who comes home to tell them he is getting married to the daughter of a staunchly conservative Senator (Hackman) who is currently embroiled in a scandal. A plan is hatched to have the two families meet and, in order to make the conservatives feel at home, Armand and Albert decide to … erm … play it straight. Hilarity ensues creating one of the most hilariously awkward dinner scenes in cinematic history.

But, while all of this was happening on screen last night in a film I’ve seen at least a dozen times over, I got stuck on one part: near the beginning, Armand (Williams) has the idea to just be himself despite what the in-laws may think of him and his lifestyle. To me, if this was real life and I was in Armand’s fashionable shoes, this would have been the way I would have gone. I wouldn’t have done everything to tailor my life to someone else’s expectations; I would have been myself and damned the consequences. I would have spent my time not letting myself believe this was what was best for the situation and convincing my partner likewise, but explaining how in this country you can be whatever you want no matter what anyone else says or believes. In the end, the characters discovered something about themselves anyway, but mine would have made for a quicker route and a much shorter and significantly unfunnier version of the film.

Sorry to go on a slight tangent, but I think this is where I always fall short when it comes to my creative writing. I have worked so hard in my life to avoid and quash conflict before it starts that it is impossible for me to think of an artificial conflict that is complex enough, to not only create a compelling story, but to force my characters to grow. This film does this all in spades because it is not only a watershed moment in the gay rights movement in this country, but because everyone can see themselves in at least one of the characters. Myself, I see as the son who is just fine with the lifestyle that his father and his partner have but wants to avoid awkwardness and conflict that comes when two very different worlds meet.

Most Valuable Actor: Hank Azaria as Agador (Spartacus). This film is not infinitely quotable like so many of the other classic comedies, save for most of the lines given to Azaria’s character Agador, the over-the-top flamboyant Guatemalan house-boy. I often times find myself walking around barefoot in my house and my wife will ask me where my shoes are. Like a knee-jerk I respond, “I do not wear the shoes because they make me fall down.”

Trailer:

American Beauty

Starring: Kevin Spacey, Annette Bening, and Chris Cooper
Directed by Sam Mendes
Year: 1999
IMDB / Wikipedia

Continuing on with the American Odyssey of film, I screened American Beauty, the epitomic tale of the American family and how it is a thing of the past.

Like most great movies, the theme here is sadness and depression. It’s the tale of Lester (Spacey), his wife (Bening), his daughter (Thora Birch), and their friends and neighbors who are all in some state of sadness. Some acknowledge it, some suppress it, one can become manic because of it, and another manifests it herself. Without giving away too many plot details, I’ll let you know that you quickly find which character fits each mold in the first 10 minutes of the movie. This sadness seems to come to a breaking point in Lester’s life which forces the people around him to finally deal with their own issues to find the joy they once had.

Now, to understand where this movie comes from it is important to remember that the 1990s was about recapturing the so-called good times we all had in the 1980s. There was a small movement that encouraged people to force their sadness and anger aside and compel themselves to be happy or, at the very least, put on a happy face. The idea that perception is reality left as quickly as it rose because we knew it was unhealthy to suppress our emotions artificially, though many of us still to this day act in an artificially happy manner.

This film is about what happens when we finally start dealing with our sadness (nee: all of our emotions) and start living the way we used to. Many of use grow to feel that responsibility and maturity is the death of fun. There is still a great segment of this society that feels that to relax and have a good time is tantamount to begging to be back at the kids’ table on Thanksgiving. To a point, their right–there are many who take their fun indulgences too far–but it is finding the balance in life that shows the most maturity. The films shows each character indulging in his or her emotions and not taking anything in moderation; which leads to philandering, violence, and death.

But the biggest problem is that this film somehow manages to romanticize the entire experience, as if this is what all people should go through as a part of finding themselves, when in fact it should be the exact opposite. The term “growing pains” isn’t supposed to evoke something to be relished but something that is, indeed, painful to go through and best done quietly. Not all of us accomplish this in a timely manner but it is something to aspire to. With the way this film tires to show the beauty in faults it is a wonder why we have devolved into a society where more people recognize Snooki than the Secretary General of the United Nations. Sure, recognizing beauty is one thing, but this film would have you believe that beauty is everywhere and in everything. That kind of optimism doesn’t sit well with me.

Perhaps my feelings on this are a product of the time we’re living in. In 1999 it was revolutionary for Lester to quit his job to go work at a burger joint to find himself but in 2012 it’s pretty insulting since there are a lot of 40-something men who would kill to have a job like that to help feed their families. In that regard, this film didn’t age well but it does show a clear picture of how far we have come in the past 13 years. We went from a completely self-absorbed mindset to a place where things are truly cherished and sadness is not something that is in vogue. Sure, there are still a great many #FirstWorldProblems out there, but they’re noted as such to differentiate themselves from real problems. Now that we know the difference we can all begin to deal with them and grow.

Most Valuable Actor: Wes Bentley as the Burnham’s neighbor Ricky Fitts, the 18 year-old pot dealer that helps Lester realize himself and set him on his path to self-discovery. Probably the most over-the-top performance in the film is also the most honest one as he is the standard of perfection that is laid out for many of the characters. The fact that he’s a drug dealer makes it even more sobering.

Trailer: