Django Unchained and Its Place in the Tarantino-Scape

Perhaps no director in this era has a more distinctive style than Quentin Tarantino. Since the early 1990s, the Tarantino style has exploded into the mainstream and each of his films can be identified as a "Tarantino". Highly stylized, with bright colors, taking bits and pieces of several genres and mashing them up in graphic films, with bold soundtracks.

No element of Tarantino's films, however, is as important as the unforgettable characters in his films, who are among the most memorable in all of cinema. Mr. Blonde. Jules Winnfield. The Bride. Aldo Raine. Hans Landa. The list is long and well-deserved.

So, as I took my seat in the theater waiting for Django Unchained to begin, I knew what I was about to see. Approximately two hours and forty-five minutes of badassery, driven by what was sure to be a character in Django ready to become a legend, and strongly supported by the other elements of Tarantino's films that elevate them to pantheon level: outstanding direction, an amazing soundtrack, and witty, bold dialogue.

And as the movie went on, I found these always-reliable elements to be fantastic. The set, cinematography, and soundtrack were the best in film this year. I mean, Rick Ross in a spaghetti western? Only Tarantino could pull that off.

But something was missing. It was kind of like driving a $250,000 Ferrari with all its bells and whistles and trying to accelerate with the engine of a Toyota Prius. And on the drive home from the theater, I figured out what that missing element was. Frankly, Jamie Foxx was boring. He was downright flat, for the entirety of the movie. He had one expression on his face the entire time, and while his actions most definitely fit with other characters in Tarantino's movies, the actor playing him didn't live up to that badassery. He was simply overwhelmed by Christoph Waltz and Leonardo DiCaprio (who gave a brilliant and wildly entertaining performance in his own right).

I'm sure my point will be vastly disagreed with, but Django Unchained, to me, is the first Tarantino movie where the supporting elements of the film had to come in and save it from a boring main character. These elements were so fantastic that Django Unchained, as a whole, is still a very, very good movie. But Jamie Foxx dropped the ball on this one and I will vehemently disagree with his nomination for Best Actor when it comes from the Academy.

Les Miserables Review

Last night, I went to see Les Miserables at the 10:00 premiere. I had been waiting for this movie for most of the year, and I had seen the trailer (my favorite of all time) about thirty times. I suppose I should start this post with a bit of personal background, as many other reviews have done. I have never seen Les Mis performed on stage, but I've seen the 10th and 25th anniversary concerts multiple times and have listened to the soundtrack many, many times. I know the words to the songs, some of which are my favorite in music, theatre or not. "On My Own", "Do You Hear The People Sing", and "I Dreamed A Dream", among others, just pack such an emotional punch that nothing else can.

Sitting next to me was my mom, who has seen the show performed multiple times and knows the words as well. Next to her was my dad, who, though he has seen the show live, doesn't know the words, but still loves all movie musicals. Then at the end of the row was my brother, who hasn't seen the show and doesn't know any of the songs. Seeing the movie with my family, who have different perspectives, has really helped put the movie in context.

Now, to some actual reviewing. Personally, I loved the movie. I absolutely loved it. To adapt the stage version of Les Mis and put it on screen, with actors singing live on set, is a very, very difficult thing to do. Thus, after reading early reviews, my expectations were a bit tempered going in. I knew I couldn't expect perfection. But I was drawn in by the acting and the music immediately, which was fantastically pulled off. Everybody in the movie delivers a great performance acting-wise. As for the singing, I thought everybody did a great job as well, but there was a very clear divide between the theatre actors (Samantha Barks/Eponine, Eddie Redmayne/Marius) and the A-listers. Russell Crowe acted Javert very well, but he just couldn't keep up with the singing talent around him and the emotional ride slowed a bit as I realized Javert was Russell Crowe just trying his best to keep up with everyone else. That said, there was not a single song I didn't like and the biggest element of the film, the music, was great all around.

Cinematically, the movie could have been better. The direction didn't do much to help the film in any way. I wasn't focusing too much on the camera movements trying to keep myself together, but in hindsight I know that Tom Hooper shifted his style right from The King's Speech to Les Mis. Hooper isn't a great director camera-wise, but I do have to give the guy credit for managing to pull off a colossal project. The staging and set design was magnificent. The barricade (THE BARRICADE!!!!) was really well done, and though I have nothing to compare its visuals to, Hooper pulled that one off. 

So I've had the night and morning to think about the movie. I know that when I compile my favorite movies of the year list in a couple weeks, Les Mis will be near the top. But I think that's because it's Les-freaking-Miserables, not because it's a perfect movie by any means. I also understand that people who don't connect with the music like I do will have a hard time with the movie. My brother had no idea what was going on and the emotion was lost on him, and I get that. It's a hard movie to follow if you don't know what's being said (sung) or the plot. So I understand the harsher reviews the movie has gotten. That said, I wouldn't be upset if the movie won a lot of Oscars because I know how hard this project must have been. It won't be the best movie of the year, but it will be the grandest in scale. 

So should you go see the movie? 

If you're like my mom and me, absolutely. I can only assume that most of the people in the theater last night loved Les Mis going in, and by the end, you could hear sniffling and sobbing in the entire room. 

If you're like my dad, somebody who just really likes movie musicals, I would go see it. The music in Les Mis is better than every other musical's. 

Now, if you're like my brother, somebody who has no connection with the musical but just wants to go see a good movie, I would pull up a plot summary of the musical and read it a couple of times, and then go see it. The movie will be hard to follow otherwise. But if you have a little bit of background, I think you'll enjoy it for what it is.

Do you hear the people sing?

Singing a song of angry men,

It is the music of a people

Who will not be slaves again.......

Why The Dark Knight Rises is the Film of 2012

We live in the information age. Every important thing that goes on in this world is broken down by the masses at the moment it happens. Thirty years ago, one needed a job writing op-ed articles at the newspaper to be able to express an opinion on a worldly event. Now, since the Facebook and Twitter revolutions, everybody and their mother has a medium for expressing themselves. And no part of society is more thoroughly discussed, broken down, and criticized than American popular culture. There are post-show podcasts, blogs, and countless other parts of the public that shout their opinions, whether they are well-constructed or not.

During the spring and beginning of the summer of 2012, one bit of our culture was broken down more comprehensively than anything before it. The build-up to its release on July 20th was unlike anything I had ever seen. Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises was the cinematic event of the information age. I personally read more articles, listened to more podcasts, watched more TV discussions, and had more conversations about TDKR before its release than any other bit of culture in my lifetime. The Olympics were about to start, the American Presidency was up for grabs, and the Middle East was falling apart, but all anybody could talk about, for months, was what was going to happen in The Dark Knight Rises.

I saw the movie myself on Friday of the opening weekend. And I thought it was great, but lacked so much of the elements that had me anticipating it for months. I don't think that's the film's fault, really. I think Christopher Nolan was put in a tough place - he had so many people demanding so many things of this film that he got caught up in trying to make people happy. All the blog posts and Cracked articles about what would happen in TDKR ruined the movie, even though they didn't mean to. They expected perfection out of Christopher Nolan, a human being. No film is perfect and if we didn't live in this age, with opinions and theories everywhere, I would have enjoyed the film more.

I could have discussion after discussion about the film's quality and how it stacks up to the other two films and other third movies in other trilogies, but it's not about that. I think TDKR, and the hype surrounding it, really shows where we are in society today. These studios read what we write, and they know that they have to please us. If somebody doesn't like a movie at the midnight release, they go to Twitter and Facebook and tell everybody what they thought. Movies these days need to be so broad and please everybody so the studios can sell tickets. And that was especially so with this film, the conclusion of THE trilogy of our generation. Nolan tried too hard instead of just making a movie. He had three endings when he needed to choose one. SPOILER ALERT He spent the entire trilogy talking about sacrifice and the importance of being a symbol, and then keeps Bruce alive frolicking with Catwoman in Europe for the rest of his life. Great sacrifice, Bruce.

But if this were thirty years ago, I wouldn't have cared, because I wouldn't have had an idea of how this movie should have been constructed for me months in advance. And now, with every highly anticipated release, I can sigh and slump in my theater chair knowing that the movie I'm about to see won't meet its otherworldly expectations.

...of 2012 Part I: TV Show

One of my favorite parts of the internet is Cracked's ...of the year lists. I've been a loyal Cracked reader since middle school, and the end of the year breakdown of all things that best represented the year is one of my favorite running articles they have. So I figured I would do a similar series of blog posts, about the shows, movies, people, etc. that are those that most encapsulate the ideas of the year 2012. And since Cracked hasn't yet published their TV Show article, I figured that would be the first post I would do.

The TV Show of 2012: HBO's Girls

It's not the grandest show on TV (Game of Thrones), or the most polarizing (Homeland), and it doesn't include any zombies. But no show really shouts 2012 like Girls does. I saw the season 1 trailer and was pretty intrigued, and from the get-go, the show has been one of the most consistently funny half-hours on television. Lena Dunham is brilliant on screen as main character Hannah, and her writing is top notch. Critics have hailed Girls as this generation's Sex and the City, the show about four other New York females that our moms watched.

And though Girls is indeed funny, and about women in New York, I find it appealing for broader reasons. Simply put, no other show is more self-deprecating about the state of the current youth generation in the year 2012. Let's face it. We're the hipster generation. We're entitled. We think we're more cultured than everybody else. We think our liberal arts degrees will land well paying jobs in this economy and if not, we think our parents will give us money for our apartments in Brooklyn until somebody discovers how artistic we are. 

The show takes a jab at both the men and women of the hipster generation, a group of people who, though they might like to think they are in the minority, is much bigger than one might think. Don't believe me? Acoustic folk music is more popular right now than it has ever been. Vinyl records have had a 500% increase in sales in two years. And nobody watches network TV anymore, because it's too 'broad' and not 'niche' enough. And yes, these qualities apply to me too. I'll be the first to point out that I am an English major with both Mumford and Sons albums on vinyl, and I wear Sperrys and flannel shirts just like everybody else. Which is why I love Girls, because it's a great reminder that our generation kinda sucks, but it's ok to laugh at that.

I guess this post was slightly shorter than what I was expecting. I guess I'll go tweet about it or something.

Season 2 of Girls premieres on January 13.

It's The Pantheon

I suppose I have fully joined the hipster masses now. I'm making a real life blog. And I'm calling it The Pantheon, which is definitely one of the top five most pretentious words of the English language. Kel and Frank will totally get a kick out of this.

Anyway.

Awards season is coming up and I feel like I'll have a lot to say about it, seeing as this is one of the best movie years in recent history. Also, I'll be trying to make a bunch of "[blank]...of the year" posts as well. Hopefully this blog will keep me busy enough over winter break and if I'm in enough of a flow I'll continue it into the next semester. Hopefully I have a readership of more than three people by that point. 

I hope everybody enjoys my conceited pop culture opinions!