Queue Catch-all

We're still trekking through the next group on the AFI Top 100. This was a hard group we're doing now, a lot of big epics. Next up we have Ben-Hur, so that may take a few days. But that hasn't stopped me from watching other films both on DVD and watch instantly. Here's a group of films we've (or I've) watched recently.


Being John Malkovich - Yes, this was the first time I'd seen it. It was slightly like when I saw The Sixth Sense for the first time (years after), I knew the ending. Except with this film it wasn't the ending so much, but just the idea that whatever I said or thought about it, it's been out there for years and people have moved on. And since everyone had already seen it, whatever I said would be passe. (How do you spell that word?) Oh well...I watched it and I have some thoughts. Or maybe I don't. I had a lot more to say about Eternal Sunshine or Adaptation. Malkovich kind of follows in that tradition, or started it I guess, of Kaufman using film in a uniquely artistic way. None of his films could work on any other medium, besides books. The stories wrap around in such a visual way that it would be impossible. For that sake alone, his films are tremendous and are using film to it's full capabilities.
Plus, the worlds he creates are so vividly unique, the tone is set from the beginning. Here especially, as the movie opens on the sad staging of a puppet show. Of course, the puppet show leads your mind to the whole movie being this bigger puppet show. And then even in the plot, as people starts controlling other people. But I think it even goes further than that. The meaning breaks through the screen and applies to the real world. How controlled are we? And how can we know if we're being controlled or not? John Malkovich didn't know for a while. And that's what I took from the film; this notion of freedom versus control. How free are we?

The Informant - This is one of my favorite movie posters. One of my others was the poster for The 40 Year Old Virgin, which looks similar. That could be another post, but in simple words I wanted to see that film based on the poster. In fact, I didn't see any trailers for Virgin at all. I was sorely disappointed with the movie. It was nothing like the poster.
But I had seen trailers for The Informant, so I knew what it was about. At times it was like a boring procedural. (Betsy fell asleep. She's a good monitor for boringness.) At times it was hard to watch(because this guy was so out there), and at times it was hilarious. I think because it never quite mixed these things together, it didn't do well. It was like watching the sequel to Fargo (or any Coen Bros. film). The film follows Matt Damon as an executive at an agricultural company, who becomes a mole for the FBI to catch the company in the act of price fixing. Except he's also caught stealing millions of dollars.
There was never a punch line, but yet you would laugh because this guy was being so dumb. Perhaps that's why it didn't do as well (the Coen Bros aren't blockbuster makers, either) plus the main guy was a liar and crook...and idiot. Who wants to root for him? Nobody. But that doesn't mean the film shouldn't be made, it still should.
Soderbergh and Damon were shining a mirror on America. Matt Damon was playing the typical American type; wants to be rich, wants justice, little self-control, and most of all obsessed with himself. Americans can be some, if not all of those things. I thought it was funny when the wife said he just sits around mopping and watching TV, "hoping to catch a glimpse of himself." That's when I fully got this character. He was doing all of it just for himself. Whether it was guilt or a real sense of justice, he wanted to be the hero, despite the fact that he was stealing so much money. Is America like this? Sure. Both as a whole and individually. We want to be the worldwide heroes, and go in and take out terrorists and help nation build. But then what else do we do? Set up friendly governments to get cheap oil or eliminate hostile ones that aren't doing what we want. Then on the homefront, most of us have a sense of justice and equity. But then counter that with the get rich quick attitudes of reality TV. Even if it isn't stealing, many Americans would do something besides actually working to get some money. Anywho, this movie was pretty good. It wasn't that "on the nose." It took some real-life events and turned them into a metaphor for America. It just needed to be funnier. Like a Coen Bros film.


Syriana - "Everything is Connected," it says on the poster. And that's why people thought this film was confusing. I could mostly follow along, but there were some parts that you didn't exactly know what the motivation was. For instance, George Clooney played a CIA operative, and you understand a lot of what's going on. But then at the end, why was he driving across the desert? Was he supposed to kill the Emir or is he saving him or something? And that guy that tortured him, what was going on? I went to Wikipedia to figure the whole plot out, since I had some missing pieces, and learned that yeah Clooney was supposed to kill the Emir and the guy who tortured him was a double agent for Iran and yes, he was trying to warn the Emir. Glad to get that sorted out, but not a good sign that I have to go to an outside source to figure out the plot.
Actually, what was even more confusing was the justice department storyline. I pretty much got the whole plot, but the details are what's fuzzy. After each scene you're left with the overall picture of what's going on, but you don't exactly get why or what's the effect until it comes around to this storyline again and you think, "Oh yeah, okay, that's the guy and he was saying that." Again, not a good sign when you're always lost.
But Bravo for Matt Damon and his storyline, his was the clearest. Partly because it was the simplest, but maybe because of the superb acting involved. Or instead of superb I should say simple. Damon and those around him spoke simply and acted naturally.
So down to the nitty gritty. This movie was indeed mildly confusing, but guess what...so is the Middle East and geopolitics. That could be one of the points of the film. If so, I don't think it's a wise point to try and make. It's kind of like Jarhead's point was that in the 1st Gulf War they didn't do anything, soldiers weren't fighting. Well, that may be the case, but it makes for a boring film when soldiers don't fire their guns. A movie about the confusing nature of international politics isn't so effective if the movie is too confusing to pay attention.
But that being said, I was able to follow along pretty well. I knew who was who and what was what, and I ended up liking some of the points the film was trying to make.
1.
A. The CIA operative accidentally lets a weapon loose into the world. That weapon eventually falls into the hands of terrorists, who detonate it at an American oil refinery.
B. Most of the pain and suffering inflicted upon America can be traced back to us in someway.
2.
A. A giant American oil company looses oil rights, so they force a merger with another company and secures them in a shady deal, and the justice department makes a deal for an arrest in place of turning a blind eye.
B. So...the government will bend or ignore the rules when it serves our economic interest. How often does this go on?
3.
A. Two Middle East Princes vie for the throne of their aging father; one only cares about money and power and is cooperative with the US, the other cares about building his country and people and is less cooperative. The first Prince is backed by America and the oil companies and is picked by the Emir to take over the throne, while the second Prince is assassinated.
B. Even without the intervention of the US, the Mid-East causes many of it's own problems, mainly from greedy rulers. Again, though, the West put those rulers in power and continues to give them billions for oil, so like the 1st point, what the US puts their fingers in will one day come back and hurt them. It's too bad, because a lot of the problems in the Middle East could be solved by helping the countries build real economies, not just ones based on oil. (That is happening, though, in some places, like Dubai, while others have no oil left, like Yemen, where terrorism is deeply rooted.)
All in all, decent film, just could have been streamlined in some places.

Ponyo - A third Matt Damon film! Yowza. But Matt didn't have much to do with this film, he merely provided the English voice for a supporting character. This film is filled with famous voices. The most awesome is Tina Fey, who plays the simple Mom. It's fun to hear Liz Lemon's voice as a Japanese mom.
I haven't seen any of Miyazaki's other films, but I know by their poster art that they're slightly weird, but magical. They seem to build a believable world around the unbelievable, which is what happens here in Ponyo. It's basically the story of The Little Mermaid, but set in a Japanese village, and her father is a weird underwater magic scientist nature preserver earth balance keeper something or other guy. It's weird, but you just go along with it. And for some reason the moon is getting closer to Earth, which causes the ocean to rise and also make a giant wall of water. Because the Earth is "out of balance." Alright. And the Earth is out of balance because Ponyo took some magic, and it got released into the world. Alright.
So...the lack of magic is keeping the moon at bay? Thank goodness the world isn't a magical place or we'd all be dead.

Capitalism: A Love Story - Speaking of a less magical world, here is the latest Michael Moore film. This time around he takes on our whole economy, his grandest subject matter yet. I think I've seen all of his major films, from Roger & Me to this one and I know the pattern. But this one is a slight departure. Maybe it's because his subject was so huge or maybe he's losing his touch but this one just was kind of....not as cohesive. With Sicko, his subject was only healthcare, and then even more specifically focused on people getting screwed over when they have health coverage. Fahrenheit 9-11 focused all on the aftermath of 9-11 in this country and specifically on the Bush Administration. Capitalism is a huge subject, and with everything that's been going on, there are lots of smaller subjects that could(and have been in other documentaries) be focused on. But Moore doesn't spend too much time on any one part, but focuses on so many aspects that nothing ends up adding to the whole. And by the end you wonder what was the point. With all his other films(and most documentaries) the filmmaker goes into it with a point, either wanting to attack what's wrong; a company or system, or just enlighten the viewer on the subject. So, with this film, was the point to change capitalism? I guess it was, but Moore doesn't spend much time explaining why or leading you in that direction. For instance, how does showing a charity group helping people stay in the homes they were evicted from (and no longer have any ownership of) point toward getting the viewer to be against capitalism? Sure people getting evicted is sad, and maybe there could be some way to help them, but who's fault is it that they got evicted? Capitalism? No. Why attack the after effect (being evicted for not paying your mortgage), when you should be showing what was actually the real problem; the shady mortgage companies. But that's the Michael Moore way, using emotion to sway your view. Except he doesn't do it so well in this film as he did in Sicko or Bowling for Columbine. Sicko was so effective, even I cried. Plus, what he did in Sicko was take real people's experiences and wove them into careful and thoughtful arguments. I never saw that in Capitalism. It was not thoughtful, the arguments were trivial and some of his conclusions were wrong. I'm glad I saw this on DVD, because the deleted scenes were actually more interesting that many parts of the film.
All in all, Moore added nothing to the political debate over the economy. The housing and banking catastrophes are well passed and have been talked about so much in the media and in other documentaries that he's just too late with nothing new to say. I think he could have made a solid film considering the subject, but he spends too much time with front of the camera antics and not enough time getting to the core of the problem.