Grand Budapest Hotel - Trad Godsey, Corey Godsey, Kyle Jones

HOM put forward the question, "Why am I going to see Wes Anderson’s new movie, Grand Budapest Hotel?" to a few gentleman. These are their responses.

Corey Godsey

First off, I must decide what the question is actually asking. My first impression is the simplest form of the question. “Why do I want to see X, in which X is Grand Budapest Hotel, which happens to be the name of the newest film from Wes Anderson?”

My answer to this form of the question is reliability. I have seen all of Wes Anderson’s work and, with the exception of Darjeeling Limited, I have had multiple viewings of each film. I have yet to be disappointed with any of his work. I have always found Anderson’s work to satisfy an itch that no other writer/director can reach. I find the Andersonian style to be funny but in a way that is unlike other comedies. I can’t put my finger on why it’s funny, I just know I laugh hysterically, and more often with each viewing. But these aren’t just comedies. I find myself emotionally drawn to the characters, to the point that I wonder what happens to them after the credits run. But these are more than dramas. When I watch one of his films, I am not watching a movie. I am not checking out of reality for the next 90 minutes, but checking into a new world. It’s not a Hollywood fantasy. It’s a reality so close to my own but in which the characters say all the right things, the things I would want to say (if I had thought of them). These films are in such a class all their own that, I can judge other people by them. I not only find camaraderie with others through these films, but also find it more likely that we will get along handsomely on several topics simply by sharing this movie interest. Because of all of these reasons, I have come to trust Mr. Anderson. I find him to be reliable at producing a quality product and have faith that his next project with live up to the same standard. So why do I want to see X, because Wes Anderson made it. Plain and simple.

But this is the less interesting form of the question. It can also be interpreted as such: What is it about Grand Budapest Hotel that makes me want to (or excited to) watch it?

Beyond the obvious answer I gave above, I am excited to see this movie for a few reasons. From what I have gleaned from the trailer, this film relates itself to some of my favorites of Anderson’s films. As I call tell, the main character is a well-to-do man (perceived or actual) who finds himself fallen from his rank, just like Max Fischer (Rushmore), Royal Tenenbaum (The Royal Tenenbaums) and Steve Zissou (The Life Aquatic). A perceived big shot, M. Gustave, is accused of murder and forced to go out on the lamb, while hiding a treasured painting bequeathed to him from his alleged victim. In the previous films mentioned, the main character must come to grips with his new humble position and typically make amends. Because of this shared character arc, I think Grand Budapest Hotel will rise to the same acclaim as other Andersonian greats.

One cannot discus a Wes Anderson movie without addressing the amazing cast. This film features some of the classic cast members we have come to expect (Schwartzman, Wilson, Murray). It also includes some big names which have appeared in one previous Anderson work (Brody, Dafoe, Norton, Goldblum). These actors have already proved themselves to fit well with Anderson’s style. I am most excited to see how newcomer Ralph Fiennes handles the lead role. I think Fiennes is a wonderful actor but I have only seen him play very serious and stoic roles. I am really interested to see how he adapts to this character that seems quite different than his previous roles. I have no concern that he will live up these expectations, and it is exciting to see actors grow from the projects that they choose.

Speaking of characters, I think all Anderson fans need to take a moment in memory of Kumar Pallana, who passed away last week at the age of 94. Pallana was known for such roles as Pagoda in The Royal Tenenbaums and Mr. Littlejeans in Rushmore. I would love to see one final cameo in the upcoming film or at least a dedication.

In conclusion, do I want to see it? Yes. Will I see it? Yes. Why do I want to see Grand Budapest Hotel? Because Wes Anderson does not disappoint and this film has all the makings to be a top-notch product by even Anderson standards. Can’t wait!

Trad Godsey

I am particularly excited about the upcoming feature, Grand Budapest Hotel, for several reasons. Firstly, I am hoping this film will be better than the director’s last two films, Moonrise Kingdom. Generally I felt that this film relied too heavily on Anderson’s trademark quirks and not enough on the emotion that Anderson is capable of bringing to a film.

There are certain characteristics that have typified Wes Anderson’s films, which we are all familiar with (at least all films after Bottle Rocket). Bright and vivid colors, perpendicular camera angles, emotionless delivery of very emotional dialogue, cigarette smoking, wealthy characters with a laissez faire attitude toward life, and the list goes on. But I never saw these traits as defining Wes Anderson’s filmmaking. Beyond these there can be seen a real progression, even evolution if you will, of Anderson’s ability to capture emotion that often goes unnoticed in our own, ‘everyday’ lives. Beginning with Rushmore, through The Royal Tenenbaums and The Life Aquatic, and even in The Fantastic Mr. Fox and Darjeeling Limited, Anderson’s quirky style aided the real mission for each respective project: take unrelatable characters and make them very relatable to the audience. In my opinion, Moonrise Kingdom missed the mark in this regard and the result was just a quirky film for hipster devotees of Anderson. I am hoping Grand Budapest Hotel will be a showcase of Anderson’s real genius as a filmmaker, which is much more than quirky dialogue and bright colors.

Secondary reasons I want to see the movie have to do with the cast, particularly Ralph Fiennes first foray into a Wes Anderson film. As a big fan of Ralph Fiennes it is always a delight to see a talented actor expand his/her versatility. I also thought Edward Norton fit really well into the Andersonian style and given a better film, he could make his character really come alive. Many other cast members should make this an entertaining movie. However, I am not going to see this movie because I am sure it will be entertaining. I am not sure that it will and that is why I want to see it.

Mr. Jones

I'm going to go see Grand Budapest because this one time in Boston some friends and I were fed up with it being fucking cold as a shit so we rented like five Wes Anderson movies and watched all of them in two days.

Wes Anderson has us pegged. We'll watch. What's more, we'll write about how we are going to watch and then we'll write about how we watched. In some ways, Wes Anderson having us pegged implies as much. And or, us writing about Anderson says as much about who and what pegs us (no sexual meaning here). Give us a to-the-point Natalie Portman (clothes or no clothes), a catchy pop-ish song, and Jason Bateman and we'll watch and write and then wait for the snow to fall.

I'm going to go see Grand Budapest Hotel because I've really appreciated all of Wes Anderson's movies. Bottle Rocket was like the ultimate permission slip. "Wait, my humor can be in a movie?" That was me asking if things I thought were funny could be in a movie. "Wait, there are other comedy options outside of Saturday Night Live and Adam Sandler?" (Isn't all of Funny People an apology [the Plato type of apology] for Wes Anderson and an apology [the saying sorry type] to all of us that only watched slapstick for formative years of our life?) Bottle Rocket ushered in these types of emotional beckonings. I appreciate that.

I'm also going to see it cause I know I'll be watching like I do in few other movies. I'll notice so much. And I don't, we don't, spend enough time noticing. I think that most of the world religions are asking us to notice things around us. Fabricated noticing is what Wes Anderson is all about. The fostering of this sort of intentional watching makes the first viewing of a Wes Anderson movie more of an event than anything else. And what's so pleasant about this is that watching so intently is always lighthearted in a Wes Anderson movie. He's good at creating a space for a viewer that can be both weighty, in a human condition sort of way, and light, in a sort of, "this is still a movie" kind of way. He makes me watch. Deal with it.

Lastly, I'm going to watch because I like movies and Wes Anderson, in some ways, embodies movies. Famous actors, fun stories, good music, cool images and scenes, memorable lines, something to talk about with your friends later; these are all things that make for good movies. Wes Anderson is good at all of these things and makes use of all of these things. I like to think that he likes movies and that his actors like movies and that makes me like his movies. So I'm going to go see this movie.

The Fast and the Furious + The Comedy

Two years ago I cautiously wrote the following after having smiled for two hours 

through Fast Five, the fifth installment in the Fast and Furious series, a series that 

has grossed nearly two billion dollars:

So, when I first heard rumblings about Fast Five, I was immediately like, 'OK, how many 

times can you top the top?' After all, Jack Sparrow is all but ruined at this point. But 

then... I saw Fast Five. I only needed about 4 minutes of DPL action to know that the top 

has been topped and immediately started to worry about the making of Super-Fast Six. 

They topped the topped and I loved every minute of it. I'm nervous about Vin driving 

cars that fly but I think I am ready for it.

Welp. Vin flew. Vin flies. Twice. 

I have so much fun watching these movies and I for real don't mean that to be a 

jab at the franchise. I mean, we may well have reached a level of absurdity that 

makes space for absurdity, on its own, to be cool. But so does Rambo and Rocky 

and well, any Stallone picture. And just as may be be the case with Rambo, I would 

imagine there are viewers that leave the theater saying things like, "Vin Diesel and 

The Rock are so cool!" They may even say it with a sense of wanting to be like 

them. But even these viewers have been relieved of having to believe that street 

racing is as cool in real life as it is in Fast and Furious. This whole thing, this whole 

cars and bad guys thing, is on to something and I'm trying to figure it out. My gut 

is saying that it's just nickel cowboy novellas with multi-million dollar budgets. 

There may be more though.

Here's what I know they pull-off:

1) Their values are so classic. Dom and Leddy and Mia and even Brian have a 

family first approach. In their value system you risk yourself for your brother 

because they would do the same for you. And even more than that, you do it 

because it's right. 

2) They pull from the Wizard of Oz and never relegate the fact that there really is 

"no place like home." (This is even more true in the 6th installment). 

3) For the good guys (sometimes mistaken by fellow good guys), the law is a 

social construction that is at the behest of an inner sense of right and wrong. 

Relatedly, it's never too late to do the right thing. It may be a twisted version of 

the Golden Rule insofar as their vigilanteism necessitates, often times brutal, 

justice-keeping, but the threads of "doing unto others" weave through F&F.

4) The Red, White, and Blue has a place--fast cars and capitalism. And the reason 

that all this works so well is because their values don't dismiss an old favorite, 

"Money can't buy happiness but money is still pretty awesome." 

5) One thing I like most, is their hospitality. You'd be hard pressed to find a more 

welcoming group of criminals. I'd join them if they invited. It's worth noting that 

we're not sure where these chiseled out value systems come from. Maybe it's the 

implied immigrant narrative (the 7th or 8th has to go this route--can you even 

picture early Dom?!). Regardless, there's no mistaking ($2,000,000,000 gross) that 

the world cheers a Fast and Furious version of moral/ethics philosophizing--for 

better or worse.

6) As absurd as the idea is of driving out of the front of a military plane as it 

crashes is, there is no denying that sticking to a script that has worked for a few 

thousand years is just wise: a) fun introduction to characters, b) party and race 

scene, c) things get messed up, d) fixing what's messed up starts out good enough, 

e) fixing what's messed up goes wrong, f) there's no way this is going to be 

resolved, g) things get blown up and resolved. 

7) The movies welcomes viewers like me. I don't like street racing. I'm not a car 

guy. I don't need tits and ass to like a movie. And yet they've still made space for 

me in the theater. 

8) Go big or go home.

9) Resurrections never get old.

Don't worry! There is a seventh one in the works. Here are some things to do 

next:

1) Someone needs to be related to someone else. Brian (Paul Walker) needs to 

be related to a bad guy. His biological father could surface and be the one that 

killed Dom's father. Brian would be forced to decide where his loyalty lies--with 

Dom or with blood. Better yet, what if it was his mother? She could be running a 

drug cartel that carries shipments from Russia to Alaska across the Bering Strait. 

She could run her shipments via submersible cars that drive on the ocean floor! 

Or:

We go back to the beginning, pre-Nos, when American muscle still ruled. We 

could see a toddler Vin Diesel, clad in toddler sleeveless tees--street racing lawn 

mowers through East L.A. Or better yet, racing go-carts through the Mexican- 

Caribbean resorts his mother labors in as a maid for the middle-class elite of 

suburban America. Either way, we would all benefit from some back story at this 

point. 

2) The Cars need to fly - not a lot - but they need to have a feature that allows 

them to take off, levitate for a second, and then be done with it.

3) We need a new actor, preferably an up and coming rapper, I think J. Cole 

could pull it off. The character would need some African roots and connections

with a father that is running Nigerian oil fields with an iron fist for B.P. which would 

take us back to London.

4) Someone is actually going to have to die, permanently.  

I think it is important, however, at this point in time to start thinking about a new 

description for what this is. Just because something uses film (digital or old 

school) does not mean it is a film. Maybe we should call some movies, like the 

Fast and the Furious, joints. Wait, that's been done. Either way, I just don't think 

it's cool to call Ingmar Bergman's work and Paul Walker's work by the same 

name. I would imagine some folks at MoMa or The Tate Modern would have 

something to say about this. I watched The Comedy pretty soon after having seen 

Fast and Furious to kind of experience this question about what is a film and 

what should not be a film

As much fun as I had watching people and cars and guns and houses and money 

glisten in F&F, I had a comparably rough time watching people and ideas and 

apartments and money dull itself into depression in The Comedy. What's glaring 

to me is that these movies exist alongside each other. Maybe The Comedy is a 

two hour protest of Fast and Furious? Maybe it is a comedian's attempt to lop off 

a chunk of Hollywood and let it drift out into the absurd realms it should land in 

more often (out where Paul Walker's mother is running cocaine shipments under 

the Bering Strait)? Maybe the whole thing is a narcissistic plea for MORE 

attention? Maybe there is some deep meaning and questions needing answers 

fusing through the languid, perpetual flipping off that makes up each scene? Maybe 

depravity is harked on, again and again, to remind us that it's better to laugh than 

it is to hate and destroy? Maybe The Comedy is about extravagance and it's 

deleterious effects on a post 9/11, somewhat lost and depraved generation? I 

could see how one could say it's just a movie and we shouldn't think about it too 

much. I could also see how one could say that it's all these things. 

However, I can't really think about it beyond the guys that made it. I think it's 

about them. Whatever they were trying to pull-off wasn't pulled off. They were 

missing any sort of point worth talking about. The only thing worth talking about 

is that these guys were applauding their own ability to make a movie and to make 

it about despicable things. I'm still not really sure. Either way, I really wanted to 

give this movie a chance. 

  

The Comedy features Tim Heidecker as a wandering, aging, wealthy hipster. 

Heidecker drifts through Brooklyn and Manhattan and just as I attempted to do 

as few constructive things as possible in high school, so too does Heidecker's 

character attempt to raise a 'fuck you' eyebrow to all that his privilege allows him 

to. His day-to-day life is a mockery of all that was once viewed as appropriate by 

our grand parents. That's about it, really. It's minimalist in that way but there could 

be more.

Maybe these guys are geniuses and in coming generations we'll look back on The 

Comedy and say thanks. It is different and it is brave in some ways. But it's mostly 

annoying. And I don't mean the lead character is annoying. He was annoying but 

that's not what I'm talking about. It's annoying that they felt they needed to make 

an annoying movie. If their goal was to make an annoying movie so that they 

could prod and poke at 'Society' or something like that, then they should have 

just not made the movie. The whole thing just seems kind of cliche in that way. It's 

like, dudes, we knew all of these things already. Amour, another movie (or film) 

about aging and extravagance is a legitimate attempt at talking about some darker 

themes that run through 'Society' as viewed by those that are aimlessly aging. And 

maybe I'm drawing a line here. I don't hate on movies that often and I'm still not 

sure I fully want to hate on this movie. I just feel that this whole endeavor was 

kind of childish. 

All that aside, Heidecker is a really good actor. He was convincing and made me 

feel for him. He can carry a scene and is able to keep one wanting to watch. I was 

really intrigued by the character. Maybe that's enough? Maybe being intrigued by a 

character and watching that character experience some life situations is enough 

for a movie? I'm not sure, I need to hear what some other folks have to say about 

it. I think this movie is good for discussion like Melancholia is good for discussion. 

It's certainly a fringe movie and fringe stuff is good for helping us decide where 

our boundaries are, are not, or shouldn't be at all. I already feel shitty about 

hating on this movie. I hate hating on movies. 

My final point, then, is that I don't want my negativity to be that big of a deal. I 

don't want to 'burn books' but I do want to call out narcissism and arrogance. My 

main negativity has to do with not wanting to watch this movie again. But if 

someone puts in the work to make a movie, and they definitely put in the work, 

then I am willing to acknowledge what someone has made. Even if what they've 

made is somewhat destructive. 

A good friend once taught me something that I try and live by, "Just because you 

can make a chair doesn't mean you should make the chair." This hushed truism 

works better if you say something like, "Just because you can make Wal-Mart 

doesn't mean you should make Wal-Mart" but the chair analogy is a little more 

dramatic. 

I think the problem with conservatism is that conservatism doesn't like 

to allow for the reality that some folks, often times many folks, are going to do 

things that we don't want them to do. Conservatism ironically exists to stomp 

out anything that isn't pretty, manicured and Country Club (it's ironic because 

wealth in capitalism hinges on the poorer buying products distributed by the 

wealthy). Whereas, liberalism, I think, is best for all of us because it doesn't hide 

from the shitty parts of life. A liberal reading of universal health care 

acknowledges that some people are going to take advantage of the system. A 

liberal approach to health care accepts that part of it and rightfully realizes that 

universal health care is still better than the greed and usury of insurance 

companies, attorneys and cronyism. It's better even if some take advantage of the 

system and benefit because of someone else's hard work. And that's the positive I 

can pull from this movie. It liberally does not hide from the shit and that makes it 

a liberal movie and I'm ok with liberal in this sense even if I'm left wondering if 

this movie should have been made in the first place (not wondering about F&F).

Mud

You need to see Mud. It’s a movie in a pure sense. It's a movie like The Sound and the Fury is a book. It latches onto timeless characteristics of good movies and rides them through a story worth being told. You could say it’s a classic American story and a classic American movie. Classic implies having been done before. Classic also implies having been done right. It’s true that this story has been told before and that it's already been done right.  Mud is worth seeing cause it too has been done right. 

Any good American novel is proof that being American isn’t about abiding by legacy; it’s about finding something or creating something worth telling about later. My friends and I (who all, proudly,  trace our lineage back to Daniel Boone and Simon Kenton) chased this sentiment around the woods and creeks near our homes for most of our childhood. Mud is about the snakes, both literal and figurative, that we found, ran from, and threw rocks at in those creeks and woods. 

Kids that are raised right wander around in the woods hoping to find things like boats lodged in tree canopies. Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer were about this drive in young boys to find cool shit in the woods. Boys that are captivated by boats in trees are also overly responsive to that insatiable desire to sit next to girls and say things that make girls smile. And ya know, these same boys, especially the ones that don’t quite ‘get’ their fathers, are all hoping to find a pistol carrying vagrant that lives in boats in trees and speaks poetically, or matter-of-factly, about the only thing worth worrying about—sitting next to that one girl, the one worth sailing off with.

Mud is about these things. Mud makes no excuses for pursuing classic. Mud, the character embodied by a tuned-in and toned-down Matthew McConaughey, and Mud the movie, know that they each have been done before.  It’s how they go about nodding to their predecessors that allows for this movie to be lauded as one of the better movies I’ve seen in a while. 

Both are not trying to convince me of anything. McConaughey and Jeff Nichols (writer and director) aren’t selling anything. They’re looking back at what’s cool about movies. They’re looking back on what’s cool about being a kid. They’re looking back on The South and America. And they’re doing all this retro stuff by telling a timeless story that’s happening now. I’m so glad Nichols did it without any tricks or slow motion (this is not Tarantino cool and supposedly he spent a couple million to shoot the last scene from a helicopter yet he threw out the footage). Nothing here is clever. Omnipresent Hollywood is held back despite some star power and budgets. Old-school story telling is let loose. And we’re left with a movie that’s got some staying power.

Mud even has a “Holy Shit!” moment. I haven’t said holy shit in a movie theater in a long time.

The Great Gatsby - Yu You

There is no point in denying the comparison of Baz Luhrmann’s film adaptation of The Great Gatsby to the original novel that is widely considered to be F. Scott Fitzgerald's highest artistic achievement, especially for those who choose to see the film out of their appreciation of the novel. It is also futile to expect the film to be as good as the book because a film adaptation is essentially a translation of the original literary work by the language of motion pictures. And there is no such thing as a perfect translation. So how did the film do as a translation of such a literary classic as The Great Gatsby?

In Tolstoy’s magnum opus - Anna Karenina, after Anna committed her adultery for the first time with Vronsky, she could not bear any words of Vronsky’s post-coital confession of love, as Tolstoy wrote ‘she felt that at that moment she could not express in words her feeling of shame, joy, and horror at this entrance on a new life, and she did not wish to vulgarise that feeling by inadequate words.’ This is how the film The Great Gatsby failed; by doing exactly the opposite of what Anna did not wish to do, i.e. vulgarising that feeling by inadequate words. In the case of the film adaptation of The Great Gatsby it means using crass bombastic visual language to convey the story in a way so callous that most of the subtleties and nuances which make The Great Gatsby great are lost.

For instance, in Mr Luhrmann’s visualisation, the glitter and glamour, buzz and bustle of the jazz age, the fantastical facade of the American Dream which is, at its core, superficial and fake equate to scenes similar to a Disney animation. Gatsby’s extravagant parties became Lady Gaga’s Paparazzi music video. Yes, the novel contains all these over the top, lavish images that are associated with the milieu in which the story was written, but Scott Fitzgerald did it with sublime style, a crucial literary merit that put The Great Gatsby in the league of the greatest novels of the 20th century. Luhrmann’s translation has little of it. 

However, the vulgar style was not what made me most uncomfortable, the impious improvisation of Fitzgerald’s original novel was. The film was seemingly suggesting, via a flashback to the occasion where Gatsby and Daisy made their first acquaintance, that the penniless soldier Jay Gatz (Gatsby’s original name) whose paucity was disguised under his uniform did not fall in love with Daisy for who she was, but the idea of a higher social standing; as he watched Daisy and her mother ascending the grand staircase of their wealthy house in the film (the symbolism of a social ladder was obvious here), Jay Gatz decided to become Gatsby, and in his own narration it was his audacious hope for self-betterment that gave him the courage to fall in love with Daisy. 

For the viewers who haven’t read the book, this interpretation of Gatsby as a blatant opportunist whose sole intention was to use Daisy as a gateway into the prosperous future may seem clever and credible in that it brought out the idea that everything about Gatsby was fake, a notion that was ostensibly align with the central idea of the novel. True, the inauthenticity and disillusionment of the American Dream were what Fitzgerald aimed to expose. But as a reader who has read the novel twice, I wasn’t convinced that this nihilistic gist was intended by the author for the book. Fitzgerald’s Jay Gatz is a much more complex and ambivalent character when it comes to how he fell in love with Daisy. Admittedly, Jay Gatz was allured into Daisy’s life by its beauty and richness in the first place, but when he did fall in love with Daisy, the love he felt for her was real. And Daisy did love him back then as evidenced in her heart-wrenching reaction to Gatsby’s letter on her wedding night. 

I am perfectly aware that Fitzgerald’s novel explores bigger themes about a period in American history where everything was a production of something, where the American Dream seemed to be ever more so ‘materialising’ and achievable, whereas in reality ‘there is only the pursued, the pursuing, the busy and the tired’. Furthermore, on the grand scheme of human existence, the novel reveals how happiness is elusive and future dreams are nothing but a journey into the past. The Great Gatsby transcends a romantic novel, but that in no way diminishes the fact that it is a love story as well! And I should like to argue that there isn’t any ‘bigger’ theme than love. So, contrary to Luhrmann’s interpretation of the book, at least one thing is real in the novel, and it is love; Gatsby’s love for Daisy, Tom Buchanan’s love for his unfortunate mistress, Nick Caraway’s love for Gatsby and Scott Fitzgerald’s love for books as captured in the dialogue Jordan and Nick had with the drunken man they found in Gatsby’s library in the midst of another clamorous party:

‘What do you think?’
‘About what?’
He waved his hand towards the bookshelves.
‘About that. As a matter of fact you needn’t bother to ascertain. I ascertain. They’re real.’

The film kept this scene but ditched this crucial narrative quoted above, sadly and rather unfaithfully. While it is appealing to focus on the falsity of the American Dream, it is misleading to make the audience walk away with the idea that ‘fakeness’ is what Fitzgerald’s novel is all about. Because it is not. It is not that love isn’t real, but how people go about obtaining it that is false; in the process of chasing love people in modern age lose sight of it and substitute it for materialistic possessions. It is the fake vis-à-vis the real that makes the tragedy of the story, of the money-driven and vanity-driven human condition, so powerful and profound, not just the fake itself. Therefore I would argue that although the film of The Great Gatsby has stuck close to narratives of the original novel, it is not as faithful an adaptation as some film critics claim it to be. 

Despite the flaws, neither do I think the film is as sacrilegious as some harsh reviews made it out to be. Luhrmann’s treatment of the scene where Gatsby was finally reunited with Daisy at Nick’s house, followed by an entire afternoon of bliss at Gatsby’s mansion was brilliant. It succeeded in assuming the weight of the episode charged with deep emotions that went from suffocating anticipation, agitation, to apprehensive awkwardness, to the culmination of rekindled joy of love and to the retrospective serenity. The sequence was so well done that I found it redeeming for Luhrmann’s vulgar visualisation of the rest of the film. Adding to that redemption was Leonardo DiCaprio’s stellar performance of Gatsby. Amongst all the actors, he stood out as the star he was supposed to be. His portrayal of Jay Gatsby was probably the film’s most faithful interpretation of Fitzgerald’s novel; handsome, dashing in his pink suit, as dodgy in his business as in his pretence of an Oxford man and above all, deadly hopeful. 

Umberto Eco on the loss of translation once said, ‘the job of translation is a trial and error process, very similar to what happens in an Oriental bazaar when you are buying a carpet. The merchant asks 100, you offer 10 and after an hour of bargaining you agree on 50.’ After over two hours of bombardment of lurid imageries, dazzling Tiffany jewelleries and lavishing tailor-made suits and dresses, with an ending that has escalated the romantic tragedy out of proportion, Baz Luhrmann’s translation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby achieved just under 50% of the original masterpiece’s value.

Spring Break 2K13 - Banta Movie Edition

As the carpool of Jeeps (tops down) and Mustangs (tops down) was peeling out of town on its way to PCBeach (Club La Villa), I was finalizing an itinerary for movie watching (I'm that awesome). Netflix, Redbox, HBO app, Insight Cable, and actual movie theaters made up the destinations. My bike (no top), a rental car (top that doesn't retract), and public buses (windows slid back), were the means of transportation. The only things missing were some DrangonBallZ shirts (three! buttons undone) and body shots. Here's the story (to be read in hungover, scratchy voiceover): "Dude. Like. You should have seen it, I mean like, you wouldn't believe it..."

On the Road

I'm not sure our generation has enough to rebel against. We have plenty of blogs and LGBTQ clubs on college campuses to harness most 'On-the-Roaders'. We also have plenty of cars. Road-trips just aren't what they used to be--daring and exotic. I mean we have cruise control and AC and auxillary cords. It's like taking your apartment with you. As a result, when I first read On the Road, at the end of each narrative wherein Dean destroyed any semblance of boundaries, I mostly exhaled and said something like, "Gosh, that sounds exhausting. Should I skip class tomorrow?" That was in 2004. Since then we've wondered how this book would play-out on screen. Could they capture how necessary Kerouac made the wandering seem? Would it be sweaty, smelly and cold enough? How could they, without an over-saturating voiceover, bring in the commentary on the suppressive state of things? I liked this movie. I thought it was creative and amounted enough toughness to make me shrug like I did when I first read it, "Gosh, that looks exhausting. Should I skip work tomorrow?" The acting was basic but good. The state of things came across and it sure did look sweaty, smelly and cold. For that, this movie gets an OK from me. If the book was important for you then see this movie. If the book passed you by then this movie is sufficient for letting you know what you might have missed. You'll know enough to decide if you should read it or not. If you see it, look closely at Vigo, his presence is subtle but memorable.

Killing Them Softly

Lots of talking. Pitt doing his Pitt thing--cool and tuned in. Ray Liotta is excellent. There are some Matrix elements, as far as camera tricks and all that. I feel like this movie went under the radar a little bit. I think it's due to the talking, lots of it. Sometimes I'm not in the mood to watch low life dudes do low life stuff. Sometimes I am. I wasn't really feeling it though in this one. There's not much redemption in Killing Them Softly. It's mostly despicable people, sometimes comically, carrying along a catchy title while they try and make smart decisions in a space not so friendly to intellectuals. All that to say, leave it to Pitt to find a way out--a suave way out. This is worth seeing but it's nothing special.



Borg/McEnroe: Fire and Ice

Having read Agassi and Sampras' books, and now having seen this HBO documentary on Borg and McEnroe, I'm anxious to see how Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are going to raise the bar. They'll have to work hard to surmount the overflowing ego their predecessors pontificate on. For real, these guys get all meta and talk about their own ego as if it existed as its own entity at a point in time. It's awesome. Regardless, it's fascinating to me to see how tennis players talk about their rivals. The mixing of media, personal life and performance is as close as we can get to the kind of stuff Greeks loved. If you're like me and only know McEnroe through famous YouTube clips and Borg only through his courtside patronage to watch Federer and Nadal break his records, then you'll appreciate learning how and why we still see the two of them. They were really freaking good at tennis. They also were really different dudes. Also, if you geek out on tennis like I do you'll be left wondering, "How cool would it be to see Federer and Borg play, both in their prime?"

The Swell Season

Not sure why I started watching this. I've been watching documentaries on music and food recently. Not sure why I've been doing that either. At any rate, this is one of those super dramatic, overly sentimental documentaries about the guy and girl that made the movie Once. I guess the producers and director had the idea to follow around an Oscar winner right after they win the Oscar. They chose this couple. I made it through about 30 minutes and was working hard to make it that long. It's just sappy and I wasn't feeling the sappy. They seem like really cool people. I respect what they're doing and what they've done--the musicians that is. But the documentary kept making me cringe so I turned it off. The spoiler alert is that their lives changed a lot after they won an Oscar.



Nitro Circus: The Movie

I'm waiting for Sal Masakela and other commentators/writers that have made their living on XGames to have a serious conversation around an oak table, dimly lit, in an ESPN studio. They'll be, in lowered, less boisterous voices, discussing the future of extreme sports. The question on the table between their expensive looking chairs will be, "How far can this go? What is the limit?" Travis Pastrana, in the mean time, will be doing less talking and more limit finding stunts. There is some cross-over between Jackass and Nitro Circus. They both grew out of MTV and laugh a lot when people get hurt. The only difference, as they talk about in this movie, is that the Nitro Circus guys are for real athletes and really do stuff that could (and maybe will) kill one of them. There was a death at this year's Winter XGames. As we become more obsessed with concussions in football, I wonder how we are going to sculpt the vernacular for talking about dudes (girls included) dying on television in prime time. All that to say that I was really gripped by this movie. They gave it a whole vibe of, "I dare you to stop us, establishment." They often have to leave the United States to do some of their stunts cause they are illegal here. These stunts involve jumping tricycles from one roof to another, 600 feet up. So, I don't know. I watched this and liked it. I think I'm mostly interested in Travis Pastrana though. The dude is really good at stuff and seems more level headed about this whole endeavor of pushing limits and all that. That's what's interesting about it--being level headed about pushing death, and laughing during.

Side by Side

Bearded Keanu, I knew there was more to you, man. I mean, I knew it. I bet you and the Wachowski brothers get together, surround yourselves in trip crystals, imbibe in Eastern meds and re-imagine the future. I'm so glad that you made this movie. I wonder if I'm as glad as the movie-making royalty was when you called and said, "Hey George Lucas, I'm sitting here with David Lynch, he says I should talk to you next about the future of digital film making. I mean, George, what is the world gonna be like when there is not, when there is, um, when there isn't any actual film?"

The front stage content of this documentary, "What is the future of digital film?" took a total back seat for me. I literally spent the entire 90 minutes really enjoying the fact that Keanu was intently, dedicatedly, passionately, putting his questions to big time movie makers. They could have been talking baseball or Zen, I didn't care. I just liked watching them interact. Others might actually want to watch this for the intended content. I sure would like to know how that's possible, though. Keanu is just too other-worldly for me.

Undefeated

Whoa. You definitely need see this. There is something for everyone. Take your pick on how to view this and talk about it. Race. High school football. Poverty. Religion. College football. Teaching. Education. Coaching. Violence. Capitalism. Hollywood. And a whole bunch of other stuff all surfaces in this story about a high school football team from inner-city Memphis. I can see how someone would think this movie is total Hollywood hogwash. I can also see how some folks could be really moved by this story. I think I was both. See it and let me know what you think.





Spring Break Recap

So I don't have any stories that involve balconies or cops on the beach but I've seen some cool movies. I didn't have to hear anyone strum C and G chords while singing Wonderwall either. I'm not sure what this says about the state of Spring Break in your late 20s but I do know that if you visit the same RedBox three days in a row you might be lucky enough to talk movies with Circle K employees that watch more movies than you do.

Life Is But a Dream - Rebecca Sansom

Part 1: Initial review (before I realize Beyonce co-directed the film)

I watched HBO's documentary on Queen Bey last night. And though I heard people say watching it will make you dislike her, I have to disagree. I can still remember choreographing dance routines to 'Say My Name' in my friend's living room in high school. (Yes, high school. I realize you may have expected me to say middle school, but dancing to Destiny's Child was a normal 15 year old activity for me and my crew.) I found Beyonce to be her charming, fierce, driven, adorable self in this film. So, the filmmakers accomplished that. Though, I think that would be simple to accomplish for any basic editor given that much footage of Beyonce.

Here are my critiques of the film. The timeline was confusing, especially at the beginning. My friends and I were constantly looking at each other saying, “When was that? Where are they? Which concert is this? Why is everyone stressed out?” This could've been easily fixed with simple graphic descriptions, but there were hardly any, if any, in the entire film!

At one point in the middle of the film, the filmmakers are introduced, sort of. The camera-man tells us the director hasn't slept in 72 hours, as he films him, and lets us know that he smells bad, too. Ok. Why are you telling me this?

Then we find out that the crew is 2 days away from the Billboard Awards and they don't have an approved rough cut. Oh ok. Now it's starting to make sense.  As a filmmaker, myself,  that sounds very stressful and I can see why they haven't slept. But, shortly after that revelation I find myself wondering what exactly they are talking about? Are they screening the documentary at the Awards? Are they in charge of another video that we don't know about?

I still don't know.

The music got really tense, and I wanted to go to that place of tension with Beyonce and the crew, but I was still trying to figure out why we were so worried! I felt like the filmmakers were assuming we were all up on what was happening with Beyonce in the summer of 2011 and could go back and access it as if it were yesterday, since they can. I'm sorry, but even though I do try to keep up to date on my Beyonce current events you're going to have to give me a brief recap (date and location is all I need. Really.).

Maybe it's just me. Maybe everyone else who sees the film will think showing the stressed out crew was justified. (I personally don't. I think it comes off as a cheap fame grab). Showing them only made me wish she had a film crew comprised of women. (Hey, Beyonce!! Are you hiring a new film crew? Ok. Cool! Have your people call my people!).

Unfortch, the film left me with more questions than I came in with, and not in the ooooh-I'm-so-interested-in-this-topic-I'm-going-to-the-library-right-now kinda way. In the oh so we still don't know where her relationship stands with her father, or what tough relationship phase Blue Ivy was apparently conceived in, or whatever happened to Sasha Fierce?

I need someone else to do a better documentary on Beyonce and this time I want a less random, less confusing story line. A documentary about Queen Bey shouldn't start to drag! This actually felt long. There was some compelling footage and testimony, but the boring and seemingly misplaced footage took a toll on the pace. I'm really sorry, Beyonce. You deserve better storytelling!

Part 2: My response after realizing Beyonce had almost total creative control on the film as she co-directed and co-produced it.

Now, I just think it was completely contrived and basically pointless. It appears that by withholding information about her personal life, Beyonce just doesn't leave enough room to make a satisfying documentary. It was Beyonce's call to be so cryptic. Is that supposed to make me want to know more about her? Why would it? She's never going to reveal the apparent secrets she's keeping from us. And maybe that's her point. Maybe Beyonce is brilliant, and by giving us a barely-below-surface level look into her private life she thinks that we'll give up on trying to figure her out!

As far as I'm concerned it's working. She says it herself- she loves entertaining people for a living and making them forget about their worries for a few hours. Isn't that all we should expect from an entertainer?

Someday I'll go see Beyonce in concert (hopefully someday soon) and I have no doubt I will thoroughly enjoy myself, no matter what is going on in either of our private lives.