Archive: "Twelve Years a Slave"

I’ve wanted to say this for a while, but I’ve been too nervous. I’m not a superstitious person, but I do believe it’s not smart to call something before the clock stops. I will let it out now, though: 2013 has been a remarkably good year for movies.

Of course I mean in terms of quality; I'm not sure how the industry is faring economically. But I am serious when I say that this is one of the best calendar years I’ve lived through when it comes to movies. Sure, there have been some real disappointments that have belly-flopped their way into theaters—you broke my heart, Man of Steel, you broke my heart—but there’s also been home run after home run, and sometimes from players no one expected. These masterpieces are flooding in from every genre, from comedy (like the apocalyptic duo This Is the End and At World’s End), to action (Pacific Rim), and even thriller/horror (see previous columns on Europa Report and Prisoners). 

But a truly excellent year for film is defined by its significant releases, the films that will unquestionably stand the test of time. 2013 has had these too. Gravity, which I wrote about just a few weeks back, is a technical marvel that redefined the possibilities of cinema. Short Term 12, a film I was unfortunately unable to write about, is an innovative, humanist masterpiece with all the power of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and the passion of Pixar. And now, there is Twelve Years a Slave.

I’ll warn you right now: This is a very difficult film to watch. Twelve Years a Slaveis an adaptation of the autobiography of Solomon Northup, a free black man who was kidnapped while touring Washington, D.C. as a musician and subsequently sold into slavery. As the title suggests, he toiled for 12 years on different Southern plantations before finally regaining his freedom. However, the impermanent quality of his suffering does not make it any easier to witness the atrocities this movie depicts.

Director Steve McQueen has captured the horrors of slavery with Twelve Yearsbetter than any film in the past. One of the ways that he accomplishes this is by limiting his story to the perspective of a single person. Until the very end of the film, there are no outright statistics given. There is nothing to bring us out of Northup's life. In focusing solely on the experience of one man, we are left with a much greater understanding of the lives of millions of slaves.

The atrocities that Solomon witnesses and experiences are startlingly juxtaposed with everyday experiences. As in McQueen’s earlier films, Hunger and Shame, he manages this through a masterful sense of framing and an innate knowledge of how long to let a scene play out for the greatest cinematic effect. One shot inTwelve Years a Slave uses this technique perfectly: Punished for striking an overseer, Solomon is left tied by his neck to a tree branch with his toes just barely on the ground. The shot lasts several minutes, as, in the background, other slaves slowly emerge from hiding and go about their tasks, ignoring this choking for fear that they will themselves be punished.

The film is full of brutal, long scenes like this, and viewers are struck by how demanding this movie must have been on the actors, especially Chiwetel Ejiofor, who plays Solomon. Ejiofor, who I’ve only seen previously in Children of Men, is so brilliant in his role that I am nearly speechless. I can’t wait to see more for him in the future. Likewise, the relatively unknown Lupita Nyong’o is overwhelming as Patsey, a young slave girl who is the object of her owner’s abusive obsession. Many recognizable faces also appear, to mixed results. Michael K. Williams, who played Omar on The Wire, performs well in his few short scenes. The same goes for Paul Dano, whose “extremely punchable face," as one critic has put it, serves him well in his role as a vengeful overseer. Praise must also be given to Paul Giamatti, who provides one of most uncomfortable scenes in the film with his heartless portrayal of a major slave dealer, and Michael Fassbender, who rivals Chiwetel Ejiofor for best performance, as Solomon’s monstrous owner.

There is only one major problem I found in Twelve Years a Slave, and it is related to the casting. Brad Pitt, whose credit as executive producer suggests he forced his way onto the cast, plays a Canadian abolitionist who eventually helps Solomon get free. It is a ridiculous, distracting performance that doesn’t fit logically or thematically into the movie. Twelve Years a Slave is a challenge to white America to face the evils of its past, but upon the appearance of Pitt’s character, this group is given an out. No longer do white people actually have to consider the events on screen and whether they would have intervened or not; instead, this threatens to become just another civil rights film in which the white guy decides to do the right thing and save the day. Pitt becomes a stand-in for every modern person who now obviously knows slavery is wrong. His only dialogue with Fassbender’s plantation owner essentially adds up to just that: “Slavery is wrong!” There is not an ounce of subtlety to him, and his performance shoots an otherwise-perfect film in the foot.

Despite my anger at Pitt’s character and my warnings that this movie is extremely hard to watch, Twelve Years a Slave is an absolutely fantastic film. The horrors of slavery will forever be a scar on America’s past, and far too often our culture tries to ignore them. Every American should see this movie.

Archive: Innovative Horror Films

When I was a kid, I was terrified of horror films. I was the proverbial "scaredy cat." Just seeing the trailer for a scary movie would keep me up all night. And yet, I was, and have always been, fascinated by the horror genre. Upon entering high school, I grew out of my paralyzing fear and I began to explore the genre with my friends, watching American classics such as The Omen (“It’s all for you, Damien!") and Rosemary’s Baby (“He has his father’s eyes...”), as well as masterpieces of the international scene like Audition (“Kiri kiri kiri kiri kiri kiri!”) and The Devil’s Backbone (“Many of you will die.”). I was delighted to find that the techniques and conventions of horror are just as varied and complex as any other narrative type, and that even though innovation may be less visible in this genre, it certainly exists. This week, in light of the upcoming holiday, I’d like to share three of my favorite modern English-language horror films that demonstrate the innovative spirit that lies beneath the surface of mainstream horror.

Pontypool (2008)

If there is one type of monster movie that requires a creative kick to attract audiences these days, it’s the zombie flick. The traditional, Romero-style, slow-moving, brain-munching zombie has been so overplayed in the past decades that it isn’t only not that interesting anymore, it isn't that scary. The unfamiliar is a key part of fear, and we’ve become very accustomed to this particular menace.

Pontypool returns to the unfamiliar by reconstructing the means of disease transmission. Instead of spreading the zombie plague through biting, the infection is carried through language. Certain words and phrases allow the virus to spread between hosts. It’s a complicated concept, and sure to upset those who demand utter logic from their movies, but I found it to be a refreshingly original idea and argue that Pontypool manages to pull it off quite well. The thought of a crowd of shuffling people all muttering the same thing is quite chilling.

Despite the fact that Pontypool is an independent film, it doesn’t feel low-budget in the slightest. The entire movie is set in a small-town radio station, where reports from the outside world leak in to capture our imagination and create a true feeling of entrapment in a major event. While the actors aren’t well-known, they perform remarkably well. However, it’s in the editing where Pontypool really excels. The film is extremely high quality and stylish for an independent film. Imagine, if you will, that J. J. Abrams had shot a zombie movie. Pontypool looks a little like that would. Overall, an impressive film.

Europa Report (2013)

My personal idol in the realm of film criticism, the great Film Crit Hulk, once defined a masterpiece as “A FILM THAT SEEK TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING (OFTEN VERY SPECIFIC) AND IT EXECUTE THAT GOAL (OR SET OF GOALS) FLAWLESSLY THROUGHOUT.” Please excuse the capitalization and grammar; Film Crit Hulk is a Hulk, after all. By this definition, the low-budget sci-fi horror flick, Europa Report, is in fact a masterpiece. Every element of this movie has been carefully crafted to reinforce its central question: What is the price of knowledge?

It’s an ambitious goal, and the plot is founded on an even more ambitious premise: A team of a half-dozen astronauts are on a journey to survey Europa, a moon of Jupiter that has been declared by scientists as the celestial body in our solar system most likely to hold extraterrestrial life. The movie is structured in a faux-documentary format, with occasional talking-head segments and handheld footage of the shuttle and team. This creates a realist aesthetic that helps to capture the claustrophobia of the close-quarters setting.

The realism does not end there. Europa Report is what some would describe as a piece of "hard" science fiction in that it strives to keep its narrative grounded in actual science. This includes obvious gestures, such as the signal delay as information travels the widening distance between the craft and Earth, as well as some smaller ones, like how a certain chamber of the ship is viewed from outside be to constantly rotating, creating the oddly-segmented artificial gravity we witness in the film. These concessions to realism are greatly appreciated, and serve to make the thrills of the movie even more chilling. What I found most fascinating aboutEuropa Report, though, is that even as disaster after disaster strikes, there is a feeling of wonder among the characters. Call it insanity if you wish, but these guys are happy to be where they are, on the frontiers of human knowledge. All this and much more (no spoilers!) adds up to an extremely effective movie that horror aficionados, as well as scientists, will love.

Attack the Block (2011)

Here’s something odd: there are very few horror films that are set in a city. Sure, the occasional zombie flick may kick off in a major population center, but even 28 Days Later moved rather quickly to the British countryside. Whatever the reason for it, this reluctance to tell stories in an urban setting is disappointing, especially when you consider that films like Attack the Block could be more common. A small-scale alien invasion movie centered on a South London apartment block,Attack the Block follows five young teenagers as they go from looking for trouble to simply trying to stay alive.

I must say, out of the three films I’m discussing, Attack the Block is my favorite. I loved everything about this film, from the distinctive design of the monsters to the perfect fit of the soundtrack to the frenetic action scenes. I was not surprised to learn that many of the people behind the film had worked with the legendary director Edgar Wright (of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz fame), as the movie demonstrates his astonishing ability to seamlessly blend humor, action, and suspense into a single sequence. The world that Attack the Block conjures is extremely stylized, from the language to the mannerisms, and yet its characters transcend its South London setting. The perceived invincibility of these kids is universal, as is the affinity and protectiveness they feel towards their home. It’s incredibly endearing, and manages to raise the stakes even higher for English-language horror films.

Archive: "Gravity" Review

I’m going to tell you something very important. 

As much as entrenched intellectuals like me like to joke about how certain mainstream movies are such crap that each and every person involved must not have given a second thought to what they were doing, this has never—not once—been the case. Take, for instance, the live-action adaptation of Avatar: The Last Airbender, a movie that will rightly be tormented forever in the ninth circle of Cinema Hell. As wretched a project as it was, I guarantee you that plenty of crew members were absolutely dedicated to making that production the best film it could be. Blame for the film lies with its leadership and its complete lack of vision.The Last Airbender was terrible not because of its general crew, but because the people in charge, especially director M. Night Shyamalan, did not care about what they produced. This is what depresses me about mainstream cinema more than anything; more than the fear of innovation, more than the rejection of narrative, it upsets me most that men and women in charge of production seem to forgo collaborating with the incredible talent around them.

In this modern climate of apathy, Gravity has appeared as a godsend. Directed by the brilliant Alfonso Cuarón, Gravity is a testament to what the combined effort and passion of countless talented individuals can accomplish.

Gravity follows a team of American astronauts who become stranded in orbit following what is called a Kessler event—a hypothetical scenario in which a mishap in the global satellite network causes a cascade of debris to streak through orbit, colliding with other satellites with devastating force. Old dog team leader Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) and newbie astronaut Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) are left to try and survive the harshest environment of all: outer space.

Those of you familiar the past work of director Cuarón, which includes the cult hitsY Tu Mamá También and Children of Men, most likely know of his affinity for the long take, which is a camera shot that lasts an extremely long time before cutting. Cuarón is commonly lauded as the master of this technique, and Children of Menis the go-to movie for illustrating the long take in many media studies classes. 

In keeping with his long-shot proclivity, Cuarón edited the film down to just 157 shots for an average length of about 40 seconds per shot in this nearly two-hour movie. In comparison, the average shot length for modern cinema is less than three seconds. But it’s difficult to truly imagine the sheer, staggering ambition of this movie until you realize that the majority of the film frame is computer-generated.

Having a computer-generated frame may sound like it would make creating a long take easier, but the faces of the actors, which are visible through their space suits, are not rendered, and therefore must be filmed separately and edited in. The actors must still move throughout the shot and interact as though they're on an actual set, and their faces must adjust to changes in lighting, camera movement, and action. And don’t forget, this is all supposed to be occurring in the weightless vacuum of space! The challenge of succeeding with this production in terms of both editing and staging is nearly unfathomable. In fact, prior to advancements in motion-capture technology developed for James Cameron's Avatar,Gravity would have been impossible to shoot. Cuarón actually put production on hold for years until technology had advanced far enough to achieve his vision, and even after Avatar, the production team of Gravity still had to create its own programs and techniques to pull it off. This dedication, this unwillingness to give up one inch of one’s vision, is awe-inspiring.

Gravity is not just extremely entertaining; it is an important film. And when I say "important," I don’t just mean "Oscar-worthy" or "You’ll want to brag to your friends about seeing this." Sitting in the theater watching Gravity, I felt how I imagine audiences back in 1968 must have felt while watching Stanley Kubrick’s2001: A Space Odyssey. Back then, humanity was just taking its first cautious steps into space, and 2001 captured the fear, uncertainty, and wonder that our species felt, as if we were just on the edge of some great, mysterious truth. Now, 45 years later, the wonder has all but disappeared.

Although it’s not explained in Gravity, the result of the cascading debris that sets off the film’s events is that it will be impossible for humans to send any satellites, manned or unmanned, into orbit for many generations. Within the first 20 minutes, then, humanity’s place in space is lost. All that remains is the fight for survival of two tiny beings against impossible odds. Just like 2001, Gravity has captured a moment in history. This is a science fiction film for a world in which 98 percent of NASA is shut down because of absurd bickering, where the hope of progress has been abandoned for the struggle just to get by.

Yet throughout the movie, sometimes out of sight but never forgotten, the commanding presence of Earth is still felt. Even though there is a note at the beginning of Gravity that declares life in space to be impossible, we are there. Despite the overwhelming improbability of it all, this planet sustains us. It may not last, but for now it's home, and that’s okay.

Gravity will be playing at the Laemmle Theatre through Oct. 17. I cannot urge you strongly enough to see it.

Archive: "Prisoners" Review

Even for cinemaphiles, a two-and-a-half-hour film can be a wager. I have sworn to myself to give every movie I attend the benefit of the doubt and stay until the end no matter how bad it might turn out to be. But to hold out through 150 minutes of turkey-grade schlock … that's the stuff of nightmares.

I was, therefore, wary heading into Prisoners last weekend. This movie seemed to have sprung up on me out of nowhere: The first time I heard of it was last week. Bad thrillers can be a challenge to one’s sanity, and so—clocking in at 153 minutes—Prisoners appeared to be a high-stakes gamble.

That gamble paid off.

Prisoners, the latest movie from acclaimed Canadian director Denis Villeneuve, follows the desperate search for two little girls who disappear just yards from their homes. While young detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal) attempts to find leads, the father of one of the missing girls, Kellen Dover (Hugh Jackman), launches his own investigation. Villeneuve brings this seemingly well-trodden scenario to heart-pounding life.

The film's small-town setting is crucial to thickening the plot. Prisoners is set in an impoverished community in the back woods of Canada in late November. As I watched characters walk along forested roads in coats and hats, I found myself fondly reminded of Winter’s Bone (2010). Though most of the characters appeared to live in suburban lots, it was clear from the dilapidation that abounds that this place was pretty well-forgotten. And just like Winter’s Bone,Prisoners effectively draws suspense from the nature encroaching on the community. Villeneuve conjures just as much unease from a dark pit in the ground as from an unwelcome intruder.

Yet Prisoners manages to quickly disconnect itself from the neorealism of Winter’s Bone. As Loki and Dover’s investigations progress, revelations come to light that threaten to push the subdued plot of Prisoners toward the complex conspiracy plot twists of David Fincher or Christopher Nolan. Loki and Dover follow their own paths in their investigations, each meeting with dead ends and challenges to overcome. Though they uncover horrors and scars of crimes long past, they can’t truly understand the nature of the maze that they are in. They can only hope to find a way to get out of it.

The film stays grounded thanks to Jackman and Gyllenhaal. Despite the growing mystery, every action that the two characters make feels authentic. Their struggles, both outer and inner, feel all the more dramatic and real. There were several moments while watching the film—one in particular involving snakes—that had me cringing in unease without losing the authenticity of the characters. That is phenomenal writing.

I encourage you to go see Prisoners. This suspenseful independent thriller is well worth its 153-minute runtime.

A Short Endorsement of "Extra Punctuation"

If you didn't know already, Yahtzee, the Zero Punctuation guy (and the only video game critic I follow on a regular basis except this guy: Will Westwater), also has a weekly written column on the Escapist website. It's called Extra Punctuation and in it, as the name suggests, Yahtzee tends to write a little more in-depth about a topic related to his most recent ZP episode. While ZP fans just looking for Yahtzee to deal out more abuse may be slightly disappointed (the joke/insult-density is relatively low here), and while his arguments occasionally don't go in the direction you'd like (while writing about Knack he tangents for an overlong period into misanthropy, though he acknowledges this), this column allows Yahtzee to escape a bit from the Colbert-like persona he's build through ZP and share his thoughts more directly. Despite the varying quality of these EP articles, he's is a great writer and is extremely knowledgeable about video games, and thus he will occasionally stumble upon something brilliant, like in this weeks post, in which he responded to the legions of people who attack his videos/articles because they disagree with his opinions, specifically accusing him of not understanding beauty:

"It's a strange thing to say because, as cliche would have it, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's subjective. So the sentence "you don't know how to appreciate beauty" can surely be reworded as "you don't know how to appreciate things that you, subjectively, appreciate", and now you're just talking crazy. Perhaps a truer meaning would be "you don't know how to appreciate things that I, subjectively, appreciate". And I'll put my hands up to that one, yes, that may well be correct. Although I don't see how it counts against me."

That's a good defense for critics, and a flame war-deterrent as well.

So, if you're at all interested in video games or video game culture, I recommend checking out all of Yahtzee's work (hell, even follow the Rhyme-Down, 'cause it's hilarious), and not just Zero Punctuation.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/extra-punctuation
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jim-yahtzees-rhymedown-spectacular