"Gasland"

Oh my goodness--this film is an absolute MUST-SEE for all United States citizens. Because the effects of hydraulic fracturing aka fracking (drilling for natural gas) have profoundly negative impacts on all of us. This must be stopped before it gets worse. 5/5! (And I think an absolutely serious contender for the Oscar. I believe it deserves to beat "Inside Job.")

Documentary filmmaker Josh Fox receives a letter in the mail from a natural gas company proclaiming that his house lays on top of "the Saudi Arabia of natural gas:" the Marcellus Shale. If he agrees to let them drill, he could receive a signing bonus of nearly $100,000. Is it worth it? Fox takes us on an unforgettable adventure that proves no amount of money can compensate for the terrible side effects drilling causes.

"Gasland" eloquently reveals the need for URGENT change; an unequivocal commentary on how corrupt and selfish decisions can destroy our society. See it now.

"The King's Speech"

I predict that along with Best Actor, "The King's Speech" will win the Oscar for Best Picture. Because it is the best picture. I give this film, without question, a 5/5.

As we all know, Colin Firth plays King George VI--aka Albert--aka Bertie. As the Duke of York he is required to speak publicly, no small feat for a man with a supposedly incurable stammer. After Bertie sees just about every doctor possible, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) seeks out Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), an Australian speech therapist, as a last resort; he is not a doctor--rather a failed actor-- and his methods are infamously "controversial."

The repartee (albeit, at times, paused) between Logue and Bertie is simultaneously humorous and heartbreaking. Logue's quick wit and familiarity serve as sharp juxtapositions to Bertie's stutter and propriety. Despite the world of differences between the two, a friendship burgeons; of course, the relationship experiences its valleys and peaks but-- as we can all predict-- Logue's methods prove successful. The speech to which the title refers smoothly slips through the lips of the country's new monarch.

While the film mostly focuses on Bertie's relationship with his speech impediment and the man who helps him overcome it, the story is not without its necessary context. The man who was never meant to be king finds himself at the crux of the matter because his older brother renounced the throne "in order to marry the woman I love." Despite King George V's compliments (on his deathbed) toward Prince Albert, King George VI was never meant to be. In addition to his lack of training, his stutter--another cross to bare-- adds more trouble. But it is because of these downfalls that one is ruthlessly rooting for Bertie in this incredibly important moment-- the onset of WWII.

In addition to stellar performances all around, the film is beautifully shot with a unique--but satisfying-- blend of close-ups and angles. "The King's Speech" is more than an historical drama-- it's a stunning mixture of "Cinderella," "Rudy," British circumstance (something that seems so incomprehensible to us commoners) and basic humanity. "The King's Speech" is the film of the year.

And the nominations are announced!

I was very excited to see who would actually garner Academy Award nominations this year. It kind of surprised me to see how many nods "True Grit" got, considering it wasn't nominated for a single Golden Globe. Interesting. Within the next few days I'm going to post my predictions and I urge you to do the same!

I have failed to post within the past few days but I have NOT failed to get my daily dosage of film. In the past few days, I viewed: "Mother and Child," "The Messenger," and "Maxed Out." This afternoon I'm seeing "The King's Speech."

Reviews to come.

"We Live in Public"

I first saw Ondi Timoner's documentary "We Live in Public" at the 2009 Sundance Film Festival. I walked into the theater with few expectations; however, I walked out blown away by a story so unique, yet so relevant. "We Live in Public" easily earns a perfect 5/5.

(I'm not quite sure how reviews for documentaries are constructed, so work with me here.)

Timoner chronicles the unpredictable and outrageous undertakings of online pioneer Josh Harris. A brilliant, offbeat, and sometimes volatile man, Harris is, needless to say, a character. As the baby of seven children, Harris spent his formative years in front of the television, more actively reared by the cast of "Gilligan's Island" than by his own mother-- a loveless upbringing that inevitably led to his tight clench on technology. Harris's self-proclaimed visionary status manifests itself in his early involvement with the internet and the dot com industry. A trailblazer far ahead of his time Harris founded Pseudo.com, an online television company with multiple channels-- but Harris's genius far transcended Pseudo.com's parameters. Equipped with more money than he knew what to do with, Harris planned a social experiment that eerily and eloquently predicted the state of individuals's lives in the forthcoming all-encompassing technological age.

The experiment is titled "Quiet: We Live in Public" and calls for a hundred volunteers to completely relinquish their privacy and live together in a bunker in Manhattan. The inhabitants are provided--free of charge, a la Josh Harris-- with all that anyone would need; however, the space is filled with cameras and televisions. The citizens of "Quiet" eat together, shower together, defecate together, have sex with each other--and with a television in each person's pod/bed--they constantly watch each other performing these acts. In other words, everyone--in a way-- is a celebrity; everyone is getting their fifteen minutes of fame.

Occurring in 1999, "Quiet" uncannily resembles the attention-desiring users of today's sites, eg. MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, and (yes, I'm guilty) Blogspot. "We Live in Public" clearly conveys that technology's pervasive powers mean that, despite the fact that you and I didn't sign up for "Quiet", we all live in public. Although a somewhat terrifying truth, the fact of the matter is that it's reality-- a reality that Josh Harris, however unstable and odd as he is, predicted long ago.

"We Live in Public" is not only an incredible character study but a study on society as a whole. For anyone living in the 21st century, this is a must-see.

"Compulsion"

It's time for a throwback review.

Director Richard Fleischer's "Compulsion" (1959) tells the tale of two smart, wealthy young men who decide to commit "the perfect crime." Why? Well as the movie poster reads: "You know why we did it? Because we damn well felt like doing it!"

Set in Chicago in 1924, the film opens with Judd Steiner and Artie Strauss as they are leaving a fraternity house. While it is unclear to me what kind of crime they commit here-- I believe it's theft-- what is glaringly evident is the strange nature of Judd and Artie's relationship. Artie, played by Bradford Dillman, not only holds the reins within the friendship, but also possesses more attractive looks, better social skills, and an overall like-ability--however false it may be-- than Judd. Played by Dean Stockwell, Judd, who is smaller, mousier, and ever the more creepier, proclaims he wants to be instructed by Artie-- an odd intimation that inevitably displays Judd's lack of confidence. As the film progresses, the two friends plot to commit murder with the desire to outsmart everyone by never getting caught.

Unfortunately for Judd and Artie, the crime was not committed without fault. As they celebrate their success with unassuming friends, dance, and drink, they learn from Sid, a fellow student who works the late shift at The Globe, that a recently killed young boy's body was accompanied by a curious piece of evidence: a pair of glasses. Frenzied by this news, Artie and Judd bolt from the socializing to the incredibly creepy bedroom of Judd-- similar to Norman Bates's strange fascination with taxidermy, Judd is a renowned ornithologist and his room is filled with disturbing stuffed foul. Despite a manic search of his room, Judd cannot locate his glasses anywhere; this mistake was certainly not planned.

Regardless of Artie and Judd's intelligence, the police put two and two together and link the young men with the murder. After conflicting confessions from Judd and Artie, the case is brought to trial; Orson Welles plays famed attorney Jonathan Wilk. Hired by Artie and Judd's wealthy parents, Wilk delivers an unforgettable monologue in hopes of persuading the judge against capital punishment for Judd and Artie.

Based on a true story, "Compulsion" portrays the intriguing troubles of two overprivileged, genius, and unstable young men. This film is definitely worth a watch: 3.5/5.

More Lazy Blogging

I'm afraid that working today took the steam out of my engine and I'm heading to bed. So instead of writing a review I'll leave you with another trailer. (aka more lazy blogging.) Judd Apatow re-tweeted Roger Ebert's tweet that said: "Steve James of "Hoop Dreams" has "The Interrupters" at Sundance about the tragic urban epidemic of death. Oscar calibre." Reading this makes my heart cringe; how I wish to return to magical Park City in January.

Lazy Wednesday

Sadly, it seems that I have already failed to uphold the "365" part of Film Stills 365. In my defense though, I was sick yesterday, called off work, and fell in and out of consciousness on my couch while HGTV droned in the background. Needless to say, I was not in the mood to blog. To compensate for yesterday's loss, I will post twice today. This first post is kind of a lazy attempt, but I thought I'd share some movies that I'm currently interested in. (It's better than nothing!)

"Applause"

"The Housemaid"

"I'm Dangerous with Love"

"All Good Things"

When will these movies come to Dayton? Probably never. Well, they might come in the form of a DVD, but still--the experience is not the same.

"Rabbit Hole"

Before I get into my review of "Rabbit Hole," I guess I should develop some kind of grading system. A friend of mine suggested that I use ticket stubs and I believe that's a good diversion from the overused star system; however, it will probably take me some time to figure out how to create and use such a graphic. So for the meantime, my rating system will be simpler: I'll use numbers. For one reason or another, I'm under the impression that most film critics use a four point scale; now I may be wrong about that, but for Film Stills 365, I will base my rating out of a possible total of five ticket stubs, er, numbers (for now).

"Rabbit Hole"--2.5/5

I became interested in "Rabbit Hole" a few weeks ago when The New York Times's Sunday Styles section featured an article titled "Tinseltown Can Wait; the Village Cannot." While the write up barely mentioned "Rabbit Hole," the focus on the film's eccentric director, John Cameron Mitchell, intrigued me. How could the same person who directed "Shortbus"--a film I pretentiously ordered on Netflix as a sophomore in college, watched about ten minutes of, and quickly ejected before my roommate could walk in and catch me watching some pretty intense art-porn--tackle a narrative about parents grieving the loss of their child? I had to see for myself.

Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart play Becca and Howie, a young and wealthy couple living in a beautiful suburb of NYC. While the couple's property and items are undeniably aesthetically pleasing, these things only serve to obfuscate the ugly tragedy that has happened to them: their four-year-old son, Danny, was killed by an automobile. Of course, this heartbreaking accident has inevitably formed a chasm between Becca and Howie--a rift that potentially may never be breached.

Dianne Wiest plays Becca's mother--a woman who has also lost a child. However, Becca rejects her mother's tragedy, claiming it is not similar to the loss of Danny, and chooses to spend her time in the company of a high school boy. Meanwhile, a pregnancy is announced, a birthday passes, the days fade into night--constant and painful reminders to Becca and Howie that life continues.

While I think "Rabbit Hole" is enormously more complex and eloquent than "The Greatest"--a film that deals with a somewhat similar topic--I cannot say that "Rabbit Hole" will go down as one of my favorite movies. The plot line is somewhat predictable-- which is always a disappointment to me-- and even slightly bland. Furthermore, Wiest's character seems disconnected from the entire situation--almost like her character was added as an afterthought. However, I must say that Aaron Eckhart proved his acting chops in this film; he successfully tackled a serious character. Bravo.

Personally, I find this film bordering mediocrity, but see for yourself. (The trailer brings me to tears, almost as many as I shed during the film.)

"Blue Valentine"

I spent the weekend in Indianapolis-- the home to one of my favorite theaters: Keystone Art Cinema. While there I saw "Blue Valentine" and "Rabbit Hole." After having read about "Blue Valentine" in the Sundance 2010 catalog about a year ago, I was more than ecstatic to finally see this film.

Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams play a young, troubled couple whose romantic spark has inexplicably faded. The film jumps between the past and the present, illuminating the struggles and triumphs that lead them to marry and raise a daughter. At the commencement of Cindy and Dean's courtship, the two are beautifully drunk with the fluttery feeling of amour and the sentiment is contagious--as a viewer, I felt inebriated with excitement and desire as well. However, the present day versions of Cindy and Dean are literally intoxicated and the stumbling, slurring, sad forms of themselves are as dark and depressing as the newly met couple is bright and hopeful. The inevitable downward spiral that occurs over time seems to result from the monotony of diurnal life. Cindy has found small success as a nurse in a private practice while Dean wastes his "potential" as a house painter; the young dreamers they had once been while living in the boroughs of NYC have disappeared in the trenches of parenthood and suburbia.

My friends complained that the movie portrayed love negatively, but I have to disagree. Even though Cindy and Dean's romance fizzles to the point so that their marriage is hanging by a thread, I think the film does a wonderful job of conveying the tenuous nature of love. Of course the beginning of a relationship is wonderful and exciting, but it takes a naive person to believe that those feelings will remain that way forever. Unlike so many romanticized Hollywood movies, "Blue Valentine" paints an alarmingly honest portrait of a struggling young couple.

Writer/director Derek Cianfrance does an absolutely perfect job of capturing the notion that the characteristics that make Cindy fall in love with Dean are the same attributes that make her fall out of love with him. Throughout the film Dean makes the same type of goofy jokes--jokes that the audience giggled at--and it's obvious that his unchanging humor has invoked resentment within Cindy. While she has matured, Dean remains the same lost soul he was when he met her--the main exception being that his job allows him to start drinking at eight in the morning. His failure to pursue anything irks her while her nagging does nothing but irritate him.

While overall I am in love with this film, I must say that the perpetual use of close-up shots made it difficult to watch at times. Nevertheless, I thought this film was a gem and an absolute must see for anyone who's ever been in love and understands the torturous journey it can take.

Check out the preview:

new year, new blog

Despite the fact that the direction of my first blog-- friends & fabrics-- is still unclear (after almost 3 years, eek), I decided to create another blog. This new blog, though, has a distinct goal: film stills 365 will enable me to chronicle the year in film (er, perhaps years). I watch a lot of movies and sometimes I find myself forgetting what I have and haven't seen. Film stills 365 will serve as my outlet for all things cinema related.

When my mind first churned with the idea to create a film blog, it also idealistically thought that I--somewhat similar to Julie Powell's goal-- could watch one movie a day--and then have the time to blog about it. While I have the absolute desire to do that, the harsh reality is that I know I won't. It's just not possible. But I'm going to try my very best.

And I'm going to start TOMORROW.