Ronhamprod

Life of Pi
Dir: Ang Lee
Stars: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan and Tabu

Now that another Oscar season is behind us, I feel like I’m more at liberty to offer my thoughts on some of this year’s nominees without skewing your desire to see them or who you root for Oscar night…  Incidentally, I had a good time watching this year’s show.  Anyhow, I’m going to start with some thoughts on Life of Pi because, for me, it was the best film of last year.  I say that for several different reasons, but primarily because of its universal themes and impressive effort to use each and every element of the cinematic medium to its maximum.

The story, in case you haven’t heard, easily passes the “elevator test.”  That is, how would you describe the movie if you were trying to get it made and you only had the time shared with an executive in an elevator to convince them to provide you the funds to make it?  Life of Pi is about a shipwreck survivor who’s forced to share a lifeboat in the middle of the Pacific with a real-life, hostile Bengal tiger.  Huh?  Yeah!  In fact, it’s based on a novel of the same title by Yann Martel, and has a built-in audience, in case you’re worried, Ms. Studio Exec…  Hmm, tell me more.  Essentially, what I’m trying to explain is that, having read the book and seen the film in 3D, it should have won Best Screenplay – Adapted.  I’m not certain about the challenges involved in making this kind of raw and primeval story so entertaining, but I’m certain that the writer(s) did an amazing job.  Sure, the story is interesting because of all the set-up in Act 1, the adventurous elements that Pi encounters while at sea in Act 2, and the epilogue of Act 3 – but it wasn’t an easy adaptation, I can assure you!

Secondly, let’s remember that cinema is all about “moving pictures” and somehow telling a story by adequately editing these images together, applying some relevant sound, visual effects where necessary and a score – all before executing a marketing campaign to encourage moviegoers to give it a try!  Well, somehow this mix worked very well in the case of Life of Pi, both domestically and internationally.  The “moving images” are indeed breathtaking: you feel like you’re right along with poor Pi as he siphons the freshwater out of the devices provided on the lifeboat, as he battles with the tiger named Richard Parker for who’s going to emerge as the “A dog” on the boat – and particularly with the storms, sea creatures and other surprises that emerge on his adventure.  Without visual effects, this film wouldn’t be what it is…  But the same could be said – that the film would be less than its whole – without Mr. Suraj Sharma’s acting (no nomination?!?), or Mr. David Magee’s script, or Mr. Lee’s directing of the entire “ship” (pun intended), or the sound mix that no doubt took MONTHS of post production time to complete so we could all enjoy the genuine sounds of a whale collapsing back into the water after exiting the sea in a graceful jump…  See what I’m saying about this being a combined effort of 110% from all those involved?

But lastly, let’s consider the themes of the film.  This is the story of a young man who’s lost at sea, but has that built in faith in “something.”  What I mean is, several scenes in Act 1 are dedicated to Pi’s exploration of world religions, from Catholicism to Hinduism to Islam.  He accepts that there’s “something out there” and convinces his family he’s going to continue his personal search for God.  I personally feel that this universal theme of exploring one’s faith is worth spending two hours on, and it obviously resonated with audiences worldwide!  Without giving anything away, the fact that the story handles its ending in a creative way is icing on this magnificent 64-layer cake!  Finally, I just want to re-iterate that if you have the opportunity to see Pi in 3D, please do so…  There are films that “tack on” the 3D technology to sell more tickets, sure – but this is not one of them.  The film was shot in 3D and the effect is appropriately used to tell the story.  I suppose this added effect is the cherry on top of the icing (I promise to leave this little analogy of the cake at home in future posts, dear Reader…)!

Cloud Atlas (2012)
Dir: Andy & Lana Wachowski, Tom Tykwer
Stars: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Keith David, Ben Whishaw, James D’Arcy and Hugo Weaving (among others)

If you see the IMDB link below, you’ll notice the description of Cloud Atlas reads as follows, “An exploration of how the actions of individual lives impact one another in the past, present and future, as one soul is shaped from a killer into a hero, and an act of kindness ripples across centuries to inspire a revolution.”

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1371111/

I’ve seen the movie and I can’t quite confirm for you that this synopsis accurately describes what it’s about.  I will suggest this, though: the movie is wildly ambitious and surprisingly entertaining – well worth a watch!  I’m also including the link to illustrate how individual actors had the opportunity to play multiple roles across numerous settings and time periods in this film.  I’m wondering if those involved in Cloud Atlas looked at the film as a challenge, a test for themselves, as it might explain the incredible casting of this picture, along with the necessity for three different directors.  Regardless, the sum of the parts comes to this – at least from my POV – Cloud Atlas is an expansive, jarring collection of stories that upon an initial viewing, doesn’t necessarily connect to make one formative piece.  The result, however, is impressive because even though it’s nearly impossible to follow each and every story element, the film is entertaining and still delivers on stating its theme (whether you buy into its philosophy or not).  Anyhow, here’s a visual chart I found online to explain it all:

My first question to the filmmakers would be why they saw it necessary to cut so quickly between story lines: what I mean is, there were times I felt they prematurely cut from the scene of hundreds of years into the future back to Scotland in the 1930s.  I was much more satisfied at the scenes that played like a chapter in a novel, from “beginning to end” if you will.  My second question to the production would be, wouldn’t it have been a tighter fit – and a little easier to follow – with just one setting less?  I feel this way with several multi-layered films such as Magnolia, Nashville and many of the epics of the 1960s…  In other words, if they had shaved one of the settings and/or groups of characters, perhaps they w0uld have had ample time to transition a little smoother between story lines?

I’m not trying to “fix” the film, I’m only saying that for me, there was one too many characters.  Most film theory I’ve read and movie interviews of the so-called “masters” of filmmaking seem to agree that the large majority of narrative filmmaking hinges on the script.  I would have adored the opportunity to see the Cloud Atlas screenplay in its development stage.  And I would have just relished the possibility of my editing it or adjusting it so that little ol’ me – the audience member – had a shot at following the “arc” a little better.  Kind of in the vein of my recent post on The Score, this film is close to four star status, but not quite due to its over-zealous scope.  I’ll put it this way – I felt the same way watching the last third of Cloud Atlas as I have watching an evening of film festival shorts one after the other: only a few of those short films were as long as they needed to be, while most were 5-10 minutes too long.

Here’s one last thing – a picture of Hugh Grant, looking very anti-Love, Actually.

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)
Dir: George Clooney
Stars: Sam Rockwell, George Clooney, Drew Barrymore, Rutger Hauer and  Julia Roberts

This film reminds me of that old saying, “truth is stranger than fiction.”  To me, the “ultimate truth” of the story of this character, Chuck Barris, doesn’t even really matter.  What I mean is, whether this man was truly a CIA operative or not is completely irrelevant.  The film is indeed based on Mr. Barris’ book, which details his thirty-plus kills on behalf of the CIA.  Therefore, in this film, for this story, Chuck Barris believes it and sells it to us.  Like the aforementioned saying suggests, truth is more bizarre than anything we can make up:  so, is it really beyond believability that America’s game show harlequin of the 1970s was really a cold blooded killer with numerous, successful, overseas operations during the Cold War to his credit?  Isn’t that the point, that the enemy would never have considered a game show host to be a threat?

Another saying that I think is very appropriate for framing this picture is, “let’s walk a mile in this guy’s shoes.”  Confessions reminds me of those times when I’ve sat down with an older person to hear their tales of adventure.  They pour emotion into their story, they interrupt themselves, they clamor to remember that one detail that they’ve forgotten, which seems essential.  Watching Confessions was like what I’d imagine listening to Mr. Barris himself might be like.  His stories are set with romantic colors and with the backdrop of exotic settings and beautiful women everywhere.  The clothes of his subjects are exquisite and elegantly reflect the years he’s describing.  In other words, Mr. Clooney – superstar leading man – also knows what he’s doing in the director’s chair.  His choices in how he tells Barris’ story – from the shot selection to the music – are appropriate and entertaining, but not overdone.

What I mean is, Barris lived a frantic, crazy lifestyle.  Consider the scene in which he’s running his show, The Dating Game, and things are going well and then – uh oh! – there’s his CIA handler, Clooney again, who’s insisting he fly to eastern Europe for a job as soon as possible.  Bang, we’re in Helsinki with his two contestants.  The male contestant incessantly asks Barris for help in talking to the female contestant because he’s so shy, but all Barris can think about is how and when he’s supposed to meet his contact and say the magic code-phrase that proves he’s OK and then the contact can respond properly and they’ll be OK to start working together…  When he finally meets the contact – whoops!  it’s the wrong one – OK, here’s a couple of restaurant booths down, there’s the right one – hey!  that’s Julia Roberts…. OK, now he’s meeting yet another person and – bang! he shoots this man in an alley (out of frame – again, appropriate for the story), apologizes about the man’s teeth and then shoots him again several times.

Are you tired?  So am I!  But while I was watching all of this I was definitely entertained, I even laughed a couple times, and I was engaged with not only Rockwell’s acting, but also the flow that Clooney created.  Everything I described above could be the legit movements of a CIA operative, or the ramblings of a mad man.  And that’s an incredibly difficult line to tow, which Clooney balances upon the entire film.  In the end, I don’t care whether Mr. Barris was CIA or not.  What I do care about is how stories are told within the medium of moving pictures.  In my humble opinion, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind is one of those overlooked masterpieces of the past 10-15 years.

Final Thought: With all the attention on Argo lately, I couldn’t help but remember Confessions as somewhat of a comparable to Affleck’s picture.  I’m not taking anything away from Argo – in fact, I liked it very much, and will have to dedicate an entry to it sometime soon – but I suggest the comparison because it’s set in kind of the same time period and has that storyline that’s just too outrageous to believe.

Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)
Dir: Benh Zeitlin
Stars: Quvenzhane Wallis, Dwight Henry, Levy Easterly and Gina Montana

I only recently saw this Oscar nominated film, but let me tell you, I’m beginning to understand all the hype.  Granted, this movie wasn’t available in all areas and that means that fewer folks saw it (dotted line being they didn’t have the CHANCE to see it), which is unfortunate.  And now that it’s out on home video, you have the chance to see this beautiful exercise in telling a story with simply moving pictures.  Sure, that means there’s some voice over, but think about the fact that the primary character is a little seven year old girl – and still, the movie works.

That little girl is named Hushpuppy, played by Quvenzhane Wallis, who I understand was about seven while they filmed the picture on location in Southern Louisiana.  My title for this entry doesn’t lie – she gives you a tour of this little community on the bayou called the “bathtub,” giving the film a documentary feel to it.  How does the director, Benh Zeitlin, achieve this feeling?  Well, the cast of characters indeed made me feel more like I was watching a true, living and breathing neighborhood rather than a fictitious story with Hallmark etchings about a quaint little Southern “parish”.  These neighbors love their community and its seclusion from the authority of the big city so much, they battle the LEOs (law enforcement officers – I learned that from the movie, Haywire) when their neighborhood gets flooded like that old story about Noah and they’re forced to evacuate.  The movie also feels authentic because of its location and the photography which captures its subject:I know I complain about this technique a bunch, but in the case of Beasts, I thought the hand-held camera was very appropriate and added to the suspense of some chapters of the story.  Come to think of it, perhaps the filmmakers had little choice in having to hold the camera, given the location of some of the scenes!

Let me clarify that the story is definitely Hushpuppy’s.  Perhaps that’s why this little Indy movie has gained such notoriety – it’s showing us the world through the eyes of a child.  And even a neighborhood as filthy and disadvantaged as “the bathtub” has a certain beauty and innocence when you consider it through the eyes of a seven year old.  Consider the idea that Hushpuppy’s mother had passed long ago: well, she sees a light way out across the Gulf and simply decides that must be her mom looking after her.  Where she got this idea is never explored, nor should it have been.  I’m not a parent, but I have pals who are early in parenthood, and they often tell stories ending in, “I have no idea where (s)he got it from!”  Incidentally, what Hushpuppy finds when she travels to the light is another wonderful episode in the film that I’m not about to give away here.

You can no doubt tell two things by this point in my little entry: first, I liked Beasts a whole lot.  It made me emotional in its delicate telling of very real, worldly problems perceived through this little girl who, despite her age, had a whole lot of heart and character.  Second, it’s kind of a difficult film to describe!  You kind of have to go into it with very little assumptions and enjoy it – kind of like your first day of kindergarten!

Commentary: Oscar Nominations 2013

In Los Angeles, when it rains, local TV stations typically send a reporter to do a remote report from LAX.  It’s usually not even raining there, but it’s entertaining to see that the station is so dedicated to keeping us up to speed on the drizzle outside.  I like to joke that when it rains here, folks will typically stop their cars, exit the vehicles and run around them while yelling and flailing their arms.  In reality, people do drive slower…

Regardless, why don’t we all just imitate this practice when the Academy Award nominations are announced?  I feel like the reactions I’ve been reading over the past two days have quite a variety, from “Where in hell is The Dark Knight Rises for crying out loud?!?!” to “What?!?  You’re telling me Tarantino didn’t get a Director nod?” to  “Wait, Cloud Atlas isn’t nominated – for anything?!?” to  “The Hobbit gets only three nominations?  I mean, that was the most amazing movie I have ever HEARD OF much less SEEN!” and my favorite, “Poor Ben Affleck!  I mean, what’s a guy gotta do to be nominated?”  Well, apparently he has to direct an ultra-low budget film that follows an unknown child actress through a swampy neighborhood.  And I love this headline in the article below, “Bad day for Argo,” from EW.  Oh, my goodness, I want to write some profanities so badly right now: you know how many nominations Argo received?  S-E-V-E-N.  As in “7,” including Best Picture, Best Editing and Best Screenplay.  Yes, my goodness, what a rough day indeed: let’s someone pass the hat to give the filmmakers some clothes, meat and bread for the winter months ahead.

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/01/10/oscar-nominations-analysis-2013/8/

I had this teacher in junior high school who posted a quote from Thomas Jefferson, which read something like this, “When one is terribly angry, one should count to ten: when one is even more angry than usual, count to 100.”  So, everybody do me a favor and stand up, do ten jumping jacks, count to 100 and put your flailing arms DOWN.  So, your favorite popcorn-audience-pleasing-blockbuster didn’t get a nomination?  Why don’t you go watch the highlights of the People’s Choice Awards, hmm?  It probably won something there.  Or tune in this weekend to the Golden Globes, why don’t you?  It’s not like this phenomenon doesn’t repeat itself every year.  For example, I am still scratching my head over Shakespeare in Love besting Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture.  And the idea that Christian Bale wasn’t nominated for Rescue Dawn, I’ll probably never get over.

No, instead I’m excited to see the many films on this year’s list that I just haven’t gotten to: I’m looking forward to a little Lincoln, Life of Pi double feature next week!  This admission – that I haven’t seen many of the nominated films – brings me to an important point.  I find that a bunch of complaints launched about the nominations are typically because folks saw a film, loved it and can’t believe some OTHER film – which they haven’t seen and sometimes haven’t even heard of – could possibly have been better to warrant a nomination!  In their defense, when you work on a project, which could range from a movie to a sculpture to a quilt, you want to get some recognition for it.  That’s a natural and understandable human desire: but do yourself a favor and see the other bloody films!

Finally, I’d like to offer this perspective: why isn’t it really enough just to be nominated?  From Boxofficemojo.com, I can tell you that there were 655 titles theatrically released during the calendar year of 2012.  These titles collectively earned $10.4 billion dollars.  The movie industry as a whole made more money and sold more tickets last year than ever.  You, Mr. or Ms. Oscar Nominee, are one of five films (for most categories) out of 655: in other words, your peers and the elite, VIP crowd within Hollywood thinks you are amongst the 0.007% percentile.  And you’re going to cry yourself to sleep if you don’t win?  I, for one, will refuse to pass the hat for you.

Here are some nominations that I was hoping for, which didn’t come to fruition.  But you don’t see me flailing my arms, do you?  Honestly, your favorite superhero movie didn’t get a nomination for Best Picture?  Here’s a cup of milk for you to spill since you’re crying already.  Now, read the rest of this entry below, then it’s upstairs with you for a nap.

Supporting Actress: Charlize Theron, Snow White and the Huntsman
Actor: Jack Black, Bernie
Production Design: Looper
Costume: Prometheus
Non-Existing Category I Wish They’d Add – Stunts/Fight Choreography: for Haywire and Act of Valor

I also have some questions for the Academy, some of which I think are legit…  How can a film be nominated for Best Foreign Film, or Best Animated Film AND Best Picture?  What’s the difference between a Lead Role and a Supporting Role (see note 1).  Are there existing bi-laws in the Academy rules that stipulate John Williams and Woody Allen must be nominated if they are involved in any films in the prior calendar year?  Is there any kind of quiz or detailed testing procedure that occurs during which Academy Voters prove that they’ve actually seen the films they’ve voted for?  What is the reasoning behind the idea to not serve refreshments during the ceremony?  Come on – wouldn’t you just love to see a bunch of Dodger Stadium vendors marching down the aisles during the first commercial break?  “Peanuts!  Got Gary’s Salted Peanuts, right here!” and, “Beer!  Who needs a cold one?  $11, Cold Beer – oh, certainly Mr. Lee.  Loved Life of Pi, by the way.  Got beer here!”

Seriously, I’d love to hear from you guys on this.  Which film did you love the most from last year?  Did you think a certain film got snubbed in a particular category?  Then leave a comment and, for the love of God, tell me WHY!  Are you just excited to see the show?  Should be a good one with ol’ Seth hosting…  I will probably do a follow up to this as I see more of the nominees – which should be a fun process, for the record.

Note 1: A publicist “in the know” once explained to me that there is no difference between the Lead and Supporting categories: based on the performance in question, the film’s production staff simply decides which category they think they have the best chance to win and submit accordingly.

The Master (2012)
Dir: Paul Thomas Anderson
Stars: Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Rami Malek & Laura Dern

Watching The Master, I was reminded of American Psycho and The Killer Inside Me, which are two other films that come to mind when I felt like I was watching an incredible performance within a rather flat story.  In this case, the story concerns Freddy Quell, played by Joaquin Phoenix, and an impressive performance it is.  In fact, if you’re an aspiring actor, I would highly recommend this film for you to take in how Phoenix embodies every element of this man from his walk, to his clothes, to the way he talks out of one end of his mouth to his unpredictable violence.  Poor Freddy is a total alcoholic, willing to mix paint thinner, chemicals for developing photographs and even some kind of liquid from a torpedo into his homemade concoctions.  It’s depressing to watch him drink himself into a stupor throughout this visually impressive film.

It’s even more depressing to see how Lancaster Dodd, the so-called Doctor, Philosopher, Master – “and above all, a man” – takes advantage of this poor wretch.  And as you know from previous posts, that’s what I try to do: advise you, dear Reader, as to the substance of the film I’m commenting on, and then gently pull it apart in a way that doesn’t give too much away.  Concerning The Master, there’s really not much more to it than a big man picking on a little man.  Dodd is supposedly based on Ron L. Hubbard, the founder of scientology.  Whoever he’s based on, he’s a despicable individual, who seems able to parlay his philosophies into free gas, food and lodging wherever he travels simply because he’s an excellent performer.  He speaks eloquently, tells vivid and entertaining tales and is able to charm an audience into believing what he says.  The connection between the two men is that they lash out when they get cornered – Quell physically, and Dodd by screaming at the questioning party until they turn submissive once again.

Anderson, the director, seems utterly fascinated with this kind of storyline.  There’s a man who’s in charge, be it The Master Lancaster, Daniel Plainview (oil magnate from There Will Be Blood) or Frank T.J. Mackey (Tom Cruise in Magnolia) amongst other characters in his films, who negatively effects the supporting characters.  And that’s kind of the whole picture, a kind of two hours study into how many scenes we can endure of a bully tormenting their prey.  In this film, I felt as if there was no resolution, no change in the characters from beginning to end, which was very similar to the feeling I had at the conclusion of There Will Be Blood.

In short, the movie is like an old acting exercise, in which there are two players on a stage and a one foot high, sturdy, wooden box in between them. As the scene progresses, one actor or the other stands on the box to represent which one is dominant or “controls” the scene.  It’s an interesting thing to watch since some scenes have both actors jumping up and down off the box throughout, while others have the actors change only once, if at all.  The Master is indeed an entire movie of this exercise – and some scenes will blow you away.  Let me put it this way, while I was a bit disappointed in the entirety of The Master, I would roll some selected scenes from the film in an acting class for aspiring students.

A Christmas Carol (1951)
Dir: Bryan Desmond-Hurst
Stars: Alastair Sim, Hermione Baddeley and Mervyn Johns

Have you read this novella by Charles Dickens?  My second question in as many sentences is this – I wonder why novellas make such phenomenal films…  That question is for another post.  Regardless, if you haven’t ever read A Christmas Carol or even if you haven’t read it in years, I’d highly recommend it!  The eloquence of his language and the imagery he paints in your mind is perfect for entertainment, reflection and a little holiday themed reading on cold winter’s evenings this time of year as we head towards Christmas Day.

That said, I hope you further get a chance to watch this older version of the Dickens story.  Personally, when it comes to screen adaptations – particularly of such a well known tale as this – I think the closer to the author’s work, the better.  In my view, this particular  production makes as close a visual version of the original novella as is possible.  And as Mozart says in Amadeus, “How can I improve upon perfection?”  This production, led by director Bryan Desmond Hurts, makes no attempt to try to deviate or improve upon the story – or worse, shorten it in some way.  Again, the story is fresh in my mind because I just read the book and saw the film, but it impressed me how the Ghost of Christmas Present even shows Scrooge the mining family in the film.

You really can’t talk about this version without touching on Alastair Sim’s performance.  Talk about being born to play a character: Mr. Sim absolutely captures the essence of Scrooge when he’s a villainous wretch you almost like to hate.  Think of the scene in which the two representatives of the charity stop by his office to request a donation.  His look of “who really cares” just gives me the shivers.  And even as Scrooge is going through the experience of visiting with the three Ghosts, you can believe he’s overjoyed to see Fezziwig again, heart broken to see the reality of the Cratchit household, and terrified to see his fresh gravestone.  Then, once he has learned from the Ghosts, Sim as Scrooge flips you on your side when he celebrates Christmas morning.  I feel like the leads of other versions embody one side of Mr. Scrooge better than the other.

Regardless, watching the film again this year, I was impressed with the performance of George Cole as the young version of Scrooge.  In particular, I liked how he seemed more fearful as more shadows of the past were revealed.  He sells the idea that as he did better in business, Scrooge became more scared of being poor, scared of losing face amongst his business colleagues, perhaps all stemming from his original fear of his father?

The last thing I’ll say about this version of A Christmas Carol is that for me, the players of the Cratchit family are ideal.  When the Mrs., played by Hermione Baddeley (you might remember her from Mary Poppins as the maid?), hears her husband try to toast Mr. Scrooge, you really buy how angry she is.  Why should she toast such a man who puts her Robert through the ringer on a daily basis?  Bob himself, played by Mervyn Johns, is convincing as a guy who’s willing to do anything for his family without being a fool.  It’s as if Dickens were trying to create a character out of that old saying, “turn the other cheek.”  And Tiny Tim in this version is fine too, unlike other depictions of the story in which – and pardon me for suggesting it – the makeup and portrayal of the little lame boy leads you to believe he may pass out at any moment.

Finally, I find it fascinating how these Christmas movies find an audience.  Having seen this on TCM, Robert Osbourne informed me that this film was supposed to be exhibited in Radio City Music Hall, but the management thought this version was far too dark at the time.  However, after years and years of airing it on TV, many folks like myself find this to be the quintessential version.  Doesn’t this success after years of airing on TV and word of mouth sound like the result of A Christmas Story and It’s a Wonderful Life?

A little bit of trivia:  The narrator of this film is a fellow named Peter Bull, who is the big, portly gent in the London stock exchange in the first scene.  He was a character actor in his time and might be best known as the Russian Ambassador in the Kubrick film, Dr. Strangelove, who couldn’t stop laughing at Peter Sellers in that one infamous scene…

Once I Was A Champion (2012)
Dir: Gerard Roxburgh
Stars: Evan Tanner – and multiple MMA stars

To “Like” on Facebook, visit here: https://www.facebook.com/OnceIWasAChampion

Now Playing on Pay-Per-View, Video On Demand, and multiple Movies on Demand digital networks. Click here to see a list of providers: http://onceiwasachampion.com/screenings.aspx

I have to admit, when I was given the opportunity to watch this title and provide a review, I was a little dubious.  See, I’m not an MMA fan, and just the sound of the film reminded me of another documentary I saw years and years ago on Mark Kerr, which was kind of my introduction to the world of mixed martial arts competition.  In that movie, I saw elbows to the throat, kicks to the stomach (and lower) and headbutts to the face amongst other action you see when watching an MMA fight.  I don’t mind admitting that watching these things on video makes me a bit queasy and ill at ease.  Perhaps having this apprehension towards Once I Was a Champion is a tribute to what an excellent documentary it is: because by the end of the movie, I was thinking to myself, “There’s no one I wouldn’t recommend this to.”  Let me put it another way:  I am in no way, shape or form a Notre Dame fan – but I adore the film, Rudy.

The subject of Once I Was a Champion is a fighter, philosopher and businessman named Evan Tanner.  He died in the desert east of San Diego in September of 2008 at the age of 37.  In the early portion of the documentary, it’s clear that most of his friends just don’t want to believe that he’s gone – even all these years later.  He was driven, loved a challenge and his friends maintain that he was no fool.  So, the fact that he died, most probably of dehydration, somewhere in the desert all alone is truly a tragedy.  As I’ve mentioned, I don’t follow this sport, but I know these names – Dana White, Bas Rutten, Randy Couture – and they all have the utmost respect for this guy.

The early portion of the film covers how Evan was known as the King of Caprock from his excellent wrestling skills in high school back in Amarillo, TX.  And he was a genuinely nice guy, even welcoming the geeks and social outcasts in high school into his crew.  In interviewing one of his early business partners, the film covers the USWF, a pre-UFC kind of league, which Tanner started promoting himself.  In other words, Tanner would not only fight on the card – and train as you must for such a fight – but also handle all of the administration and public relations involved in getting a crowd to show up for the fight!  Hopefully, that starts to illustrate the kind of intense, natural motivation this man had.

Then came Pancrase, the Japanese version of the UFC, which in the late 90s and early 00s was much more sophisticated and mainstream than the now popular U.S. version.  Tanner apparently had no fear.  The footage of these fights, in which the fighters look more like WWE wrestlers with shoes and shin guards on, is probably the most graphic in the film.  But again, Champion is much less about the fights and much more about the man.  He won his fights in Japan and did so with great humility: in fact, if I understood the film correctly, he was a little too gracious in his victories for the Japanese’ taste.  They kind of like their fighters to talk some shit, and Tanner was just above it.  Further, when his tour of fights for Pancrase ended, he was hanging out with his pal in Japan when he abruptly got up and said, “You know what, I think I’m done here.”  Then, he caught a train and flew home.  Apparently, his friends all agree that kind of behavior was pure Evan.  He was focused like no one else, then it was on to the next goal once this one had been reached.

However, none of us is without his faults.  The film’s best parts, in my opinion, are the scenes in which they cover Tanner’s alcoholism.  You can feel the frustration in Tanner’s friends’ demeanor and their voices as they discuss his Jekyll and Hyde nature.  They pull no punches in describing how unpleasant it was to be around him after 10-plus shots of tequila (I’m not exaggerating) in one sitting.  At one point, he would sleep under the ring in the gyms where he would train because he was so poor.  He alienated his girlfriend of seven years and never even told her he loved her.  There’s definitely a cautionary portion to this man’s legacy.

But, I think the element to Champion that makes me want to recommend it is the triumph of Tanner’s philosophy.  This introspective side to Tanner makes me think of him in the way I think of the samurai: his combative side in the ring and the cage couldn’t have been so successful without this spiritual and reflective side.  At one point during the height of his fighting career, he told his old USWF partner that he was seriously thinking of giving it all up and becoming a monk: wait’ll you see the look on this guy’s face as he tells that story!  One key piece of his philosophy (see note 1) was this idea of “the Power of One.”  Essentially, Tanner really believed that if you take something you’re passionate about and you work, eat, sleep and breathe it, you can change the world.  I was pretty impressed when they showed multiple friends of his reveal where they had this little saying tattooed on their body.

Like I said earlier, I’m not a fighter.  Me, I come from tennis for crying out loud.  And the one interview in the film that resonated with me most was when Tanner’s promoter is quoted as saying that Tanner asked him to cancel some dynamite fights he had coming up at the height of his career.  Why?  Because Tanner felt like he didn’t have the same fire inside that he would need to win them.  That’s a sportsman.

Note 1: As I may have mentioned at some point, I work in an ad agency, and I was particularly impressed with Tanner’s philosophy about promoting fights.  If you’ve seen an MMA fighter in shorts, then you’ve probably seen the logos of the multiple brands sponsoring that fighter.  Several different shots in the film showed Tanner wearing his own, homemade tee-shirt with, “The Power of One” on it.  Basically, he promoted himself with the support of his fans and friends – that is indeed a radical idea, and one that some of us in the marketing world could take a note on…

Safety Not Guaranteed (2012)
Dir: Colin Trevorroww
Stars: Mark Duplass, Aubrey Plaza, Jake Johnson and Karan Soni

Safety Not Guaranteed made me grin.  I admire its efficient and simple story telling style.  It’s a love story with true, authentic, genuine characters that I liked.  And it isn’t a moment too long, which I mean that in the best of ways: put another way, it’s edited well and doesn’t veer off in directions too ambitious for its own good.  What I’m trying to say is that the movie doesn’t try to be bigger than it is.  And the dialogue is extremely sharp – FYI, the title of this entry is a shout out to one of the better lines, in my opinion.  Anyhow, I highly recommend it, despite the fact you may be scratching your noggin, saying, “I’ve never even heard of this flick!”  Well, pardon me for a moment while I give you some other details on this little Independent film as an example of the current theatrical environment we live in (see note 1 below):

• Release Date: June 8, 2012.  Know what else opened on that day?  Let’s see, Prometheus and Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted, not to mention a bunch of other “boutique” titles.
• Screens: Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted opened nationwide on 4,258 movie screens. Prometheus, rated R, opened on far less – only 3,396 screens.   On its opening weekend, Safety Not Guaranteed was on nine (9) screens nationwide.  Three weeks later, on June 29, it was on 129 screens.  But Universal’s Ted opened that weekend on 3,239 screens.  Guess which one I went to see in theaters?  Ted.  And I happen to live in a place where I could easily have seen either film or both.
• Box Office Take: this little Indy made a hair over four million dollars in its nineteen week release.  Prometheus made $126.4 million in fifteen weeks: that is a domestic total, not including its international sales.  Madagascar, it made $216.4 million in nineteen weeks – domestically.
• Marketing Costs: let’s put it this way.  Pretend the promotion and advertising spend for these three films is equivalent to one of those pools of plastic balls you see at Chuck E. Cheese and similar fun places for kids…. Madagascar 3 had the very biggest pool of balls in media spend – think millions and millions of balls, enough to fill a football stadium.  Prometheus had about half the size of M3’s pool.  By comparison, Safety Not Guaranteed had only 3.6% the size of Madagascar 3’s pool, and only 7% the size of Prometheus‘.  Put another way, M3 is Lake Superior, Prometheus is Lake Erie and Safety is some little pond you can’t see from space.

What is the point to all these bullet points above?  Simply this: while it looks like the “little film” has no chance these days, I strongly disagree.  In fact, I think the Independent film is going to swing the pendulum back to the point that many studio producers, directors and actors in the near future are experienced Indy veterans like Mark Duplass, who starred in this film, but has come from many shorts and low budget films.  Between all the digital methods of watching movies and particularly the channel offerings on YouTube – not to mention the VOD feature many of us are getting comfortable with on our TVs at home – I think the market for “small films” like Safety will only get larger.  Now then, let me just hop down from my soap box – there we go – and let’s get back to what we’re used to covering here at ronhamprod.com, shall we!?!

The story concerns a group of writers from a Seattle magazine who have very little to work on.  So, they decide to do an expose on the mysterious writer of a unique personal ad.  The ad is simple and brief in its request for a partner with which to travel through time.  The ad takes itself very seriously, even warning “safety not guaranteed, bring your own weapons” and “I’ve only done this once before.”  A veteran writer for the magazine named Jeff brings two interns on the assignment with him, the cute, yet unsmiling Darius (Aubrey Plaza) and the terribly skinny and awkward Indian-American Arnau.

What results is a nice mix of romantic comedy, sci-fi elements, coming of age and investigation.  The author of the article, Kenneth (Duplass), really is a mystery.  The guy works stocking shelves at a grocery store as he bores his colleagues with philosophical commentary.  And he drives a dilapidated Nissan!  Almost as soon as the threesome arrives in the town, their leader Jeff becomes bored with the Kenneth story and the real reason for his wanting to do the piece for the magazine is revealed.  However, like I said before, his own side story doesn’t really take away from the film – instead, it augments it!  All in all, I think you can tell that I don’t want to say too much about Safety: I wouldn’t even recommend watching the trailer!  I happen to like going into movies completely blind and let the characters and story unfold without any preview rolling around in my mind.  If you are new to this title, see what you think of it with no more preparation than this little entry…. You’ll thank me later!

Note 1: Sources for this intel include Boxofficemojo.com and Kantar Media among others.

The Untouchables (1987)
*** Burke Favorite ***
Dir: Brian DePalma
Stars: Kevin Costner, Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Robert DeNiro

The Untouchables used to be a TV series starring Robert Stack, which was based on the exploits of legendary Treasury Agent Elliott Ness and his band of crime fighters as they took on the gangsters of Chicago.  Brian DePalma’s 1987 film follows the story as well, complete with how they actually got Capone in the end, but takes plenty of artistic license.  The subject of artistic license and the 1987 film itself are topic enough for two other ronhamprod blog entries: for today, I want to focus on just one scene that occurs early in the film, a scene in which one of the four characters is recruited.

So far in the film, several important elements have been established.  First and foremost, the city of Chicago in 1930 has a real problem on its hand, and that problem is Al Capone.  This guy is truly the king of the city and runs it like a Roman senator would run his cut of the countryside.  Capone has greased the wheels of justice with enough money to keep every justice official out of his affairs, which simply amount to the illegal distribution of alcohol (remember, these were the days of the Volstead Act and Prohibition).  If the graft isn’t enough for those in the way of Capone’s outfit, they resort to violence as established in one of the first scenes: a local bar owner refuses to buy Capone’s spirits, so he and the little girl who stopped by the bar to get water are blown to bits in a bomb left by Capone’s henchman, Frank Nitti (played by creepy, type-cast villain, Billy Drago).

It’s also important to note that the hero, Eliot Ness, has been established, too.  You ever notice how important it is to a story to see the eventual hero fail at one point or another in the story?  We’ll chat about that more in another post, but at this point in The Untouchables, Ness has fallen and fallen hard.  He has promised the citizens of Chicago – including the mother of that little girl who died in the bar, mind you – that he’ll be above the graft and the injustice of Capone.  But, in his first very public raid of a warehouse, he finds nothing but umbrellas.  He’s so angry that he tosses the newspaper article covering this failure off the bridge – and now he’s in trouble.  It seems a long time beat cop named Jim Malone – played masterfully by Sean Connery – is passing by just when Ness litters.  “Now just what the hell do you think you’re doing,” he says.  In this scene, Malone endears himself to Ness as one of the good guys: in fact, Ness would love to work with Malone!  But Malone insists he’s too old – “I’m just a poor beat cop!  If I was as good as you say, why am I still on the street at my age?!”

Once some time in the story passes, Malone reluctantly approaches Ness (after all, as Malone says himself, “The Lord hates a coward…”).  He informs Ness that if he really, truly wants to get Capone, he’s going to have to do it outside the law: just consider his dialogue in this church scene here, which is rather fun to watch.  In an alternate universe, this tiny scene would be enough of a preview for me….

“What’re you prepared to do?”

In one of the very next scenes, Malone helps Ness find some people he can trust.  I was serious when I said before that Ness really can’t trust anyone in the city if they’re all being greased by Capone!  Anyhow, Malone speaks in parables and riddles to help the fumbling Ness, saying, “If you don’t want a rotten apple, don’t go to the barrel…. pick it off the tree!”

So, down to the Police Academy they go.  The recruits are all lined up and practicing some shooting when Malone and Ness ask the instructor to get the two best shots in the class to come over.  While the first one is a stuttering idiot, who Malone predicts will be the next chief of police, the second is a gent named “George Stone,” played by Andy Garcia. This guy’s got his police issue revolver snug in his sweatsuit, right by the crack of his ass and he yanks it out and puts three rounds in the belly of the target, then another three – one for the nose and two for the eyes.  Right away we like this guy!

Then, he comes over to chat with Malone, and the dialogue goes something like this:

Malone: Why you wanna join the force?
Stone (thinking a minute): To protect the property and citizenry of –
Malone: Oh, please, don’t waste my time with that bullshit!

Stone looks at Malone with a peculiar look, as if to ask, “are you for real?”  Malone stops, takes a closer look at Stone.

Malone: Where are you from, Stone?
Stone: From the south side.
Malone: Stone?  George Stone?!  That’s your name?  (Pause.)  What’s your real name?
Stone: That is my real name.
Malone: Nah!  What was it before you changed it?
Stone (long pause, agitated): Guisspe Pettri.
Malone(to Ness): Aw, jeez, I knew it! That’s all ya need is one thievin’ wop in the chain!
Stone (pats Malone on the back): What’s that you say?
Malone(pushing Stone in the chest with his clip board): I said, that you’re a lyin’ member… of a no good race!

Stone SLAMS Malone’s clip board out of his hands.  Malone grabs at his waist for his blackjack as Stone reaches for his target pistol.  Stone gets to his weapon first and shoves the barrel of it right in Malone’s throat.

Stone: It’s much better than you, you stinkin’ Irish shit-pig.
Malone(looking at Ness, his blackjack still raised above his head): Oh, I like him.
Ness: Yeah, I like him too.
Malone(shaking Stone’s hand): You just joined the Treasury Dept., son.
Stone: Yeah, OK.

Malone gives him a playful slap on the cheek.  Can you see why I love this scene so much?  I mean, it’s not only that it’s my kind of character, one of my favorite genres and it involves some of my favorite actors: it’s also the expert mix of entertainment with efficiency for the story.  Obviously, Ness is going to need some help.  Clearly, we want to root for these guys – but we can’t spend as much time on the Stone character or the Treasury accountant, Oscar Wallace (Charles Martin Smith) as we did with establishing Jim Malone.  So, this scene uses an exciting location – the gun range – a little comedy in the dialogue and a little bit of tension in the scene’s build to establish George Stone.  Here is a man with boundaries, a street-smart kid who isn’t afraid to go for his weapon, even if he IS in the middle of a bunch of cops!  And at the end of the scene, they show that Stone isn’t the sort to take things personally, either: he even kind of laughs when Malone smacks his cheek.  In short, this is exactly the kind of man Malone is seeking to round out their little merry band of crime fighters.

Needless to say, the film contains plenty of other memorable scenes – baseball bat, Mounties, train station, anyone? – but I thought I’d focus on this one as a textbook example of how to quickly introduce a character without making the scene cliche and distracting from the whole.