a22c
Blog,

An Ode to Cool

The notion of cool has always appealed to my innate desires. To be that rebellious, rock n’ roll outlaw who eschews authoritative direction. To walk with a swaggering strut, highly aware that my limitations as an individual in no way impede on my confident, self-assuredness.

I am in no way talking about the transparent falseness of a high school sort of coolness. This type of coolness is reserved for adult individuals shaken and stirred by a chaotic world, only to smile and openly defy life’s gravitational pull with an air of reckless abandon.

Popular culture works very hard to embellish a sense of cool, but it’s shocking how easily I tend to fall into that maze of fabricated narration. My entire idea of what cool is tends to come from the explosive expression of popular culture artefacts I seem content to consume myself with.

In the “real” world, there is something mediocre about the normality of our society. There are spurts of excitement, but they tend to fall few and far between our social obligation to routine.

Popular culture exerts its persuasive grip over our society because of its ability to sever the ties bound to normality.

Cool exists in many different forms in popular culture. From Ryan Gosling’s stoic, cold-blooded Driver in Drive to Keith Richard’s audaciously manic public personality, this culture of personality is seductive in its embrace.

It’s very difficult not to lose yourself in the moments designed to impress.

Clint Eastwood as The Man with No Name wordlessly commandeering our attention with a malicious grimace.

James Dean’s iconic stroll through downtown New York-hair frazzled as a cigarette dangles precariously from his lips.

Heck, Steve McQueen was cool all the time-his charismatic aura dazzling the eye with tantalizing seduction.

The idea of cool can embody many particular characteristics. The suave and dapper (George Clooney), the flamboyantly stylistic (Scott Weiland), the raw masculinity (John Wayne) or the fearless rebel (Bob Dylan). But then again, these traits aren’t written in stone.

To be honest, it’s how it is expressed that makes cool so vibrantly alluring. Anyone can attempt coolness, but it’s how it is projected to the naked eye that truly matters, because truthfully, everyone’s definition of cool will differ in some way.

I am well aware that my idea of cool does not include everyday performers striving to make this world a better place. I seem to be preoccupied with popular culture and what it has done to motivate my senses.  But I make no apologies for what I find cool. These are the images and personalities that leave me awe-inspired as a result of their nonchalant middle finger to codified classification.

And for that, I will forever be enthralled!

 

ana
Music Reviews,

S.C.E.N.E 2011

Attending the 2011 S.C.E.N.E music festival has opened my eyes to a stark reality-I simply do not fit in with modern day youth culture.

As I scurried amongst the thousands of others in downtown St. Catharines on Sunday afternoon, I was quick to realize that I was the odd man out. Heavily surrounded by a population greatly enamored with tattoos, piercings, mohawks, sideways baseball caps, and skinny jeans, I totally felt out of place with my Noel Gallagher t-shirt and Puma sneakers.

Normally a conservative city, St. Catharines was overrun by a youth movement no longer interested in my membership services.

However, my ostracized self aside, I have to admit that I was extremely impressed with the vibrancy of the downtown core. From the very first moment of my arrival, the city was brimming with an energetic exuberance rarely encountered in an area largely dedicated to retirees.

The most crucial aspect of my day was to be the musical choices I was going to have to make. With over 160 bands performing, it was of the upmost importance that I choose my destinations wisely.

A band I had missed last week in Toronto at NXNE, PKEW PKEW PKEW (gunshots), was playing an early gig at the Merchant Ale House so it was quickly decided that this would be my first stop of the day.

Arriving at the venue early to enjoy a frothy beverage, I happened to stumble upon the final 15 minutes of the Flash Lightnin’ show, and was instantaneously blown away. Mixing knee-buckling guitar solos with pounding, rhythmic drums, I couldn’t help but think that it was a huge mistake to have booked these guys so early in the day.

Not to mention that within mere moments of my festival arrival, I had already made a crucial mistake of missing half of this show. I would have to wise up.

Following the PKEW PKEW PKEW (gunshots) show (bubbly and energetic pop rock), I moved onto Rockford’s House of Rock where Buffalo, NY’s The Bunny The Bear were performing. Specializing in experimental hardcore metal, this show opened my eyes to the sonic diversity present at this year’s festival.

Loud and abrasive growls/vocals by two singers (one wearing a bunny mask, the other wearing a bear mask-get it?), the show’s atmosphere was intense to say the least.

In fact, this type of hardcore musicality appeared to be the theme of this year’s event. No matter what time of the day it was, the city was repeatedly overpowered by the echoing presence of thrashing guitars, booming drums and vocals possessed by hellacious fury. Some of the other bands I happened to catch also embraced this wholeheartedly (Abandon All Ships, Black Lungs, Silverstein, This is Hell).

This angered aggression actually reached a boiling point during the Twitching Tongues (3 p.m.!) performance at The Mansion House. Hailing from Los Angeles, the metal rockers were involved in a brawl during their set that actually navigated its way out of the bar and onto the street-a participant actually had his head bounced off of a parking meter. Apparently beginning as a result of a band member shoving a bouncer, the fight snowballed into an all-out war containing as many as 25-30 people (band members, concert-goers, bouncers and police). When it was all said and done, the bar was shut down for the rest of the day resulting in many of the bands having to reschedule somewhere else (if they could find an open time slot).

It’s interesting to note that one of my earlier concerns was that nothing intriguing would occur throughout the day. I’m relieved that that fear was undermined within the first three hours of the festival.

As the day went on, things began to simmer out and music once again became a priority. Possibly the best show of the day belonged to Die Mannequin, who masterfully controlled the crowd with a set filled with driving and forceful attitude. Closing with Michael Jackson’s “Beat It”, and injecting it with a raw grunginess only helped to further solidify an already stellar appearance.

In an attempt to match this intensity was USS’s headlining performance on the main stage at The Market Square. Mixing elements of electronica and rock, the band consistently offered up one of the most entertaining yet enigmatic performances you will ever witness. Whether they are discussing elements of science, blending up orange juice and drinking it on stage, or covering Outkast’s “Hey Ya” (all performed Sunday night), their shows rarely disappoint.

For me personally, it was a great way to end a day fully devoted to the significance of music.

It’s always a pleasure to check out bands in their unbridled infancy-uninhibited and free from corporate manipulation. Festivals like S.C.E.N.E. and NXNE are perfect platforms to witness a band true to itself. Without compromise, it’s a fresh and invigorating treat time and time again.

Even if I don’t necessarily fit in.

AH
Film Reviews,

Major League

 

Synopsis:

 

The new owner of the Cleveland Indians purposely assembles a baseball team consisting of untalented misfits. Her goal; if they are bad enough then she will be allowed to relocate the team toMiami. However, things do not go as expected.

 

Review:

 

To put it simply, Major League is a predictable and cliché ridden underdog story. There is nothing truly innovative about the structure of the plot. The characters are not very dimensional, and appear to have been cut out from another movie and pasted into this one. As well, the film fits the formulaic blue print of aHollywoodproduction to a tee. So why review a film that does not have the fortitude to stand out on its own?  Well, for one reason, I like the film.

 

Major League follows the story of a group of (un)talented, uncoordinated baseball players who somehow manage to bring it all together (through numerous differences with one another) and become an actual team driven by passion and heart. One player practices voodoo, while another just shows up to Spring Training without so much as an invitation. Then there’s the guy who uses snot on the ball to help him pitch, while another who refuses to dive for a baseball because it might jeopardize his face if it hits him. It’s like ‘The Bad News Bears’ of the older generation.

 

We have seen it all before but yet this is a film with sincere intentions. It has a desire to please and for the most part it succeeds. Let’s face it. The ‘Rocky’ story (if done correctly) should work all the time. We want to see this group of individuals (who have already been pre-judged) to overcome the obstacles placed in their way.

 

Hollywoodunderstands the formula to deliver a mainstream film (heck, they created the formula). Their goal is to simply entertain, and usually I am more then willing to contradict the actions of the Hollywood institution. But, in this case, I have made an exception. I don’t know why I like this film so much. Perhaps it is because I grew up with it as a child. Maybe it is because I played baseball for over fifteen years and I loved anything to do with the sport.

 

Usually as one gets older, their tastes change. There are a tremendous amount of films I loved growing up, but as I try to watch them now I find that I can no longer endure a mere five minutes of their running time. Sometimes I ponder, ‘what was I thinking’? As one grows, one is supposed to mature (I think). Isn’t that the way life is? Perhaps I haven’t reached that stage yet or maybe, as much as I try to deny it, I am still a fan ofHollywoodentertainment, no matter how simplistic it may be at times.

 

‘Major League’ was a major hit at the box office back in 1989, and eventually led to the creation of two horrendous sequels attempting to capitalize on its success. However sequels rarely can capture the heart and soul of an original. This is especially true with this series.

 

I have always been a big fan of Tom Berenger, and he is quite likable in this light hearted (yet vulgar) piece of mindless entertainment. It truly does anger me, though, that he does not receive more quality roles nowadays. In the 80’s, he was a bona fide superstar appearing in many good films. Trying to find him in a decent film nowadays is like looking for a needle in a haystack. I always vowed that if I were a director, I would try to hire him for my movie in an attempt to resuscitate his career (a la Tarantino). I feel he deserves it.

 

Charlie Sheen is also fun to watch in his role as Ricky Vaughn, an ex-con pitcher who can’t hit the strike zone because of his inability to see the plate. His talent for comedy is truly on stage here. Of note, it is certainly interesting to watch Berenger and Sheen interact with one another during the course of the film. They are good friends in this film, but it is definitely difficult to forget the onscreen tension that they had for one another only three years prior in Oliver Stone’s ‘Platoon’.

 

The director, David S. Ward, does an adequate job of telling a story but does not attempt anything special. He simply allows the film to unfold in a manner that compliments itself. Though, he does provide a relatively entertaining last twenty minutes. What I mean is that he does not jump the gun with dispelling the suspense. He allows it to slowly unveil itself (not every pitch is a hit-there are pauses in the delivery so to speak) as a real baseball game would. As a result, the film concludes with a predictable but yet heartwarming finale.

 

So my advice to those who haven’t seen the film is that in all likely-hood, you have seen something like it before. There is nothing new to be delivered, and many may be turned off by its lack of originality. However, the film truly has a feel good quality underlying its surface, and for this reason may be why I have not shut it off after five minutes.

 

 

 

 

ay
Film Reviews,

Duel

 

Synopsis:

 

David Mann (Dennis Weaver), on his way to a business appointment, pulls out of his garage, leaves his city, and heads out onto the unfamiliar desert highways. As he slowly moves away from civilization, David Mann passes a slow moving oil tanker truck, and becomes its unwilling prey. The truck is relentless in its pursuit, and David must summon the courage and strength to escape alive while struggling to maintain a firm grasp on his psyche.

 

Review:

 

‘Duel’ is a simple story. A man encounters an unknown threat and must learn to defeat it. A simple story but yet it is a film that is so well paced and shot, that it creates an energy which carries the film to its satisfying conclusion.

 

Steven Spielberg was merely 25 when he made this film. Originally a television movie, it became such a spectacular ratings winner that it was released theatrically overseas with an additional 16 minutes of footage. This was the film, not ‘Jaws’ (1975), which helped to put Spielberg on the map in Hollywood.

 

This film grabs the viewer immediately from the opening segment through its use of a P.O.V. perspective. The first shot that the audience witnesses is from David Mann’s eyes as he exits from his garage. Immediately, the audience has identified with the person that will guide us on this journey.

 

In only a few moments, Spielberg provides a tremendous amount of information that will be crucial in understanding the character of David Mann. As the opening credits role, the viewer sees David Mann leaving the familiarity of his street, his downtown, and his city all within a few shots. One other important fact is conveyed as well. People slowly disappear. Where there were many in the city, there are less and less as David makes his way out of the confines of his familiar land and into the unknown desert landscape. The audience understands that David is now out of his element because he is unaware of his surroundings. Not one word is spoken by Mann, but yet the audience already knows a tremendous amount about him, which will be significant when he is tested later on in the film.

 

As was noted earlier, this is a film that involves a simple story. As David Mann proceeds on his journey farther into the desert, he encounters a big and slow moving oil tanker truck. The tanker is a disgusting monstrosity, and it is quite apparent that it has been involved in numerous battles, whether it be with the road or other drivers. The truck is shot in such a way as if to convey that this piece of machinery is a living entity. It is menacing, loud, and very overwhelming to Mann, considering Mann is driving a 1970 Plymouth family car. When the audience first encounters this truck, Spielberg voyeuristically surveys the entire body of the vehicle. As the camera pans from the back to the front of the behemoth truck, the audience is granted a glimpse at the beast that will be the cause of David Mann’s troubles from hereon out.  As the camera reaches the front, the audience also views many license plates (perhaps souvenirs from his victims). However, the audience is not allowed to see the face of the driver. He is the unknown stalking the unknown in a foreign land.

 

In Hollywood films, the desert has always been labeled as a survival of the fittest type of environment. Thus, there is a strong presence of masculine ideals existent within the outback (as is the case in many Australian films). How ideal that there is to be a battle of supremacy between a willing combatant and a man in desperate need to display some sort of masculinity for the audience.

 

The unknown has always been feared. In typical horror films, sensing and understanding that there is an evil presence is always much more terrifying then actually witnessing what the threat is. Your imagination is allowed to take over and create many disturbing and frightening visuals as a result. One of Spielberg’s key themes throughout his films is of the ordinary coming under attack from the extraordinary (think ‘Jaws’, ‘Jurassic Park’ (1993)). David Mann is an ordinary (perhaps ‘nerdy’) man, conveyed through his look, his car, and even his name. As he ventures into foreign land, he comes into contact with an extraordinary being, which is symbolized by the menacing presence of the truck.

 

After the initial introductions, it is time for the game to begin; and what a game it is. For the next 80 or so minutes, the audience becomes an unwilling voyeur in a sadistic game perpetrated by this relentless and menacing foe. Nothing will be spoiled for those who have not seen it, but it is definitely a ride to be experienced. This is a film that resembles the emerging creativity that Spielberg would quickly come to grasp and use towards all of his future films.

 

However, this film would not have been as great as it is if it were not for the truly remarkable performance provided by Dennis Weaver. He is basically the only character on screen, and thus he becomes our guiding point. The viewer identifies with him and, as a result, truly begins to understand him as a character. Fear, relief, paranoia, jubilation, and so on are all convincingly conveyed by Weaver. This is not an easy character to portray, but yet Weaver excels in his ability to create a character determined to survive.

 

This film is so simple but yet so intriguing and suspenseful. There are not enough words to describe the excitement this film helps to create. Though it was made in 1971, this film still packs quite a wallop. It is definitely a classic in every sense of the word.

An
Film Analysis,

Jaws: A Perspective

 

Thirty-five years ago, a young director, by the name of Steven Spielberg, overcame many obstacles to deliver a pulse-pounding adventure story bent on redefining the notion of fear.

 

Steven Spielberg has made a wide assortment of films over his nearly forty years in cinema. However, one continual theme has been persistent throughout most of his stories. As he has noted: “I’ve discovered I’ve got this preoccupation with ordinary people pursued by large forces”.

 

In ‘Duel’ (1971), an ordinary man is terrorized by a large, grotesque oil tanker. In ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind’ (1977), a small community is visited by aliens. In ‘JurassicPark’ (1993), visitors are introduced to dinosaurs. Ordinary human beings and their relationship to all things extraordinary is a typical fixture of Spielberg films, and it is this thematic element which helps to formulate many memorable characters and situations.

 

In ‘Jaws’, Spielberg exploits this thematic issue to create a memorable adventure film, while simultaneously constructing realism through incredible, in-depth character development. ‘Jaws’, on the outset, is a film about a shark terrorizing a small costal community, but it is also a film that analyzes society’s preconceived notions about fear, courage, class, masculinity, and geographical displacement.

 

One key attribute exploited joyfully by ‘Jaws’ is in its refusal to provide a visual composition for its attacking offender. As an adventure/horror film, ‘Jaws’ succeeds largely on the basis that the audience rarely captures a glimpse of the shark. The fact that the audience cannot see what or who is behind the attacks highlights a fear and paranoia, which conveys so much more than if the shark were to be viewed on a consistent basis.

 

There has always been an unspoken fear concerning the nature of a faceless enemy in a foreign land. Man has always been deemed fragile in the face of nature and the unseen, which goes to highlight the fact that society has always feared what they cannot see, explain, or define.

 

Obviously, the audience is aware that a shark is perpetrating these attacks, but since they are unable to verify their assumptions creates an uncomfortable fragile mindset. In perhaps the most frightening use of camera work in cinematic history, there are many shots which occur from beneath the surface of the water, eyeing potential victims swimming above. The audience takes on the perspective of the shark as it moves closer and closer to its intended prey, while being prodded along by a wonderfully written score by John Williams. These people are unaware of a potential attack, but the audience has become fully aware of what is about to occur. The unknown being stalked by the unknown is perhaps the most frightening capability of film. The audience is left in a vulnerable and defenseless position.

 

The idea of terror is wonderfully exploited by Spielberg, and it is clear that he succeeds in filming these types of situations. However, the film has become a classic for more then what he has been able to incorporate visually. Where Spielberg truly excels is in his focus on characters and their relationship to the world around them.

 

‘Jaws’ is considered one of the greatest cinematic masterpieces of all time. This is largely due to the time and concentration spent on the nature of its characters.

 

The films protagonist, Martin Brody (Roy Scheider), is a complicated and less then ideal ‘hero’. He is a fragile character. In a way, he is very much like a child, insecure and lacking. He has relocated himself and his family to the tourist laden area of Amity, and has struggled to integrate himself into the defined boundaries of this community. He is as much a tourist as the conventional visitor is. He is a sightseer in a foreign land.

 

As shark attacks continue to mount, Martin is unable to arrive at any sort of solution as to how to put an end to the chaotic terror gripping this ideal summer haven. It is at this point that the film averts its focus from spectacle, and instead becomes a picture obsessed with the development of character relationships.

 

For reasons unknown, in the final third of the film, Martin decides (even though he is afraid of the water) to venture out onto a boat with the gruff, working class Quint (Robert Shaw), and the middle class intellectual, Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss), to not so much track down and kill this evil and maniacal shark, but as to achieve some sense of maturation for his own self-worth.

 

‘Jaws’ is as much a film about adventure and terror as it is about self-evaluation and self-discovery. These thematic issues are truly explored during the sequences between the three men on the boat. In typical Western films and Australian films (now in Spielberg films), there has always been a necessary contradicting theme present. That is, the idea that although wilderness (land, sea, etc.) and civilization (suburbia, the city) are two opposing thematic elements, they are nonetheless crucial to one another and to the understanding of these complex stories. These two ideas cannot coexist, but yet depend on each other to create tension and understanding.

 

As a result, Martin leaves the confines of a safe environment, governed by rules and authority, and enters an uninhabited sea defined by lawlessness and connoting a Darwinian survival of the fittest type mentality. The fact that Martin enters into this uncivilized land is reflective of the man Martin desires to be. His journey away from the familiarity of civilization will truly test who he is as a person and as an individual.

 

As was the case with the character of David Mann in ‘Duel’, Martin Brody will have to summon the courage and strength to survive, while struggling to maintain a firm grasp on his psyche.  He must learn to understand himself in an alien environment.

 

‘Jaws’ is a rich, methodically structured film that toys with its audience much in the way Alfred Hitchcock would toy with his. Spielberg seamlessly converts passive audience members into shockingly disturbed active participants. The film is filled with tension and delivers on spectacle, but should be remembered for its focus on character. An attribute which is sorely lacking in modern day thrillers.

AE
Film Analysis,

The Objectified Woman

 

Women have forever been linked to the idea of ‘bearer of meaning’ rather than ‘maker of meaning’ in Hollywood films. According to Laura Mulvey, author of the article “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”, women have forever been identified with the role of ‘passive observer’. As a result, men are permitted to live out their fantasies and obsessions by imposing them on the silent image of the woman. In basic terms, the male is identified as an active participant in the movement of the plot, whereas women have been typically assigned the role of inactive participant (she has no influence over the subject matter of the plot-she functions as a distraction for the male). As Mulvey has noted: “the woman’s visual presence (in narrative film) tends to work against the development of a story line, to freeze the flow of action in moments of erotic contemplation”.

 

The Objectification of Women

 

Women have rarely been respected inHollywoodfilms. Yes, there are numerous films about the empowerment of women and their drive and dedication for independence, but, for the most part, women have been relegated to the role of ‘eye candy’. They are rarely taken seriously and are usually vilified by the voyeuristic camera lens.

 

In typicalHollywoodfilms, men are in control of the gaze (that is, the audience sees what they see). Women are typically on the receiving end of that gaze. They are looked at, objectified and sexualized by the male protagonist. Women rarely have the power to reverse the gaze, and when they do, they are normally punished by the film’s narrative.

 

For instance, in Alfred Hitchcock’s 1963 classic ‘The Birds’ (a film about a group of birds that attack a small community), Tippi Hendren’s character, Melanie Daniels, is a strong, independent woman. When she first views Rod Taylor’s character, Mitch Brenner, she is intrigued. He has become an object for her satisfaction. She takes control of the gaze (not him), and as a result, he becomes objectified. As the film progresses, she becomes more infatuated with him and eventually proceeds to follow him on vacation. At one point, she is sitting out in a row boat in the middle of a lake, watching him from afar through a pair of binoculars. It is at this instant that the first bird attack occurs. There is no explanation as to why the birds attack in the film narrative, but if one studies it from a theoretical standpoint-one may understand that Hitchcock is punishing Melanie for attempting to alter the normal standards Hollywood has instilled for narrative film (In fact, if one studies Hitchcock’s filmography in detail, it seems as though he enjoyed reprimanding women for attempting to obtain subjectivity-Marion Crane in ‘Psycho’ is just one example). Melanie cannot be the maker of meaning (she cannot obtain subjectivity), but rather she must be forced back into patriarchal society’s defined role for her.

 

Subjectivity and Objectivity

 

Traditionally, this blatant representation of the sexes has consistently occurred throughout narrative cinema. However, in some instances, these two opposing factors have merged together and resulted in troubled representations of the female in question. In Ridley Scott’s 1979 film, ‘Alien’, Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) is the lone survivor of the alien attacks. Her entire crew has been killed and she has stood out as the subject of the film’s narrative. After successfully obtaining her subjectivity throughout the course of the story, the film begins to feel threatened by this idea and immediately (voyeuristically) objectifies her by showcasing her walking around in a state of undress. Instantaneously, her subjectivity is stripped from her and her role as object reemerges. In this one instant, the viewer no longer defines her as a subject. She is unwittingly undermining all that she has achieved during the course of the film. Yet, save for the final scene, Ripley is still an extremely strong character, and should be identified as a strong role model for women in film.

 

There are also many films in which women, desiring to be treated as subjects, have attempted to use sexuality to undermine the norms ofHollywoodnarrative. However, are they actually achieving this goal? No matter how much she accomplishes, if a woman is sexualized, isn’t that in some way undermining her role as a subject? Sexuality is a powerful tool, but is the woman still not being objectified as a result? If so, it is a shame that women are fooling themselves into believing that this type of sexual behavior will undermine the dominant ideology.

 

Conclusion

 

Hollywoodhas forever been built on illusion. As a result, many people are unaware of the dangerous portrayals of women in, not only films, but as well, magazines, television, and music videos. The idea that women are merely objects is an extremely wrong message to deliver to society. But yet, no matter how much one critiques or complains, women are still objectified in every form of entertainment. Sex sells and will forever be a strong selling point. Men have always been considered the maker of meaning in films, and as long as this continues, women will forever be objected to the voyeuristic gazes of the masses.

 

At
Film Reviews,

Swingers

 

Synopsis:

 

Mike Peters (perhaps the greatest character name ever for film), portrayed by Jon Favreau, is a wannabe actor who has moved out toLos AngelesfromNew York. He has recently broken up with his long time girlfriend, and is still devastated by it. Fearing the worst for his friend, Trent (Vince Vaughn), vows to do whatever it takes to get Mike back into the game, and proceeds to take him out to cocktail lounges, parties in the Hollywood Hills, and of course, Las Vegas to get his mind back on track.

 

 

Review:

 

‘Swingers’ is a film concerned with the heartbreak and torment of a love struck individual attempting to come to terms with who he is as a person.  From this vague description, one would assume that this film is about sorrow and loss. To tell you the truth, it is. But the films delivers it with such authentic sincerity that it becomes both humorous and humbling at the same time.

 

InHollywood, status is everything. Wealth, success, and geographical location are all crucial to this fundamental element of importance. In fact, a great representative of one’s own stature of significance inHollywoodis that the farther west one lives (from downtownLos Angeles), the more successful one appears to be. Mike desires success but has not yet achieved that status. As a result, he is relegated to inhabiting a dinky, unfurnished apartment in the heart of downtownLos Angeles. I guess he is east of success at this point. As a consequence, the films key thematic concern becomes firmly established. Mike is an outsider. He does not exist in this world. He is forced to quarantine himself within his apartment, and hide from this part of the world that has not yet accepted him.

 

In fact, Mike’s friend, Rob (Ron Livingston), is dealing with the same sort of upheavals.   Rob (having recently moved out toLos   Angeles) notes that back when he was inNew Yorktwo months ago, he was playing Hamlet in an Off-Broadway play. Now he is auditioning for the role of Goofy (to entertain customers around the theme park) for Walt Disney (in fact, later on, we discover that Rob fails to obtain this role because of his lack of theme park experience). During one crucial moment, however, Rob confesses that he only came out here because he was inspired by Mike to do so. To be honest, there are thousands of people each year who journey to Los Angeles in search of stardom, only to be cast away. As a result, these people become bitter and begin to question the dreams they had when they initially arrived in this ferocious town. These people feel alone and thus isolate themselves from one another.Hollywooddoes not care for the individual unless that individual can do something for them.

 

In a fit of despair, Mike weighs the option of heading back toNew York. He has all but given up.Los Angeleshas gotten the better of him. However, the character ofTrenthas not given up on him. He is determined to help Mike get back onto his feet and reestablish him as a member of society. Relentlessly, Trent proceeds to take Mike out to numerous establishments to show him that there is more to life then self-pity and self-loathing.

 

Trent, however, is not without his own flaws. He is a fun loving guy but he is all pizzazz and fizzle. His intentions are honorable but he has built himself up into something that is highly questionable. He believes that he has it all figured out when, in fact, he is as much an outsider as Mike is (Trentjust hides it better). This is greatly emphasized when Mike,Trentand three other friends head to a party in the Hollywood Hills. As they enter, everyone stares in bewilderment. They are not an accepted member of this status quo. It is a party for people who have made it. Not for people who desire to make it. Yes, Trent disguises himself as a member of this community and cleverly inserts himself within it (for a time being), but Mike is unable to do the same. Attempting to establish himself within this ‘important’ group, Mike proceeds to mingle with a female partygoer. The first thing she inquires about is the make of his car. When Mike confesses that he has a Cavalier, she turns away in disgust and ignores him. He cannot fake his way into this world because he is not yet fit to be a part of this world (not yet, anyways).

 

Given the serious tone of this review thus far, ‘Swingers’ is in fact one of the most hip and fun films of the past twenty years. The characterizations are realistically well drawn, and the vocabulary enunciated by this group of friends is fresh, intriguing and memorable. They discuss issues that are non-important to some, but relevant to others (Discussions about the tracking shot in ‘Goodfellas’ (1990) and the slow-motion opening of ‘Reservoir Dogs’ (1992)-which are both reenacted in the film), and they have interesting modes of speech and communication (Vegas Baby, Vegas), (Baby, you are so money, and you don’t even know it!). In fact, the language can be characterized as normal typical banter spoken amongst any group of friends concerned with discussing the nature of popular culture (highly reminiscent of ‘Seinfeld’). These people could be any one of us and the film whole heartedly embraces this fact.

 

One of the key contributors to the overall effectiveness of this film is in its use of music. Many vintage crooners are nostalgically revisited here (like Dean Martin), while simultaneously incorporating swing music through the likes of the band, Big Bad Voodoo Daddy. Swing music is an important element for this film because it gives the film life. It helps to destroy the self-pity of Mike, and awakens him to the possibilities of hope (it plays an important part during the last twenty minutes of this film). The films somber subject matter is undermined by the up-beat nature of this vibrant genre of music.

 

Sincerely, ‘Swingers’ is not a film that attempts to sadden the viewer. It is here to rejuvenate the tortured soul, and to reestablish the battered human psyche. The important element here is the value of friends. No matter how down and out one may be; true friends will always remain by your side. In fact, Mike’s trust in his friends helps him to reemerge as a member of this alien society. Yes, there are many embarrassing modes of dialogue, and one extremely unsettling sequence with an answering machine for Mike (perhaps one of the most difficult scenes to watch in film history), but he is able to bounce back from his humiliation.

 

‘Swingers’ is an extremely low budget film ($250,000 to be exact), but it never lets its budget constraints prevent it from being what it truly wants to be. It is a film with heart and soul, and deserves to be categorized as one of the greater buddy films of all time.

 

 

As
Film Reviews,

Se7en

 

Synopsis:

 

Two detectives, Mills (Pitt) and Somerset (Freeman), race against time to thwart the attempts of a serial killer, who chooses his victims according to the seven deadly sins.

 

 

Review:

 

Greed, sloth, envy, pride, wrath, gluttony, and lust are just some of the highlights the viewer will be exposed to in this bleak, unrelenting, neo-noir nightmare of a film. This film wallows in the excessive impurity of a world gone astray. It is not a happy film; in fact, there is not even a happy ending. Instead, for two hours, the viewer will be witness to the very atrocities and vile indecencies this world is capable of.

 

This film is dark; oh boy, is it ever. It is an unsettling depiction of a world that is out of control. In fact, at one point in the film, Somerset notes that he no longer understands this world, and later on when asked how long he has lived in the city, he wearily replies: “too long”. This world has gotten the better of Somerset. He is retiring in seven days, but that will not allow him to forget about the evils he has encountered during his time in this urban hell of a city (that is never named during the length of the film).

 

When the character of Mills arrives on the scene, Pitt plays him as idealistic and ambitious, but yet naïve. In fact, he comes across as cocky and rude in some instances. The two characters of Somerset and Mills are polar opposites of one another. One a father figure, in a sense, attempting to shield the other from the evils he has encountered. In fact, in one instance, Somerset mentions to the chief of police that he does not believe that this should be Mills’ first assignment. Mills sees it as an insult, whereas Somerset understands that Mills is not psychologically ready for what he is about to encounter. It is an old fashioned case of experience and weariness versus ambition and innocence.

 

This is not a violent film but yet it seldom lets the viewer off easy. Gruesome and graphic, the film can be read as a statement on modern day angst and loss of place and understanding in an ever changing world. People want to escape this city but yet no one seems willing enough to leave it. Is it because this film is attempting to state that no matter where one goes, one will always be subjected to this type of visual and mental anguish? In other words, everywhere in the world is reminiscent of this city. There is no escape.

 

David Fincher and his director of photography, Darius Khondji, paint a miraculous picture of a world darkened by the evil that lives within the realms of the human soul. Through low contrast lighting, silver colored rain during a rain storm, and the removal of any form of key lighting, they are able to achieve the idea that this city is dead. The city is devoid of any kind of primary color to help bring life to it. It is only in the last twenty minutes that the audience witnesses a sunny day, but that is viewed from outside of the city (on the way to the stunning and unbelievable climatic moment the film has been building towards throughout). The use of lighting is extremely atmospheric and, in a sense, helps to establish the city as another key character in the film. The city is alive, but yet is slowly decaying from within.

 

One cannot conclude the review without mentioning one of the most vile and despicable (yet intellectual) serial killers in film history. John Doe is methodical and patient. He does not kill on emotion, but rather feels that he is a messenger summoned to destroy the wicked. He is evil, but yet the great actor that portrays him (his name will not be mentioned in case anyone has not seen the film) creates a character that is just that, a true character. In others hands, John Doe would have come off as merely a one note serial killer. But yet, Doe is given tremendous depth and development. This is in large part due to the script (he is one of the better written killers in recent memory), but it is truly brought to life through the actions and mannerisms of this actor.

 

This film is not for the squeamish but yet if one wants to witness acting at its finest (actually, there is one key moment at the end involving Mills that just does not seem to work), a script that is taut and tense throughout, and assured direction, then one should do themselves the favor of watching this film. As was noted earlier, this is in no way a happy film, and there is very little action (it focuses more on the investigation side of it all), but yet it is never boring. The characters are smart and they act and speak in accordance to who they truly are as human beings. Everyone has a point and they are allowed to share that point within the film. They say what they feel in an honest manner. They believe in their words and actions, and that is what makes them reliable characters. The audience truly believes that these characters are who they say they are.

 

Fincher’s Se7en is a modern day masterpiece. It is dark and unrelenting but it whole heartedly embraces the darkness it presents. It is also a film that helped to regenerate  interest in the serial killer genre once again, and led to the release of other, less than satisfactory films (exploiting the success of Se7en), like Kiss the Girls and Along Came a Spider.

 

As has been said, this film is an unnerving adventure and strives to delve deep into the realms of one of the vilest criminals in film history. Yes, it is sometimes difficult to watch but yet it is impossible to turn away. That is the definition of brilliant filmmaking.