aa99a
Music, Music Reviews,

OFF! Live Concert Review (NXNE Festival)

by June 18, 2012

Date: Friday, June 17, 2011

City: Toronto, Ont.

Venue: Horseshoe Tavern

Rating: 3.5/5

 

It was a wild night at The Legendary Horseshoe Tavern on Friday. Not only was West Coast Hardcore Punk Supergroup OFF! performing, but someone also lost a shoe. This is no joke, and this latter fact became public knowledge thanks in large part to lead singer Keith Morris’ (of Black Flag and Circle Jerks fame) seemingly unhealthy obsession with returning a shoe thrown onstage during the opening song. The case of the missing shoe lasted the entire 40 minute set but was never solved. It’s safe to say that this was the tamest aspect of the show.

Known for quick 1-2 minute songs, OFF! needed to slow it down a little to fill the 40 minutes, so Morris took to the microphone to air some personal grievances with our North American oppressors-the rich and powerful.  One fan was so angry at the reality that a singer was actually going to talk during a show that he began to agonizingly scream at Morris to shut up and simply play the music. I assumed that he must have been employed by the government.

So every 4 to 5 minutes (3 songs worth), Morris began to speak out. His most controversial moment came when he began to talk about 9/11, and how the death of Osama Bin Laden meant nothing because the American and Canadian governments were currently in the process of training future Bin Laden’s to carry out further terrorist agendas.

Dinner conversation this was not.

But really, what would a punk rock concert be without this sort of anti-establishment sort of behavior? Renowned for pushing life’s most provocative issues to the forefront (and for his dark sarcasm), Morris was ready for a fight (the rest of the band looked bored with his rants). But all the crowd wanted to do was rock, and when OFF! eventually did, the venue became electrified with energy.

Performing quick and pulsating tracks was what people came to see, and when these moments did occur, the concert-goers became moshing fiends. Without hesitation, they would recklessly leap onto the stage only to dive back into the crowd to surf above outstretched hands.

When the band remained focused on the music, the show truly embodied the essence of a punk rock event.  As colorful as Morris’ conversations were, they seemed to detract from the overall energy of the show. But, hey, who really wants an 18 minute gig?

a999l
Music, Music Reviews,

Seether Live Concert Review

by June 18, 2012

Date: May 26, 2011

City: Toronto,ON

Venue: Opera House

Rating: 4/5

 

If you like your rock n’ roll immersed in grimy filth, the Opera House was the place to be Thursday night. Devoid of pretentiousness, South African rockers Seether skillfully adhered to a back-to-basics sort of rock. Loud and ferociously abrasive, the jam-packed audience was sonically assaulted from the very first guitar riff.

 

Though the set was a mere 13 songs with no encore, Seether accomplished what they set out to do; entertain a crowd foaming with rabid intensity. From the opener “Gasoline” to closer “Remedy”, the raucous crowd passionately embraced the essence of what a rock n’ roll gathering should be. With total disregard for personal safety, multitudes of bodies were repeatedly propelled above the outstretched hands of the frenzied audience with careless abandon.

 

Feeding off this energy was a band who simply wanted to rock. Talk is cheap, and Seether barely said more than ten words throughout the entire evening. But who desires words when a guitar, a bass and a drum kit have the ability to express so much more.

 

Crisp-sounding and tight throughout every song, Seether performed many of their hits including “Broken” (acoustically), “Fine Again” and new single, “Country Song”. Having also been largely inspired by Nirvana over their career, the band even covered the grunge-rockers “Heart-Shaped Box” with staggering success. Not too many singers can match Cobain’s intensely emotional vocalization, but Shaun Morgan’s unbelievable voice (as powerful as it can get) paid homage with booming ferocity.

 

But not everything was pristine. Though Seether has been known to play very short sets over their career, the concert seemed to conclude rather prematurely. Just as the energy in the building was gaining in intensity, the show was suddenly over. Many were left surprised and looking abandoned without any intuition as to what to do. There were futile attempts to await the return of the band but to no avail. Without an encore, the congregation filed out ontoQueen St.impressed, but secretly sulking for more.

 

Apart from this and, of course, the obligatory drum solo that was conducted during the performance (which has grown tiresome over time- no matter how talented the solo may be), the show entertained. Simple and straightforward-the way a rock concert should be.

 

AE
Film Reviews,

Robocop

by June 3, 2012

 

Synopsis:

 

After being murdered by a ruthless gang of criminals, Alex Murphy (Peter Weller) is resurrected as a crime-fighting cyborg named ‘Robocop’.

 

 

Review:

 

Albert Einstein once said that: “It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity”. It is a very true fact indeed that technology has become an unstoppable entity. It is ever-growing and constantly on the move. It has strived to make our lives easier, but has managed to gain the reputation as a slave master. We, as society, have become enslaved to the very idea of technology. It has taken us over and has rendered us vulnerable to its’ utopian ideals. Some of have said that it has stripped us of what many hold dear to them; our humanity.

 

‘Robocop’ is a film that does much more than entertain. It strives to understand the relationship man has with technology/machine. The fact that Robocop is a man controlled by technology is a statement unto itself.  Even the title of the film is a hybrid of two opposing factors; man and machine. After being systematically slaughtered, it is only through the power of technology that Murphy is allowed to live once again. However, as a result, technology has rendered him a thoughtless and emotional free being. He is mundane and computer like in his speech, and his suit is highly symbolic of the cold/sterile and colorless world that technology represents.

 

‘Robocop’, on the surface, is about his role as a crime fighter, striving to uphold the law no matter the cost. But on a much deeper level, the film is about his personal conflict with the technology that now controls his body. Throughout the course of the film, Robocop attempts to retrieve some evidence of his once prevalent humanity. When he first became Robocop, all his memories and emotional content were erased, thus making him an invalid without the proper guidance of human beings. It is only through a relapse and his quest to regain his old self that the audience begins to realize that man cannot always control technology. It now has the ability to control us.

 

Robocop soon begins to act irrationally as he begins to have dreams, memories and thoughts (He is now beginning to retrieve some of the individual characteristics that made him human in the first place). The scientists governing him have no idea what has happened as they are no longer able to control him. In one telling scene near the end of the film, Robocop removes his mask and fights without it, revealing the face of Murphy. It is a very shocking sight since Murphy’s human face is fused with the mechanical properties of a machine. The very fact that he begins to speak, think and feel as a human once again during this sequence represents his quest to separate himself from the machine that is now in control of him.

 

Paul Verhoeven, in his second American film, presents an idea that technology can be understood as a major threat to our very own civilization. Many scenes, in which Robocop or Ed-209 (one of Robocop’s many adversaries) appear, strongly depict the failures that technology is capable of. In one particular scene, Dick Jones (Ronny Cox) is presenting the new and improved machine crime fighter, Ed-209. In a demonstration, one of the business men in attendance is told to point a gun at Ed. He does so and the machine tells him to drop it. The man relinquishes the weapon, but the machine continues to warn him. In the background, scientists scramble to fix the problem, but it is too late. Ed-209 opens fire and massacres the man to death with automatic weapons. It is an undeniable statement that technology which cannot be controlled by man is capable of decimating humanity to the point of extinction.

 

‘Robocop’ is very strongly-opinionated. On top of critiquing technology, it also has much to say about society, politics and commercialism. With that being said, the film is also a solid form of entertainment (It is a must-see for action buffs). It is very violent and unrelenting in its brutality, but it does manage to tell a cohesive story.

 

Looking back at it, ‘Robocop’ is a very undermining film. There is a lot more going on than mere action-filled sequences. It is a highly subversive piece of work, and manages to illicit many reactions as a result.

 

 

*Humanity is acquiring all the right technology for all the wrong reasons.  ~R. Buckminster Fuller

AD
Uncategorized,

Dazed and Confused

by June 3, 2012

Synopsis:

 

A group of teenagers on the last day of school in 1976 are observed.

 

 

Review:

 

This film explores the lives of numerous teenagers during a time in which I was never present. The one thing that is in my favor, however, is that most films that take place in the past are usually a critique about something in modern day society. For instance, this film takes place in 1976, but was made in 1993. For some, this film is not merely about a group of adolescent’s last day of school in 1976, but rather an attempt to discern and understand the actions of teenagers in 1993. This is a time period in which I was most definitely present.

 

In the early nineties’, a genre of music, known as Grunge music, was on the rise. This type of music attempted to express the angst and sorrow felt by many people (most notably, teenagers) through harsh, unrelenting lyrical and instrumental melodies. Bands like Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Pearl Jam were conveying inner emotions that struck deep into the hearts of people who were no longer satisfied with the popular music that attempted to make it all seem perfect. However, Grunge music was not a truly new entity. In actuality, the genre was deeply rooted in the rock music that existed during the 1970s (many popular rock hits from this decade are present in Dazed and Confused, which add tremendous depth and meaning to the overall film).

 

During the 70’s, teenagers were often referred to as “the lost generation”. The same has been said about the youth of the 90s. What Dazed and Confused strives for is to offer comparisons and contrasts between the “slacker” culture of the 70s and the 90s. That is why this film is remarkable. Yes there is a very limited plot, but the film is not concerned with that. It is more focused on attempting to understand the actions and decisions of adolescents in that crucial transitional period between youth and adult. Some of the decisions that we make are what shape us as human beings in our futures. This is a tough and difficult time for many, and probably the most important as well.

 

There are no true stars in this film. It is not about one but rather a group of individuals attempting to arrive at some understanding about themselves. That is why there are no characters more significant or important than any other. However, the character of Randall “Pink” Floyd (Jason London) really made me ponder the idea of individuality. During the course of the film, he is given an ultimatum by his football coach. He must sign a waiver to stop drinking and partaking in drugs, and focus on the football season for the upcoming year. Every one on the team has signed it but he feels it is a violation of who he is. During this time, no teenager wants to be told what to do. If he signs it, then he gives into the “man” and loses a sense of his individuality. If he doesn’t, then he may lose his chance of having a great career as a football player. This choice will decide whether he wants to be grouped as a follower within the masses, or rather as an outsider determined to remain true to his individualistic mentality. This is where the film truly makes its’ mark. It is not about the plot, but rather it focuses on rich characterizations. There are many characters in the film, but yet most are provided significant screen time to despair over their inevitable transition into adulthood.

 

Dazed and Confused attempts to observe a group of seniors focused more on the hazing and ritualistic taunting of newly arriving freshman than on their journey towards the next step in life. The performances are not great but yet they are true (which makes them memorable). Of note, Wiley Wiggins does provide an extremely annoying performance as Mitch Kramer-How often does he touch his hair and nose when he is on-screen anyways?

 

This film truly summons up a sense of nostalgia that makes one yearn for the past where nothing mattered and a Friday night meant friends, relationships and partying. It was a time of no concern or worries. Yes, there was a fear for the future but it was usually brushed aside since we had our entire lives ahead of us. This is all we knew and this is all we wanted to know. We didn’t want responsibility. We wanted freedom. This film magnificently captures that realism which all existed within us at one time or another. Yet, it is inevitable that we must grow up and become the adults we desperately wanted to be treated as but never truly wanted to be.

 

Some of us never want to grow up and that is truly the case of the character Danny Wooderson, portrayed by Matthew McConaughey.  His character has already graduated but yet he refuses to move on because high school was a time in which he experienced the greatest joys of his life. Whereas his peers have moved forward, he remains firmly rooted in the life that has meant so much to him.  He is an adult acting as a child.  In retrospect, he is the saddest character of the film.

 

This film did very poorly during its’ initial theatrical release but has found an audience on DVD. Some people may have believed that this film was about nothing and they would be right. This film is about the randomness of life. Most teen movies that are made are typically shallow and false portraits of its’ subjects. They are rarely true to their characters. They are superficial representations of a group that most do not understand.  Richard Linklater (director of the film) does understand teenagers. He paints a wonderful portrait and truly allows the youth of this film to have a voice. That is why this film is great. The characters are true which makes them reliable. We attach ourselves to their situations because we can relate to them. We see a part of ourselves within at least one of these characters, which is why this film has obtained such a cult following.

 

Even though I was born in the 90s rather than the 70s, I witnessed a very similar trend. These were not the exploits of a lost generation but rather the actions of a culture coming to grips with who they were. They were attempting to understand themselves for the first time and, to be honest, have fun before responsibility reared its’ ugly head. We all grow up but we can never forget what made us the person we are today.

 

Af
Film Reviews,

The Dark Knight

by June 3, 2012

 

The Dark Knight is not simply a comic book film. In fact, it strives to separate itself from the likes of Spiderman and The Hulk by allowing its focus to delve deep into the heart and soul of numerous and diverse individuals. It is a film about choice, morality and idealism, and how these factors can begin to weigh upon the lost and isolated individual.

 

The Dark Knight does not feel like a comic book film. It does not call attention to its comic book origins but rather bases itself in a realistic time period that could be representative of anywhere in the world. Much like Ironman, the Dark Knight is about character and motivation before it is about action and spectacle. The film strives to tell a story that is fun in a fantastic sense but also can be understood as a commentary on present day choice of right and wrong in a morally confused world.

 

The Conflicted World of Batman

 

The one thing that has always been a virtue about the Batman franchise is in its focus on the conflicted mind of Bruce Wayne/Batman (Christian Bale). Bruce Wayne is an idealist who believes he can alter the world’s crime ridden roots through the donning of a mask and cape. But how far will he proceed with it? This is the question that is at the heart of the story of The Dark Knight.

 

His struggle with his sense of duty is truly put to the test in this film by many facets of Gotham City, but none more powerful then the likes of the psychopathic and antagonistic mind frame of The Joker (Heath Ledger). Within the first five minutes of the film, the audience is quick to ascertain that this is not the same Joker as Jack Nicholson undertook only 19 years earlier in Tim Burton’s Batman.

 

The Joker is not played for laughs by the late Ledger, but rather as a character who believes in tipping the scales of structure and balance. He is not in it for the money (which is emphasized in a scene that will be truly difficult for a capitalist to watch) but rather is an instigator and a threat to the goal of a morally structured world. Things are not simply black and white, and the character of The Joker is quick to point this out. He alters certain individual’s perceptions and forces them to become entities of their psyche that they may not want to admit they possess. Though his screen time presence is lacking, during the times in which he does appear onscreen becomes a highly intoxicating treat and truly works as the best moments of this film. He is utterly unforgettable and, dare one say it, the best Joker ever.

 

A Little Too Much?

 

The film is over two and a half hours long but it never feels lengthy. It packs so much in that it would be difficult to cut anything out. However, at times, it seems that Nolan may be in over his head with too many plots and characters. One of the casualties of the script is Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal- who has replaced Katie Holmes from the original film, and who is a much better actress), who is severely underwritten. Her role from the first film as a tough minded district attorney is shelved here in favor of her becoming the idealized woman caught in a love triangle. Both Bruce Wayne and her new boyfriend Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) vie for her heart strings as her character simply goes through the motions of choice. With that being said, the love story comes off as simply weak in the face of other much more rousing plots.

 

The Darkness of the Film

 

The Dark Knight does live up to its title. It is extremely dark (though the city is not as malicious looking as it appeared in the first film). The violence at times is stark and unrelenting, but in a non-exploitive sort of way. It mirrors the society thatGothamCityhas become. The city has spawned violence as a result of its own corruption and misdeeds. It truly captures the understanding that violence begets violence.

 

GothamCityis a barren landscape and, as a result, contains only three men willing enough to take on the role of cleaning it up. In the film, all three men represent different modes of the male perspective. Harvey Dent is the idealist who believes change can occur through effort and determination. Batman, on the other hand, desires alterations but is conflicted on how to go about achieving it. Lieutenant Gordon (Gary Oldman) covets modifications but is also a man who understands the corruption and decay that probes the individual. He is an idealist but with a greater sense of awareness and understanding then Dent and Batman. These three characters help to complete each other and yet remain individualistic in their beliefs and actions.

 

Christopher Nolan, the director, has achieved a tremendous feat with his latest release. He has taken a film franchise which only ten years ago was mocked and ridiculed and turned it into something artistically respected. It has rejuvenated the series and, as a result, has become the best franchise going at the present moment. For all of its minor problems, this entry is sure to entertain the masses. The film has a rousing score and contains performances that are truly great, but at times is overshadowed by all of the great action sequences (which may or not may be a bad thing?).

 

Though the film does sort of lose itself in the final thirty minutes, it still does leave the viewer with great expectations for a third entry in the series. Perhaps the anticipation will not be as tantalizing as the original films ending (with the introduction of the Joker playing card), but it does add another depth to the already impressive lengths this franchise is attempting to strive for. Let the anticipation begin.

 

 

 

 

AI
Film Analysis,

Indiana Jones: A History

by June 3, 2012

 

In a 1985 interview with Time Magazine, Steven Spielberg noted: “I dream for a living. I use my childhood and go back there for inspiration”. This idea of dreams and imagination is a key contributor to the legacy of Spielberg as an artist. There has been no one that has relied more heavily on the idea of fantasy and all its wonderment (maybe George Lucas) than Spielberg.

 

His films are about spectacle, wonder and emotion, but yet are defined by a recognizable humanity. His films are about the average human being (the everyman) and their collision with extraordinary moments or situations. According to James Clarke, these moments challenge, test, and identify the everyman who confronts them, and thus becomes consumed by them. As a result, characters learn and are illuminated by their own potential (The Pocket Essential-Steven Spielberg, 2001). Is there any better way to describe the character of Indiana Jones?

 

The Birth of a Franchise

 

In the early 1970s, a recent film graduate from the University of Southern California (USC) had a brilliant story idea. An archaeologist, who by day teaches at the local college as a professor, becomes an obsessed treasure hunter determined to capture great historical relics of the world. The idea was awe-inspiring for George Lucas, and he immediately went about fleshing the idea out with the help of fellow writer Philip Kaufman.

 

Eventually, however, Lucas began setting his sights on another story; a space odyssey adventure film entitled ‘Star Wars’ (1977). As ‘Star Wars’ began to grow into a reality, the story of the treasure hunter began to diminish from sight. Though, as much as he accomplished with ‘Star Wars’, this idea never truly left the mindset of Lucas.

 

Prior to the premiere of ‘Star Wars’, George Lucas left Hollywood to vacation in Hawaii. As he normally does, Lucas attempts to skip town prior to his premieres in hopes of escaping all of the hoopla surrounding them. Joining him on the tropical island was another young director named Steven Spielberg. Having known each other from the past, the two men were relaxing and building sand castles on the beach when Spielberg nonchalantly remarked that he desired to direct a James Bond film. Immediately Lucas spoke of his idea conceived many years prior. Spielberg, at once, became enthralled with the idea and, in a moment, a powerful collaboration was born.

 

Indiana Jones is Born

 

Within three years of this conversation, ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ began production. After completing a rough story sketch about the film’s premise, Lucas and Spielberg handed over the task of writing the script to an up and coming writer, Lawrence Kasdan (who would go on to direct ‘The Big Chill’, ‘Wyatt Earp’, and many other films).  Basing his script on the notes from Lucas and Kaufmann, Kasdan went about creating a marvelous and nostalgic script for the film.

 

Tom Selleck was initially cast as Indiana Smith (later changed to Jones as Spielberg believed that the name was too common). However, Selleck was also beginning work on the television show ‘Magnum P.I.’ which was to commence filming at the same time as ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’. Thus, the network refused to let him out of his contract, and as a result, Selleck was forced to drop out.

 

Eventually, Harrison Ford was cast. His name was initially mentioned by Spielberg but Lucas was not keen on working with Ford again (though they did get along, they had already worked on three films prior, ‘American Graffiti’ (1973), ‘Star Wars’ (1977) and ‘The Empire Strikes Back’ (1980)). After considerable prodding by Spielberg, Lucas eventually gave in and hired Ford to portray the wise cracking, accidental hero.

 

The Adventure Film

 

An adventure film is defined as such: “films which focus primarily on physical activity rather then characterization. They depict a protagonist’s struggle against life threatening obstacles in pursuit of some goal” (The American Film Institute, 2002). A typical trait of the adventure film is also its emphasis on men dominating the action. Women tend to play the love interest or the accomplice in this genre, and are rarely depicted as strong and resourceful.

 

However, this idea of the weakened heroine is completely undermined in ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’. Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood is not your archetypal girl-in-distress caricature, but rather is a physically capable woman (most of the time) who can defend herself and rely on her own ability (rather then wait for the hero to rescue her.)

 

For the most part, though, the stories of Indiana Jones are paying homage to the classic Saturday morning serials of the 1930s. Having grown up watching these as children, Lucas and Spielberg both felt a duty to pay tribute to the genre. In basic terms, a Serial consists of a lengthy sequence of melodramatic, action-filled episodes that are shown in installments to entice audiences to return to the movie theatre on more than one occasion (A.F.I., 2002).

 

As a result of their infatuation with serials, Spielberg and Lucas single-handedly reinvigorated the stale adventure film genre. Through ‘Star Wars’ and the ‘Indiana Jones’ franchises, adventure films were once again fun-filled escapism to be embraced by the entire family.

 

Some may say that the ‘Indiana Jones’ series lacks depth, and that it solely relies on the merit of action and adventure. In retrospect, who truly cares if this film is based on superficial merit? The film is meant to entertain as films once did in the past.

 

Some may also say that Lucas and Spielberg have ruined film as an art form, but they would be wrong. Rather, they have rekindled the joy and adventure (through fantasy) that once lived within the impressionable hearts of us all.

Ac
Uncategorized,

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

by June 2, 2012

 

Synopsis:

 

Notorious outlaws Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) and the Sundance Kid (Robert Redford) once ruled the dusty towns and breathtaking vistas of the Old West. But when a relentless “superposse” picks up their trail, they realize their days are numbered. With Sundance’s girlfriend, Etta (Katharine Ross), they flee toBolivia. But old habits die hard, and when they their thieving ways continue, Butch and Sundance find themselves outgunned, outnumbered and in the fight of their lives.

 

 

Review:

 

According to the American Film Institute, the Western is a genre that depicts: “a struggle between the good and evil in a setting where civilization and wilderness are in transition”. In the early years of cinema, the western was defined by many iconographic boundaries. The heroes wore white while the antagonists wore black. They were easily identifiable for audiences watching these stories.

 

However, in the times occurring after World War II, the western took on new meanings and understandings. They began to embody darker themes and reflect upon the complex nature of violence. The challenge of defining who were the “good” guys and who were the “bad “guys was no longer an easy black and white issue for audiences. The selections were tainted now as elements of good and evil now began to infiltrate and resonate within key character of these films. Classic films such as Fred Zinneman’s High Noon (1952) and John Ford’s The Searchers (1956) were significant entries in the postwar western and which embodied these key thematic elements.

 

As the 1960s rolled around, the western underwent even greater transitional stages. The western of the 1960s became comedic, satiric and violent variations on the genre. Films such as Sergio Leone’s The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (1966), Sam Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch (1969) and, of course, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid came to be films that helped to define the western genre during this tumultuous decade.

 

Butch Cassidy is far from a perfect film. In fact, it has numerous flaws such as sluggish pacing and alterations in tone that at times seem bewildering. What it does have going for it though is its impact on the cinematic landscape and as the first film to team the wonderfully talented duo of Newman andRedford.

 

There have been many talented duos affiliated with the cinematic stratosphere. Laurel and Hardy, Abbot and Costello and Pryor and Wilder, but none may illicit such raw visceral power as the teaming of these two iconic giants of the silver screen. To say that Newman andRedfordhave great chemistry together (and great comedic timing) is a very underwhelming statement. They sparkle when they are on screen with one another and the film truly benefits as a result. Who knows how this film would have fared if other actors had attempted to take on the roles of these two anti-heroes.

 

That is one key element of the 1960s western that continues to be truly provocative for critics and analysts. This idea of the anti-hero becoming an out right hero against government established institutions can be read as a statement and as an indictment of 1960s culture. The 1960s are a decade that saw great change and turmoil. Society had become fed up with the lies and deception perpetrated by a government that did not seem to care. As a result, the Civil Rights Movement, the Sexual Revolution, Feminism and Anti-War protests and rallies came to be defining moments of this era. The underdog was challenging the structure of government authority.

 

To understand the time period truly aids in the reading of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid as a classic and as an important reflection of social and political turmoil. Butch and Sundance are two outlaws who defy society’s defined boundaries of lawful action. They live uninhibited and create chaos and paranoia for society in the film and thus establish a sense of lawlessness. The fact that they rob banks and trains run by the government helps to further solidify their roles as outsiders determined to challenge the authority of the land.

 

In an attempt to squash this up-rise by these anti-heroic figures, the government hires a super posse to track these men and kill them. Any threat to a government established society is a danger that needs to be eliminated. No matter where Butch and Sundance go, they cannot shake the likes of these government men and thus are forced to flee their established land and travel to a foreign territory unknown to any of them. The fact that the government hires these men to kill Butch and Sundance is a damning shot at socially established rules. As has been noted, the 1960s were about an uprising of political, social and personal beliefs and the established institutions at the time were unaware of how to cope. This perfectly mirrors Butch and Sundance. They cannot be suppressed so then they must be eliminated. If a soul cannot be contained then it must be destroyed. The story of Butch and Sundance perfectly brings this reality of 1960s society to light.

 

To look at Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid from a historical perspective helps to understand the film in a new and innovative way. To define it alongside the political turmoil that was the 1960s helps to create an unforgettable aura about the film. Just as in the final scene where the image of Butch and Sundance is freeze framed (thus solidifying their roles as iconic heroes), the film now becomes destined for iconic status because of its role as an important historical document which helped to define an era.

Ab
Film Reviews,

Batman (1989)

by June 2, 2012

 

Synopsis:

 

GothamCityis under siege. Criminals and corrupt officials rule, and the innocent are left defenseless. Crime boss Carl Grissom (Jack Palance) and his right hand man, Jack Napier (Jack Nicholson) are the true leaders of this city. They rule with an iron fist. However, Jack is eventually set up by Carl, and is forced to fend for himself while on a routine mission at Axis Chemicals. This is where Jack, on the verge of escape from the police, first encounters Batman. Batman prevents Jack from escaping by dropping him into a vat of toxic chemicals. Jack reemerges as The Joker, and vows to destroy the city of Gotham, and Batman. Batman, on the other hand, vows to save the city from the corruption of crime and from the unstable actions of The Joker.

 

 

Review:

 

In recent years, comic book fever has hitHollywood. Every sort of superhero has popped up in celluloid from Spiderman and Superman to Daredevil and Ironman. This genre has quickly become a bona fide financial juggernaut. As the films continue to be released and the quality continues to diminish, one starts to ponder the validity of these once iconic figures. Originally created to cope with the stress of war and famine during the 1930s and 1940s, these characters once represented hope and faith for a nation in a stage of turmoil. Now that these characters are merely exploited for financial reasons, they tend to lose what they once stood for. Their honor and truth are stripped from them by greedy capitalists.

 

Prior to the bombardment of the superhero films, studios were extremely hesitant to green light any film based on a comic book. These films were not viable entities and were not considered serious modes of art by many critics. Superman was released in 1978 and was a major hit but as the sequels continued, the product diminished and the film eventually ended its embarrassing run with Superman 4: The Quest for Peace in 1987. As the hoopla quickly subsided and the crowds diminished, so did the superhero film.

 

This posed serious risk for the film version of ‘Batman’. Having bought the film rights in 1979, producers Benjamin Melniker and Michael Uslan (and eventually Peter Guber) struggled for nearly ten years to bring the caped crusader to the big screen. However, after numerous changes to the script, director and actors, the film finally was green-lit and was set for release onJune 23, 1989.

 

 

Tim Burton, known for his work on Beetlejuice (1988), was a surprise candidate to some but eventually was hired on as director of this big-budgeted film. This did not sit well with some industry professionals as they were concerned with how this former artist from Walt Disney would handle the dark world of Batman. The character had changed so often in the past fifty years that many were unaware of how the film would go about depicting the legacy of the caped crusader. With a great amount of stress on his shoulders,Burtonpersevered and decided that he was going to introduce the world to a reinvented Batman. Having been greatly inspired by Frank Miller’s 1986 comic ‘Batman: The Dark Knight Returns”,Burtonaimed to create a bleak and unrelenting landscape for his ‘Batman’ film. Gone were the days of the psychedelic camp excesses of the 1960s television series starring Adam West (Batman had become a joke of sorts with his portrayal in this series). Instead,Burtonvowed to once again honor the ‘Batman’ story with the respect and admiration he felt it deserved.

 

Batman is a story about the good and evil in everyone. Bruce Wayne (A.K.A. Batman), is a character haunted by the murder of his family. He was defenseless during their attack and the traumatic situation has left him a vulnerable soul. He is a brooding, melancholy individual who has never been at peace with who he is. Attempting to escape his pain and self loathing, Bruce Wayne transforms into the crime fighting idealist known as Batman. Crime destroyed Bruce Wayne but Batman vows to destroy the crime.

 

Jack Napier, on the other hand, is a cold and calculating master criminal who aspires to be the top dog. His ambitious nature and his arrogance are, however, his downfall. Having had enough of Jack, Carl Grissom vows to rid himself of him forever. After being dropped into the vat of chemicals, Jack is transfigured into a demonically possessed, fun loving, insane criminal mastermind. The Joker becomes Jack’s alter ego and though he is as ambitious as Jack is, The Joker is the antithesis of him in regards to personality, demeanor and appearance.

 

Thus, the performances from Keaton and Nicholson are crucial in the understanding of the motives behind these two characters decisions. Bruce Wayne is clumsy and reserved but Batman is fearless and heroic. Jack is a vindictive but controlled man. The Joker is uninhibited and sadistic. Both Bruce Wayne and Jack Napier are the complete opposite of their alter egos. They are allowed to live out their fantasies as a result of their defined title as outsider. The fact that Bruce Wayne lives on the outskirts ofGothamCityis highly symbolic of his ostracized role in society.

 

Keaton is restrained (reserved) and slightly comedic in his performance. In a sense, he plays the straight man to Jack Nicholson’s over the top portrayal of The Joker. With Keaton playing it straight, Nicholson is allowed to chew the scenery with relish (and boy does he ever). Perhaps this is the most fun any actor has ever had at portraying a role. The Joker is demented but goes about it with such an uncontrolled giddiness that Nicholson’s performance borders on flamboyant. However, Nicholson does steal the show and truly deserves top billing. He brings life to the film and, to some, is more of an interesting character then Keaton’s Batman. Whereas Keaton needs to be the brooding, reluctant hero, The Joker adds flavor to an already spicy role.

 

The characters exist in an urban hell. It is a city devoid of life. Highly reminiscent of Metropolis (1927) and Blade Runner (1982), the film oozes bleakness. The darkness is highly representative of the character’s emotional detachment to life. Production designer, Anton Furst, beautifully depicts a city being eaten away at its core by creating a cold and sterile environment. It is highly reminiscent of a hopeless world. That is until Batman vows to battle the crime infestation of the city.

 

Anton Furst’s production design goes hand in hand with the dark, visual scope of Tim Burton.Burton’s zealous in creating a dark world has become a common distinction amongst his films. The darkness that seeps through the crevices of his films may appear to be bleak and unmanageable but he always allows for the chance of hope and redemption to surface.

 

AidingBurton’s visual extravaganza is the score by Danny Elfman. From the beginning of the film, Elfman presents a raucous and riveting musical accompaniment that truly gets ‘Batman’ off to a quick start. Aided by the artist (formerly known or known or whatever he is now) Prince, the music helps to drive the story forward and assist during some of the lulls experienced in the film.

 

Batman is in no way a perfect film. There are many plot lapses and the film is not as deep as Christoher Nolan’s superior, albeit completely different Batman Begins (2005), but the film holds a special place in my heart. I grew up with this film and to this day it still makes me excited when I watch it.