The Dailies 2/21/10: Guns, Revenge and Wizardry

Welcome to another installment of the Dailies. I’ve watched another slate of films, so as I’ve done in the previous two Dailies columns in January, I’ll be writing briefly about each of them rather than focusing on a particular picture.

Trailerz

3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Director: James Mangold
Principal Actors: Russell Crowe, Christian Bale, Ben Foster, Peter Fonda
Academy Awards: Nominated (Best Original Score), Nominated (Best Sound Achievement)

For some reason, I absolutely love Westerns. I love the scenery, the time period, the bad-ass villains, the stoic heroes; everything. The reason I mention this is because my opinion on films like these is skewed; if a Western was made with Gilbert Gottfried starring as an expert marksman trying to bring justice to Civil War-era Arizona, I’d probably give it two and a half stars because I liked the horsemanship and the costumes.

The Old West serves as a great place to set morality plays, which are essentially what Westerns are. There are relatively few laws, and people can make a decision on whether to live decently or whether to become cold-blooded outlaws. That there is little in the way of police intervention to persuade anyone not to become a bandit gives the decisions the characters make that much more weight.

3:10 to Yuma eschews this black-and-white Western archetype of heroes and villains. Christian Bale plays Dan Evans, a hard-on-his-luck rancher who offers his services to transport notorious outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) to a train that will take him to Yuma prison. It’s a suicide mission, because Wade’s gang, led by Ben Foster as the completely immoral Charlie Prince, is basically guaranteed to kill everyone bringing Wade to the train. Evans is in it for the money, but eventually, his mission becomes more than that. 3:10 to Yuma is a more thoughtful Western; it’s about a man’s conviction in the face of certain peril, and how even the most ruthless killers can have a code of ethics and humanity that they follow.

Elements of the story are hokey at times, but Crowe and Foster are both tremendous and Bale carries his weight as the protagonist as well. The “guns blazin’” Western is fun and exciting, but 3:10 to Yuma provides a refreshing, serious and thoughtful take on the tried-and-true Western formula. B.

Edge of Darkness (2010)
Director: Martin Campbell
Principal Actors: Mel Gibson, Ray Winstone, Danny Huston, Bojana Novakovic

Edge of Darkness is Mel Gibson’s first starring role since 2002’s Signs, and he probably should have picked a better vehicle with which to make his “triumphant return”. The film markets itself as an action-thriller, and it has all the hallmarks of an action-thriller done very poorly. It’s needlessly complex and confusing, poorly acted, heavy handed and downright boring.

Plot: a heartless, multinational corporation assassinates Gibson’s daughter, an employee of said corporation (though we don’t know they committed the assassination at the time. Spoilerz!) Gibson then spends the remainder of the film looking menacing, brutally interrogating bad guys and those in league with the bad guys, and repeating the question, “Did you kill my daughtah?” in a crude Boston accent. Edge of Darkness is simply laughable; it’s one of those films where very little makes sense from the get-go, yet things get more and more complex in each successive scene until we don’t know what’s happening anymore. Gibson’s final confrontation with the head of that heartless corporation is so ridiculous that the theater was cackling in ironic glee.

Action films are supposed to be goofy, because it’s impossible for them to be anything but. Though Edge of Darkness isn’t an action film in the vein of Stallone or Schwarzenegger, the same sensibility is there, and the film would have been much better off if it took itself less seriously. Edge of Darkness is a completely brainless, stock action-thriller that has the balls to think it’s more than that. D-, saved from an F only for one half-decent action scene and the unintentional yuks it provided.

Shooter (2007)
Director: Antoine Fuqua
Principal Actors: Mark Wahlberg, Michael Pena, Danny Glover, Kate Mara

Shooter is an action-thriller that actually works, somewhat, because it recognizes what it is and doesn’t try to be anything it isn’t. Mark Wahlberg plays a former military marksman who is coaxed out of retirement to assist the government in preventing a presidential assassination. The government representatives, played by Danny Glover and a handful of “I’ve seen this guy in a million things” actors, double-cross Wahlberg and frame him for the assassination attempt. He vows revenge. Easy formula, fun movie, right?

For the most part, it is. Shooter recognizes it’s a big dumb action movie and it works well within those boundaries. It’s actually a little smarter than I imagined, and Wahlberg explaining the logistics of being a sniper and some of his government entanglements are enjoyable, well-written, and thought-provoking. There are times when Shooter attempts to be a little more grandiose than it should, and at those moments the film suffers, much like Edge of Darkness suffered the whole way through. A director should recognize what their film is and be careful not to stray too far away from that or pile a bunch of sentimentality or clumsy political messages on top of it. Fuqua (director of one of my favorite films of all time, Training Day) largely handles this balancing act well.

Unfortunately, Shooter really falls apart towards its conclusion. Wahlberg is assisted in his revenge crusade by rogue FBI patsy Michael Pena, and he teaches Pena the art of being an expert sniper in about five minutes. Additionally, the film takes a legitimately gruesome turn at the end, with Wahlberg brutally slaughtering those who wronged him. I was unprepared for such an ending, with the hero gunning down his enemies in cold blood. These types of actions, where the hero essentially behaves as a villain, always create distance between hero and audience; the hero is supposed to be above such acts. C.

The Illusionist (2006)
Director: Neil Burger
Principal Actors: Edward Norton, Paul Giamatti, Jessica Biel, Rufus Sewell
Academy Awards: Nominated (Best Cinematography)

The Illusionist provides us with a character whose aura of mystery and secrecy is so well-written and well acted that it drives the entire film. Edward Norton plays the magician Eisenheim, whose magic tricks are unlike anything the world has ever seen. He arrives in turn-of-the-century Vienna to perform these tricks, which baffle and delight audiences and bring him under the eyes of chief of police Paul Giamatti.

Norton, as the magician, really doesn’t have a lot to do with creating the aura around his character. The computerized tricks themselves are the real stars of the show, with Norton causing an orange tree to grow out of a pot instantaneously and painting a portrait without brushes or paint. The Illusionist uses Paul Giamatti’s character to convey what we’re thinking while watching it; how does he do all of these things?

The film, at its heart, is a love story. Jessica Biel is the female accompaniment to Rufus Sewell, the crown prince of Austria. Biel and Norton had been in love growing up together, and most of the movie is concerned with Sewell and Norton’s competition for her affection. Giamatti carries out Sewell’s dirty work, constantly harassing and interrogating Eisenheim and trying to bring he and Biel’s relationship to an end.

The Illusionist is a truly enjoyable story with what I’d consider a weak ending. I won’t give it away, but it works to demystify Eisenheim and actually portray him as less sympathetic and less likable. It’s a swerve that could have been avoided altogether (in fact, this ending is not present in the Steven Millhauser short story “Eisenheim the Illusionist”, after which the film is based). The enjoyment of The Illusionist comes from that mystery and wonder, and that the film would undermine its own great attribute was disappointing to me. B.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
Directors: Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones
Principal Actors: Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Michael Palin, Terry Jones

I want to start this review by saying that I have the utmost respect and admiration for the Monty Python franchise. Though I can’t say I’m overly familiar with all of their work, I do enjoy their Flying Circus show, which occasionally airs today on BBC America. I respect what Monty Python did because they created something unique, witty, funny and everlasting.

I say this because while watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail, I wasn’t laughing. I understood the jokes, and I know what was supposed to be funny, but I didn’t find much of it funny at all. Some bits went on way too long when they weren’t particularly funny in the first place. Others were so hopelessly goofy and esoteric that they didn’t have a chance of being funny anyway. It was confusing to me; everyone seems to love this movie, but it’s hard to understand why.

That’s not to say there aren’t winning scenes in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The jokes work best when they come from out of nowhere, like the regular tearing down of the “fourth wall” and the self-aware references to the film itself. I also actually enjoyed the fantasy elements of the film. It’s not meant to be taken seriously, but amazingly the Pythons did create a fun, fantastical world, even if it’s only meant to be taken as a gag.

Ninety minutes of sight gags and humorous asides, without one or two gut-busting laughs, is difficult to sit through, and Monty Python and the Holy Grail definitely drags at points. These antics are funny in a sketch comedy format, but difficult to maintain in a theatrical film. Though I wish it weren’t so, I found myself asking; what’s all the fuss about? C.

John Lacey

Shit from the 90s #5: Tamagotchi!

In 1996, America's children decided that they'd had enough of their true-life, flesh and blood pets. Though they had formed strong bonds and legitimate friendships with their cats, dogs, parrots and parakeets, there was always that elephant in the room: wouldn't my pet be easier to take care of if it was a computer?

As so often happens, Japanese men were there to answer this growing question. Their response? A small, three-buttoned egg shaped computer console, small enough to fit on a keychain. Surely this product, with which children and socially challenged adults the world over could engineer and care for a digitized, androgynous "pet", would replace the real thing. Though my prose is dripping with sarcasm right now, there was a brief period of time in the late 90s where this nearly happened.

The Tamagotchi could do all of the exciting things a real pet can do. It could eat food, it could play a game, and it could shit right on the computerized floor. It also came in a variety of snazzy colors, prompting dim-witted youngsters to purchase multiple Tamagotchis even though they didn't do anything different. The Tamagotchi was a 90s sensation different from the Pog or Furby or Tim Allen; it gave children something they could do on a two-inch screen that is infinitely more rewarding and fun to do in real life; basically, to play with a dog.

The Tamagotchi's replication of something that should not and doesn't need to be replicated kicked off a disturbing trend. A few years later, video game The Sims came along, in which users could control a person and make their decisions for them. Later still, a whole online universe called Second Life came about, in which (you guessed it) users could control a person and make their decisions for them. Except in Second Life, there are other real people and things you can actually spend real money on. All of this sounds really fucking stupid, and it should; we have our own lives with which we can make decisions and do things. The Tamagotchi may have been more benign than Second Life, but its message was the same. Why get a real dog or cat when the fake one is well-behaved and more convenient?

I have a genuine affection for stupid old shit, but the Tamagotchi is so insanely ridiculous that even I can't defend it. If only parents standing in lines at toy stores the world over in the late 90s had looked at the thing and said to Junior, "Are you sure you don't just want a fucking dog?"

John Lacey

The Random Ten #15

1) Elliott Smith - "Speed Trials" - Either/Or (1997)

"Speed Trials" plainly displays the late Elliott Smith's minimalistic pop sensibility. His vocals match the twanginess and relative quiet of the instrumentation, and no one instrument stands out above the others. Everything is kept on an even keel, yet the song is melodic enough to make an impression. There's not much meat on the bones, but what is here is quite enjoyable.

2) R.E.M. - "Harborcoat" - Reckoning (1984)

"Harborcoat", as with much of R.E.M.'s early to mid-80s output, has an unmistakable 80s pop sound, distorted and dimmed and sounding similar to Talking Heads material of the same era. Like Elliott Smith, Michael Stipe is forceful with his vocals in his own way; there is no screaming or soaring pieces (though he is capable of them), just confident, understated, and complementary vocals.

The song features some nice "R.E.M.-like" guitar work (because their sound is so distinctive that they've practically created their own qualifier), intertwined with swirling vocals from Stipe and the band. It's been done by them before and since, but the formula is a proven winner, and it shows again here.

3) Machine Head - "Blood of the Zodiac" - The More Things Change... (1997)

Wow; this is the first metal song to appear on one of my Random Ten columns! I usually leave the metal stuff to an expert like Steele, but the Random Ten cannot be denied. "Blood of the Zodiac" is sufficiently foreboding, with a minute-long introduction that unleashes into some really solid and heavy guitar/drum work.

Steele might disagree, but The More Things Change... strikes me as one of the original distortions of the classic thrash sound into something louder, but not necessarily heavier, e.g. Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God and similar bands. There's an ethos in older thrash music (Metallica, Megadeth, etc) that makes it heavier and more ruthless, above and beyond how loud it actually is. Machine Head slows that style down here. It's made slower and stronger, but actually suffers for it. "Blood of the Zodiac" is a fine metal song, but it lacks that feeling of power and forbiddenness. The band Slayer sounds like a band you should not be listening to. Machine Head sounds like Slayer except burly and lumbering; more palatable. It's not bad, but metal should sound dangerous. This doesn't.

4) Nine Inch Nails - "Ruiner" - The Downward Spiral (1994)

There's something about the creepy, downtrodden industrial music of Trent Reznor, the brains behind Nine Inch Nails, that is very respectable to me. He's doing something different, creating his own sound, and is unapologetically indifferent to what is popular. No matter the genre of music, you can't not like that.

His music is good, too, with "Ruiner" full of unintelligible gnarling and yelling, which opens into a melodic passage. There's beauty even in Nine Inch Nails' hopelessness and dread, and "Ruiner" does well at showing both ends of Reznor's spectrum. There's also a cool classic rock-esque guitar solo that is distorted and filtered into a barely-hearable mess. As always with Reznor, it's an interesting and well-done sonic collage that occasionally is more than that.

5) Sepultura - "Jasco" - Roots (1996)

I cannot seem to shake metal or metal-related genres of music right now. Witness Sepultura, the classic Brazilian thrash outfit that was on the last of its original legs when their 1996 album, Roots, was released. There isn't much to discuss here. "Jasco" is an acoustic guitar piece that lasts for two minutes. Decidedly un-metal, but most likely a mood setter to break up what comes before and after it.

6) Failure - "Segue 1" - Fantastic Planet (1996)

Well, this is part metal, part alt-rock. Does that continue the streak?

Best known for their minor hit from this same album, "Stuck On You", Failure hits the right notes on "Segue 1". You can guess by the title that it isn't very long, but "Segue 1" opens with an undulating guitar part which opens into a rather enjoyable riff repeating itself for the duration. When a band's interstitial album cuts are clicking, you can tell they're onto something.

7) Phish - "Harpua" - Live Phish Vol. 13 (originally recorded in 1994, official release in 2002)

Here we have a live performance of the relatively rare "Harpua", from the same Halloween live performance where the band covered the Beatles' self-titled "White Album". The song begins with a pleasant bouncy jam, which soon opens up into frontman Trey Anastasio telling a history of the Halloween holiday (based of course in Anastasio's fictional, mystical land of Gamehendge), which takes up most of the song's fifteen-minute run time.

It sounds funny, because by reasonable standards the story is boring and the song terrible, but these types of performances are part of what made the band what it is, and they don't do enough shit like this anymore. There was a youthful joy within the band then, something rarely seen these days. This version of "Harpua" is absurd and long-winded, but it is actually indicative of a band that was firing on all cylinders at that point.

Oh, and the story involves the band playing Black Sabbath's "War Pigs" for a short time.

8) Drive-By Truckers - "The Opening Act" - Brighter Than Creation's Dark (2008)

Drive-By Truckers, a Southern rock band with Northern intellectual sensibilities, are capable of playing all sorts of different musical styles. Here we get a melancholy mixture of twangy blues and alt-country, punctuated by the vocals and lyrics of guitarist and vocalist Patterson Hood. Hood sounds melodic and gruff at the same time, perfectly suited to the balls-out rock of the Truckers, but also to their slower pieces like this.

Bassist Shonna Tucker sings backup, providing a nice complement to the moroseness of Hood's vocals. Not one of their best or most powerful songs, but a solid entry on a solid album.

9) Red House Painters - "Another Song for a Blue Guitar" - Songs for a Blue Guitar (1996)

I wrote about Mark Kozelek's new band, Sun Kil Moon, early in January. The Red House Painters were his previous band, and by the time Songs for a Blue Guitar was released, he had already found his current vocal cadence and was making some of his best music.

As I mentioned in that previous article, Kozelek has a way of making banal past triviata sound like life-defining milestones. His music has an air of importance surrounding it; his style commands it, and he can't help it. We hear it again here, with nothing but his vocals and a light acoustic guitar managing to sound booming and enormous.

10) Duke Ellington & Count Basie - "Blues in Hoss' Flat (Blues in Frankie's Flat)" - The Count Meets the Duke (originally recorded in 1961, official release in 2008)

Culled from a meeting of the two legendary musicians and their bands, "Blues in Hoss' Flat" is swinging big band music mixed with blues and jazz influences. It sounds as polished as you'd expect the bands of two musical giants playing together to sound like. Tremendous music from two legends.

John Lacey