Engaging in Claustrophobia

This past weekend I took in the new Ben Affleck directed film, The Town and John Erick Dowdle's Devil. On the surface the films really don't have that much in common. The former is a gritty crime thriller and the latter is a supernatural thriller that is the first in a series of films. The former is garnering Oscar buzz and features a number of top notch acting talents. The latter received chuckles when the trailer played and features a group of actors who are relative unknowns (the one guy's claim to fame is either being the stoned guy at the beginning of Super Troopers, or the guy who is married to Christina Hendricks). But when you delve deeper into the psychology of the films there is a pretty large similarity that emerges.

Both films engage in the claustrophobic nature of their environment. In Devil, it's a more literal sense of the word. Five strangers enter an elevator in an office building and are just looking to go to their scheduled meetings. However, the elevator mysteriously stops and it's clear that someone has other plans for them. The devil is among them and for the duration of the film the inhabitants of the elevator try to figure out who is not who they appear to be. Outside the elevator a police investigator is on the case trying to figure out as well who is not what they appear to be. But a majority of our time is spent on the elevator where the five people are trapped in close quarters. Of course, one guy is afraid of confined spaces so he immediately begins panicking. As things start to go haywire everyone else gradually slips away from sanity and begin to feel the closeness of their surroundings. In any other situation a film like this may not work. The confined space adds an extra dimension to the terror of what is happening. Every time the lights flicker off the occupants now are not only trapped but they can't see what is happening right in front of them. Eventually we find out what is going on but the moments building to that are fairly tense- when they focus on the elevator. The cinematographer does a great job of using the mirrors in the elevator to frame all the people in the same shot. Most times though you are in that elevator with them and feel the trapped nature that they feel.

In The Town, you get a more figurative sense of claustrophobia. Ben Affleck plays a guy who was a prospective NHL star from a small neighborhood in Boston, but he blew his chance at the big time. He ends up back in Boston and finds himself in the same line of work as his father- working for a crime boss in the area robbing banks. What he is feeling is the suffocating nature of his surroundings. Hockey for him was a way out of his surroundings. Once he blew that though he ended up back in town and in trying to cope- hooked himself up with a girl, and her kid, and found a way to survive in that environment. But he longs to get away. He talks constantly of a place down in Florida where he thinks his mom went when he was little. The sense of being trapped though is reminiscent of any small town in America.

People always dream of a life that is outside the metaphorical walls of their town. The lives outside of their paint a rosier picture than the ones they see. For Affleck's character there is truth in that. Where he is now, he is burdened with a gangster who hangs over his head. His best friend strong arms him into one more job, and Affleck is smarter than the rest of his crew so he feels obligated to be a part of the operation. The crime boss says himself, "Without you, I don't hire them." Affleck's character feels that he is salvation for the guys in his crew. He provides them work, and money and allows them to live a life- no matter how poor he thinks that life may be. He has been outside those walls though, ever so briefly. He knows what it is like to have a gift of some sort and have an opportunity to expand his world. If only he can escape the trappings of his surroundings. It's a similar to the feelings of the characters in Devil, but there they have no way out- they are pawns in a game being played that is bigger of them. Affleck's character is an active participant in the game so at any point- if he can redirect focus long enough- he has a shot to move away from his trappings.

SO TO RECAP....

Devil is an okay film. It was directed by Dowdle who did the underrated Poughkeepsie Tapes, and the mild hit Quarantine. The script was written by the guy who wrote 30 Days of Night and Hard Candy. Now the trailers positioned this as "From the mind of M. Night Shyamalan," and this is very much an M. Night film in a lot of ways. The trappings he falls into (another layer of claustrophobia) are prevalent but under the direction of other parties the film doesn't dwell on those areas. It moves freely at spots where M. Night movies stall anymore. Even still though- this is a film that doesn't quite work enough and once you see the film there is no reason to watch it over again because it's too straight forward a film. We'll call it.

The TownRenner (The Hurt Locker) is the star here despite getting second billing. His character is the perfect antithesis to Affleck's as he doesn't want to leave his surroundings. The action set pieces work really well also with the last two robberies being exceptional pieces of tense film making. The chase through the side streets of Charlestown is especially well done. I don't know about the Oscar buzz but it is a completely solid film from start to finish. We'll call it....

Ruining the Main Program

(Writer's warning- There will be some spoilers throughout this post. Read at your own risk)

Literacy is a word that in out lexicon is usually tied to just the reading of literature. However, the term really can go further beyond that and encompass all the abilities we have to interpret and understand what we see. Movies operate on that aspect of literacy. Everything that is presented to us on film is done with a particular vision of the director. He works with his staff to figure out how they can position things to convey the theme or mood for a particular scene. Often though by the time that film has hit theaters our own individual ability to create meaning is stolen from us, and you may not even be aware of it. It's not a completely overt thing, and it's not something you catch until it's happening, but it's happening. Sadly, the person thieving our ability are the same movie studios that want us to support their product.

One of the many ideas they teach you in education is that when students perform a task they are operating under a predisposed notion. That notion is the knowledge base they have forged over the years. We are at the mercy of our own experiences anytime we are introduced to a concept. The same holds true for anytime you go out to the movies. The first film I reviewed on the site here was The Last Exorcism which was the story of a man grappling with his faith. Being that I'm a practicing Christian I went into the film with my own internal feelings about God, Jesus, the Devil and faith. It's not something I can help. Even if I don't consciously engage the movie on the metaphorical battleground it's creating, I engage it subconsciously. In some ways, one could possibly argue that the grade I gave it is based in some respects to how the film progressed wrestling with that issue. I don't think it is, but I can't say that for certain. It's easy to say that I'm not applying my own belief system to the viewing of the film, but somewhere inside I'm sure I am. If the battle with you and film stayed on that level there would be no problem. But we live in a world where you have to get people excited for films, and that means we get trailers.

Trailers are as basic an advertising tool as you will ever see. The people who create them- usually commissioned by the movie studio- are asked to condense a feature length film into an appealing 90 second video. As you know that means you get to see a bunch of scenes that loosely give you an idea of the story and introduce you to the main stars of that picture in an effort to get you to see it. They wrap this up with a roughly three act plot and set it to some song designed to amp you into seeing the film. Often the trailers are misleading. Because you are reducing a long film to a short piece you are stripping away all the bad and focusing on the good. The old adage in advertising is, "Don't sell the steak, sell the sizzle." Movie trailers are all sizzle. I'm sure at some point in your life you got sucked into a bad film based off the trailer. One of the main ones I remember is that awful movie adaptation of the Miami Vice television show. The trailer featured a ton of cool looking stunts with Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx while the Jay Z/Linkin Park mash-up blared and I was hooked before the title card was shown. The movie turned out to be a hot mess. However, that trailer was simple, it did a good job of selling something that wasn't there. The problem occurs when trailer makers go overboard in presenting the story to the viewer, to the point of ruining it.

In horror movie you get this a lot. One of the most popular movies of last year was Paranormal Activity. It was genuinely creepy, and did a great job of creating maximum fear out of minimal parts. But for many the film was ruined once they saw the trailer. Why's that you ask? If you've never seen the clip- follow the link and then come back (I'll wait):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSSqxrh5kp8

Now if you saw the trailer and then went to see the movie- the ending was effectively ruined for you. At the 1:30 mark of that clip there is a shot of the guy being thrown towards the camera. When you went to see that movie in theaters that shot doesn't come until the second to last act on film. That's not the only time this has happened in horror movies though. Here is a link to the trailer for the 2008 film Quarantine (again I'll wait):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoBh5S_aWwk

The advertising people for Quarantine went one step further though. Here is the movie poster for the film.

 

The problem here is similar to the one we had with Paranormal Activity

The movie Orphan was out last summer and revolved around a couple adopting a little girl from an orphanage. Because I have a weird obsession with seeing all horror films in theaters I was ready to watch this one. However, in the two days before the film opened the dialogue in the advertising commercials on television changed. The voice over man at the end of the promo said, "Watch the movie with the ending you'll never see coming." Immediately that signals the warning bells in the viewers mind that whatever the film purports to be for a majority of the running time is not what it will end up being. At some point, the rug is going to be pulled out from under the viewer and they will be forced to reassess what they watched prior to that change. But, why ruin that idea? It's as if the studio doesn't think people will be able to make those connections without being prompted to make them. In all three of these cases the studio has essentially ruined the ending by telling viewers- either implicitly or explicitly- what the ending of the film will be. But it's not just horror movies.

Last weekend at the movies I saw a trailer for a film getting some pre-release Oscar buzz, Ben Affleck's The Town. It looks like a gritty crime/coming of age drama that features a ton of great acting talents and a lot of powerful exchanges. The film revolves around the aftereffects of a bank robbery. Ben Affleck's character is hitting on this woman and she asks him at one point if he loves her. He responds that he does. However, while he is saying this the trailer shows a clip of Affleck pulling off his mask during the get-a-way and we realize that he is one of the guys who took the woman as hostage during the robbery. I assume that this is a fairly pivotal moment in the film, but there it is a little after the halfway point of the trailer designed to get you into the film. So when I go to see this film (probably this weekend) I'm now going to be waiting for that scene to come up.

These are all problems and I didn't even get into the aspects of trailers featuring people prominently who shouldn't be featured (Every time I've seen the previews for Devil in theaters the mention that it is from the mind of M. Night Shyamalan has elicited groans) or featured a lame joke over and over (Easy A looks like a quality little comedy but the featured joke in the trailer is Amanda Bynes character telling Emma Stone's character that she will meet a person who will judge her for her sins. Stone responds with, "Tom Crusie?" That exchange is almost enough to turn me off to the film).

What I'm imploring to the studios and advertising people is simply this: Have some faith in the audience, have some respect for the audience, but most importantly- have some faith in the people that you have hired to direct your films. Viewers do not need the end of the movie spoiled for them. They are going to sit there and watch your film until the credits roll so they will see everything filmed. Also, viewers can draw connections in the films when they watch them. They don't need the plot points laid out to them to the point where they can connect all the dots without even seeing the film. But above all else- show some respect to your directors. They bust their ass for months at a time trying to make it so you can get a return on your investment in them, and the actors. To ruin their hard work by giving the viewers everything with no investment is entirely disrespectful. Films are a communal experience. Showing them what is going to happen before it happens isn't playing within the spirit of that experience.

Machete

Grindhouse films hold an interesting spot in the history of cinema. In their time they were viewed by many as films that were nothing but exploitative messes hoisted upon the masses. The criticisms of the films ranged the gamut from being misogynistic, sensationalizing drugs and sex, and stuff that just was bizarre for the sake of being bizarre. Exploitation is a funny thing though. The term itself is hard to quantify because exploitation is really something that is only in the mind of the viewer. Ten people could watch the same film and maybe two or three would find it exploitative. Why is that? Pure and simply, we all bring our own ideas of what is exploitative to any film we watch. Furthermore, many of the people who complained about the films then didn't actually see the films. For the most part, the advertising of "grindhouse films" came before people saw other grindhouse films. It was a fairly self-contained market and the people who complained were almost outsiders coming into that world and claiming that everyone involved was being exploited from the directors down to the viewers.

What is interesting today is that some of the many things that endeared grindhouse films to the people who sought them out are some of the very same principles that people love in films today. Have you ever heard the term "popcorn film?" Today we use that to describe a film that is not deep with meaning. It is a film that we throw some money down to see just for the sheer entertainment value of it all. It is cinematic junk food. There is no subtext, there is no deeper meaning, there is just a camera, some actors, and a yearning to make people enjoy themselves for 90 minutes. That was many of the grindhouse films. There were some that had meaning, but the majority were silly affairs that reveled in the insanity they could bring to the screen. So what was once on the fringes of cinema is now an idea that permeates the multiplex every week.  In many ways, grindhouse films were cinema at its best. It represented everything movies were designed to be- escapist fare that occasionally featured something of substance. More importantly though, these films were an experience. The theater had a certain ambiance- the floors were sticky, the food was terrible, and the films were extremely weathered sometimes missing reels. But it was pure.

Back in 2007, Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez wanted to recreate the grindhouse experience for a while new generation of fans. They released their double feature that was designed to take you and put you in that experience. They designed films that would be in place in that time frame (I'd argue that Rodrigiuez did a better job of that than Tarantino- but that's the minority view), they had music and videos from that time, and they talked a bunch of friends into creating fake trailers that were typical of what was shown in those days. One of the trailers that appeared in front of the film was entitled Machete. The trailer was about as ridiculous as could be but the Internet lit up over it and people were demanding a film that used the character. In 2010 they get their wish as we now have the film Machete.

Robert Rodriguez's Machete features career character actor Danny Trejo being upgraded to the main spot and he does an amazing job in this film. Many have said that this proves he can be the lead actor and will open up a new world for him in the movies. However, I would say it probably doesn't. A film like Machete calls for a certain type of actor and Trejo was perfect for the part. He is perfectly weathered, and his face shows the aging that the character's actions would see over time. He is fantastic but his leading role opportunities will not multiply with this part. He might get some stuff in this genre but it is a limited genre.

The story revolves around something that is extremely relevant to this time period. Machete is a federale and is tracing down a bad guy when he is captured and is forced to watch his wife get slaughtered in front of his eyes. He loses it and heads to the United States where he gets tangled up in a plot involving an operation smuggling Mexican workers across the border and a conspiracy in the candidacy of the political official speaking out against letting immigrants in. Grindhouse films always found a way to exploit current event news stories and this one is about as ripped from the headlines as one can get. You won't find any answers here, but you will find a pissed off Mexican who gets both whites and Mexicans to follow him into battle. Rodriguez does a great job with the script here and does an excellent job of providing the atmosphere of a grindhouse film. There are tons of people slaughtered, some in increasingly ridiculous ways. There is nudity, and the dialogue has some wonky moments but overall you are getting a fair representation of the genre.

However, a film like this would not work without actors who "get it." Every actor in this film gets the type of film they are in and it only adds to the festivities. Jessica Alba probably does as much for her career as Trejo does for his. She acquits herself well in the film and plays the conflicted nature of her character to the hilt. In fact, her performance is so good it almost feels out of place in the film. Michelle Rodriguez plays tough girl about as well as female in Hollywood but again here finds a nice balance between the revolutionary nature of her character with an equally understanding side. Jeff Fahey is great in the role of the shady campaign manager who is trying to make sure his candidate is elected. Steven Segal and Don Johnson play similar roles on opposite sides of the fence but both are clearly having fun. Cheech Marin has some of the best lines in the film (as he did in the fake trailer) and plays off Trejo well. Lindsey Lohan is basically playing a caricature of her public persona so it is understandable that she would be good at it. The big surprise here is Robert DeNiro. Not his performance- it's good, but DeNiro is good in a lot of things. No the surprise here is that he is in almost the entire film. When he shows up at first you expect it to be a cameo and then he will pop out. However, he keeps popping up throughout and he buys into the film from frame 1. He doesn't act like he is above the material or as if he is slumming it. He throws himself into it, and it adds to the film. Trejo is excellent as are most character actors. Guys like Trejo usually are great in films because there contributions to film usually require them to do more than just be the lead. They normally are the heart and soul of the film and often create the most endearing characters from the film. It matters here because the script does require Machete to be a guy that you do root for in the end and Trejo mixes in enough pathos to make a killing machine sympathetic.

SO TO RECAP...

This film is really a throwback in every sense of the word. The look of the film is purposely washed and it looks grungy at all times. There is a lot of blood shed and people die throughout the film in crazy manner. The real thing to watch here though are the performances. The performances are so good that the excellent production by Rodriguez and his crew are overshadowed. All the actors know what type of film they are in and relish every minute they get as they are truly having fun. This will not be everyone's cup of tea but this film has a certain appeal and you'll have a helluva time watching it. As I see it- Machete is worthy of..

Big Fan

Sports culture holds an interesting place in our society. For some people it is a healthy distraction from our everyday lives. It is a means of relaxing at the end of a long day or an excuse to get together with some friends and have a few beers. For others, sports represents a religious experience of sorts. They identify fully with their teams and their own ups and downs are tied heavily to the ups and downs of their favorite teams and players. There was a study done by Robert Cialdini in 1976 that studied these effects and led him to develop the term, "BIRG'ing," which stands for basking in reflected glory. He found that when someones team did well they were more apt to wear the team colors and refer to the team in a "we" sense instead of a "they" sense. Robert D. Siegel's 2009 film, Big Fan, explores what happens when a slavishly devoted fan's two worlds collide.

Paul Aufiero (Patton Oswalt- The King of Queens) is, put it nicely, a 36 year old put upon loser. He works in a parking garage and gets nothing but grief from the patrons who go in and out there. When he gets home- he lives with his mother- she browbeats him about not finding some career and instead just continuing to do what he is doing. Paul's brother Jeff (Gino Cafarelli) is the real apple of his mother's eye. He is a lawyer with a successful practice and a trophy wife (Serafina Fiore). By all accounts, Paul is a guy who has nothing going for him and is essentially living out the string. However, that all changes when the topic changes to his beloved New York Giants.

Paul is a devoted listener to the sports call in show hosted by The Sports Dogg. He sits in his booth at work listening to what the callers say and writing out the speeches he will deliver once he calls in for the evening. He gets home and hides himself under the covers (so as not to disturb his mom) and changes personalities into a confident man. It is under those covers where he ceases to be Paul Aufiero and becomes "Paul from Staten Island." Under this persona, he is a man who is quick with a direct put-down and gets to deliver the similar type of contempt filled threats that he faces everyday from the people who use his garage. His main antagonist in this war is "Philadelphia Phil," who is an equally devoted fan of the Philadelphia Eagles. They exchange threats about how good their team is and how badly they will beat the others' team. Most of the conversation centers around how dominant a player defensive end Quantrell Bishop of the Giants is. Bishop is Paul's favorite player and every Sunday he wears the jersey of this player as he and his friend watch the games. Even at the games Paul is a self assured individual until it comes time to watch the games. Paul and his buddy can not afford to get into the stadium so they go and walk through the parking lot and then hook up a television at their car to watch the game. Until the kickoff they are superfans trying to be involved in the activities and leading cheers but once the time comes they are alone by themselves in the parking lot.

One night Paul and his friend are having pizza when they notice Quantrell Bishop and his entourage across the street gassing up their vehicle. Paul and Sal (Kevin Corrigan- Grounded for Life) decide to follow Quantrell in hopes that they can say hello. They follow Quantrell to a drug deal and then into Manhattan and a city club. This is uncharted territory for Paul and he is in over his head. The only thing he has that he thinks creates an immensely strong bond is his love for the Giants. In Paul's mind, buying a drink for Quantrell allows him entry to shake hands and will lead to them being best friends. After telling Quantrell that they have been following him all evening however Quantrell beats Paul to within an inch of his life thinking that Paul is some psycho who is stalking him. Paul wakes up a few days later from a coma and is upset only when he realizes that he slept through a Giants game AND Quantrell Bishop was suspended for it because of an incident in a night club.

At this point Paul's two lives crash into each other. His family insists that Paul press charges and sue this spoiled athlete for everything he is worth. Paul is outright told that this guy "doesn't care for you one bit." Paul doesn't see it that way. He feels he is to blame for the incident because he was following the guy. Basically, the actions of Quantrell were justified by the actions of Paul. It's bizarre logic to Paul's family, but they don't know "Paul from Staten Island." They see a guy who is 36, lives at home, works in a parking garage, and is a loser. Paul sees the guy who calls into sports radio, is praised for being a great caller by The Sports Dogg, and a guy who has a Giants team that is doing well but they need their big defensive player. All Paul is concerned with is letting these charges drop so Quantrell can get back on the field and help the Giants.

Quantrell is suspended for a few games and when he returns in the season's penultimate game he is clearly rusty and not playing at his same usual level. On top of that, Paul's brother files a 77 million dollar lawsuit on Paul's behalf because he is "not thinking straight." If that were not enough, "Philadelphia Phil," calls into The Sports Dogg show and says that the guy who has filed the lawsuit is none other than "Paul from Staten Island." When Paul calls in to defend himself his mom picks up the other end and yells at Paul which causes him to use the F bomb and get kicked off The Sports Dogg's call-in show. At this moment, Paul has nothing left on the side of life that he loves. He is the reason the Giants season is crashing down. He is the reason that Quantrell Bishop is not playing well. He no longer is the anonymous "Paul from Staten Island," his whole life now is just him being Paul Aufiero and that to him is the worst thing of all. He no longer has the side of his life that makes him feel like a winner, it's all loser and he is now stuck at the whims and constant derision of his family. As a final insult, Phil invites Paul to become an Eagles fan. Up to that point, Paul could deal with his world crumbling. However, the biggest insult that anyone could hurl on him was to try and make him turn against his Giants. So Paul does the only thing he knows to do in this situation.

Paul takes a trip down I-95 to Philadelphia to confront Phil in a bar while the Giants and Eagles play their Monday Night game with the division and a playoff berth on the line. However, he isn't going as Paul, he is going in Eagles colors and looking to befriend Phil. After the game, a game in which the Eagles win, Paul follows Phil into the bathroom and pulls a gun. However, Paul has no desire to shoot and kill Phil. What Paul does have in mind though, in his mind, is a far more menacing gesture. He shoots paintballs at Phil in the colors of his beloved Giants. Paul then runs for the door and bolts for his car but the cops catch him and he ends up in jail under assault charges. He spends time in jail but the movie ends with Sal showing up and going over the upcoming season's schedule and they compare notes as to who the Giants will be playing the week that Paul gets out.

The acting performances here are all top notch and Oswalt is a revelation in his first starring role. He balances both sides of Paul's personality well and develops a sad sack character that the viewer can buy into even while they consider him a bit of a loser. The whole movies hinges on the performance and if Oswalt missed any nuances in the role it would've hurt the believability of the film. A lot of credit as well has to go to Robert Siegel who wrote the film as a follow-up to the wonderful The Wrestler. He seems very attuned to the devotional nature of sports fans. If you listen to sports radio for 10 minutes you hear numerous callers like Paul. They define themselves so intensely by what their team does on the field. Losses crush them, and wins raise them to new levels of happiness. In Paul, you get a glimpse into that character because he uses sports as not just an outlet but as a place where he can create a persona that better suits him. Paul is essentially dreaming with his eyes wide open. He isn't creating something in a psychotic nature. What he is creating is something far more dangerous- a sociopathic existence

SO TO RECAP....

This is an extremely well done look at a minority of individuals, but a minority that exists. Paul is no different than people all across the country who use sports as a drug of sorts. You have a great script that finds a way to hit all different checkpoints for these types of fans, and a top notch performance by Patton Oswalt who drives this film and helps you identify with Paul so much that it pushes you back a little bit when he performs his actions at the end. As I see it- Big Fan is worthy of.....