Two podcast episodes in a row! That wasn't originally my intention, but when Bart and I walked out of The Wolf Of Wall Street, it felt like the kind of movie that simply demanded a proper conversation. I love a film that sends you out of the theater buzzing with an electric energy that makes you want to spend the next two hours talking about everything you just witnessed, a film with no easy answers that forces you to actively engage with the material and struggle to put your emotions into words. Wolf is just such a film.
No matter who you are and what you do in life, we should all aspire to be as sharp and on our respective games as Martin Scorcese is at the age of 71. Sweet Jesus. This might be the pinnacle of his long running collaboration with Leonardo DiCaprio (five films spanning eleven years) and both of them bring an energy and a focus to bear that would be impressive for men half their age. This is three solid hours of behavior that is so depraved, so appalling on every conceivable level that it'll make you want to burn all of Wall Street to the fucking ground, but you'll be too busy hyperventilating from laughter to actually spark a match. And those three hours flew by in a blink and left me hungry for three more. DiCaprio and Jonah Hill are absolutely mesmerizing and I want, nay I NEED to see these two in another buddy comedy as soon as humanly possible. Between Hill's transformative vocal work and DiCaprio's jaw-dropping physical performance, you're looking at two guaranteed Oscar nominations that, while no less deserving, are destined to stand as the polar opposites of Michael Fassbender and Chiwetel Ejiofor's work in 12 Years A Slave. This will be the litmus test for Academy voters.
While it may not be as obvious as a film detailing the horrors of American slavery, Wolf is a story that no less repugnant. Yes, this is a film that revels in excess, featuring enough sex and drugs to make a 70's porno blush and it's certainly not for the uptight or those of a sensitive disposition. (I just overheard a coworker talking about watching the film with her whole family, including her uncle the 81 year old priest. Talk about a massive tactical error.) But there's a difference between depiction and endorsement; Scorcese certainly doesn't beat you over the head with his own moral judgement, but he's definitely trying to provoke a reaction from you and it's certainly not hero worship. Make no mistake, this is a film fueled by outrage. The Wolf Of Wall Street is unquestionably one of the most astounding films of the year and anyone who says otherwise simply wasn't paying attention.
So listen along as Bart and I drink 90 proof liquor made from carrots (we didn't have any ludes handy) and gush about The Wolf, along with a discussion about the evils of Wall Street, my favorite films of 2013 and the value of rewatchability versus initial theatrical experience. Plus a reaction to the trailer for Kung Fury.
Enjoy!
--------------------------------------- Title: The Wolf Of Wall Street Director: Martin Scorcese Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie, Kyle Chandler, Rob Reiner, Jon Bernthal, Jean Dujardin, Matthew McConaughey, Cristin Milioti Year Of Release: 2013 Viewing Method: Theatrical - Showcase Revere
"Technology pushes art and art pushes technology."
I consider myself lucky that I got to experience both the death of analog world and the birth of digital. I remember playing actual records in my house as a little kid. (I was of that rare breed that listened to Yellow Submarine and The Monkees in equal measure.) Eight-tracks were before my time, but I did own a red and yellow Sony Walkman with a little window in the back that showed the actual gears turning as it played the Ghostbusters II soundtrack on cassette tape. I remember having my mind blown by the graphics on the first Nintendo console and spending what felt like an entire Christmas day watching my older cousin play Super Mario Brothers all the way to the end. But when it came to movies, VCRs and VHS tapes were just an accepted part of my reality. It was always easy to watch movies at home, but even as a child I could tell that the viewing experience just wasn't the same. In fact, I vividly remember getting into an argument with my parents about how much I wanted to see a movie (I think Neverending Story II) in the theater as opposed to waiting for it to come out on video...not because I didn't want to wait, but because "the picture doesn't look the same." VHS always felt soft and fuzzy, whereas projected film had all kinds of wonderful grain and texture that simply didn't exist in my living room.
The argument over image quality is only one aspect of Side By Side, a documentary produced and hosted by Keanu Reeves that explores "the science, art and impact of digital cinema." For anyone who's ever wanted to learn more about the actual technical process of filmmaking, this doc serves as a wonderful primer. First of all, director Christopher Kenneally walks you through everything from shooting to editing to color timing to exhibition to archiving. It's a simple but effective layman's tour of an art form that millions adore but few truly understand. Moreover, Reeves and Kenneally have assembled a varied and auspicious collection of film talents to offer their own opinions on the perils and promise of digital filmmaking. We're talking about cinematic legends of every stripe and more Academy Award winners than I could count. Some, like Chris Nolan and Wally Pfister are die hard film devotees, while folks like Steven Soderbergh, David Lynch and Danny Boyle have fully embraced the freedoms of shooting digitally. And that's just a taste: we also see household names like Martin Scorsese, James Cameron, George Lucas, David Fincher, Richard Linklater, Robert Rodriguez, Joel Schumacher, Lars Von Trier and Andy & Lana Wachowski, as well as journeymen like Bill Pope, Anthony Dod Mantle, Vilmos Zsigmond, Michael Ballhaus, and Walter Murch. This is a documentary I would have loved to work on because I could listen to these guys talk about movies for DAYS.
The impact of digital reaches into every single aspect of cinema. For instance, did you know that the production of celluloid film cameras ceased two years ago? At the same time, design and innovation of digital capture cameras is currently moving a blistering pace and there's good coverage of the plethora of highly buzzed about cameras with badass names like Genesis, Alexa and RED Epic. When it comes to theaters these days, everyone's talking about 2D vs 3D, but there's also a fascinating conversation to be had about digital vs celluloid projectors. For instance, I recently donated to the Kickstarter project for the Brattle Theater in Cambridge to help them get a new digital projector in order to continue showing older films in rep. It's a necessary acquisition as studios have become more and more reluctant to send out bulky and costly film prints as opposed to compact digital drives. (Because the Brattle is awesome, they're keeping their 35mm projector as well.) And if you've been hearing people throw around the term "4K" and want to know what the hell they're talking about, Side By Side has you covered. There are also startling implications in terms of film preservation. Since the advent of digital video there have been over 80 different formats and the majority of them are currently unplayable. (David Fincher notes that he has shelves filled with original tapes of his incredible music video work, and most of it he can't actually watch. That's depressing on so many levels.) George Lucas makes the valid point that so much of the world's information is currently stored digitally that there's simply no way that we as a society will allow these formatting issues to continue; at some point someone's going to figure out a way to maintain digital information over the long term, but until that happens celluloid remains your best bet when it comes to film archiving. You keep a celluloid print in a cool, dark space and it'll last for a hundred years. Meanwhile, I just got a crate of old VHS tapes from my parents and I haven't owned a VCR in over a decade.
I think the key to this documentary is in the title. For so long the debate has been about whether or not digital can/should replace film outright. These arguments are usually centered around image quality, specifically that digital simply doesn't look the same and that film purists are so attached to that specific visual aesthetic that they'll never accept what they consider to be a substandard picture. However, as more time passes and digital cameras become more and more omnipresent, I think that issue becomes less and less important. (When it comes right down to it, the majority of audiences in your local multiplex can't really tell the difference anyway.) It's not about one replacing the other, it's about creative choice. There are movies like Avatar and Sin City that simply would not exist without the advent of digital. And it's not just effects. Digital cameras have become so much smaller and lighter that there are opportunities to physically shoot in ways that are impossible with traditional film. (28 Days Later and Che are held up as great examples of this argument.) Meanwhile there are incredible artists out there who have spent a lifetime honing their craft using the tools of celluloid, so they're going to continue working in that medium. And I wouldn't want them to change! Let Wally Pfister shoot his movies however the hell he pleases. While he comes off a bit combative in his interview, at the end of the day he knows what a camera can and can't do and I want him to have the freedom to use every tool available to him.
When Peter Jackson's The Hobbit was released last year, the conversation was dominated by the presentation of 48 FPS. One reviewer (whose article I can no longer find) rightfully pointed out that everyone was treating the higher frame rate as the canvas, when really it should be considered as just another type of paintbrush. Ultimately I feel the same way about digital in general. Yes, there are gonna be studio heads who push the use of digital because it's cheaper, and Chris Nolan makes a salient point when he says that he's constantly having to justify shooting on film, while no one's being asked to justify shooting on digital. But it's really all about storytelling, and while the technology will certainly evolve and change over time to meet creative needs, it doesn't need to erase everything that came before. I see both film and digital continuing on for a long time to come, each serving the will of artists and the imagination of audiences, side by side.
(Sidenote: The final line of the film is probably the most awkwardly edited last line of any documentary I've ever seen. It sounds like they cut the guy off mid-word. So weird.)
--------------------------------------- Title: Side By Side Director: Christopher Kenneally Starring: Keanu Reeves, Stephen Soderbergh, Martin Scorsese, Danny Boyle, James Cameron, Anthony Dod Mantle, George Lucas, David Lynch, Christopher Nolan, Year Of Release: 2012 Viewing Method: Netflix Instant (Laptop)
"We are not all supporting characters in the drama of your amazing life!"
"It's like their entire reason for existing is to prove how loud they can be. I really don't find that all that interesting."
Often times the story of a film's production will outshine the film itself. Titanic was infamous before it ever hit theaters for running so insanely over budget and behind schedule. Last year's Zero Dark Thirty caught all sorts of flack because a few moronic congressmen claimed that the Obama administration had given screenwriter Mark Boal and director Kathryn Bigelow access to classified documents. (They hadn't.) And this weekend will see the release of G.I. Joe: Retaliation nearly nine months after its original release date. While the initial story claimed the studio wanted extra time for effects work and 3D conversion, it soon became clear that the film was going into reshoots because Channing Tatum was coming off a monster year at the box office and the producers were regretting the decision to kill his character off in the first ten minutes of the movie. The more sensational the circumstances of the film's production woes, the harder it is for the actual film to stand on its own merits.
Enter Kenneth Lonergan's intimate and powerful drama Margaret.
I won't lie, part of the reason I was drawn to this movie and wanted it to be one of my first handful of screenings was the now legendary tale of the film's turbulent shooting and post-production. In fact, for a while it looked as if the movie might never see the light of day. Put simply, Margaret was shot over three years, which is a marvel unto itself, and then spent the next five years locked up in the editing bay. Lonergan's deal with Fox Searchlight included final cut of the movie, but it also stipulated that the film had to come in under two and a half hours. The closest he ever got was three hours. The studio didn't want to fire him off the picture, as Searchlight had pretty much built its reputation on having strong relationships with auteur directors like Lonergan and Darren Aronofsky. Instead, the production companies just stopped paying to let Lonergan keep editing, so he went to his friend Matthew Broderick (who has a small part in the film) and got a loan to keep working. Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella were both producers on the film and they each worked hands on with Lonergan to help shape the final cut of the film, although both passed away before its ultimate release. That's right, two legendary filmmakers died trying to get this thing finished. (An oversimplification, I know.) Finally MARTIN FUCKING SCORSESE stepped in with his longtime editing partner Thelma Schoonmaker and pieced together a sub-three hour cut that got a very limited theatrical release. It's now available on DVD and Blu, along with Lonergan's own three hour cut. (This isn't exactly a Richard Donner/Superman II situation, as Lonergan did eventually approve Scorsese's cut for release.)
So yeah, this movie's had some hurdles to clear.
I spent the better part of a decade hearing whispers of Margaret's demise while simultaneously reading stories from the few who had seen it, most claiming the film to be nothing short of a masterpiece. The various rumors certainly stoked my interest, but the controversial production was not the only reason I was interested. Lonergan is a flat out incredible screenwriter, a man with a deft mastery of the spoken word who's unafraid to explore the full depths of his character's chaotic inner lives. "Unflinching" is the word that immediately comes to mind. Like Sorkin or Mamet, he's a guy who I always show up for. It also doesn't hurt that he assembled a cast of jaw-dropping talent: Anna Paquin, J. Smith-Cameron, Mark Ruffalo, Allison Janney, Matt Damon, Jean Reno, Matthew Broderick, and Kieran Culkin all turn in wonderful performances, while folks like Olivia Thirlby, John Gallagher Jr., Rosemary DeWitt, Michael Ealy, and Krysten Ritter all appear in smaller roles before they went on to achieve greater success.
In my Bullhead article I talked about movies that focus on character over plot and Margaret is another great example. High school student Lisa Cohen (Paquin) is out looking for a cowboy hat in New York City one afternoon when she spots a bus driver (Ruffalo) wearing just such a chapeau. She tries to wave him down, running alongside the bus and laughing while the driver watches her through the door. He's sort of flirting with her and, yeah, she's sort of flirting back and it's all in good fun until the driver unwittingly runs a red light and mows down a pedestrian named Monica (Allison Janney). Lisa is left cradling the bleeding woman, who's calling out for her daughter also named Lisa until Monica finally dies in the arms of a teenager who is in no way prepared to deal with such a trauma. When the police investigators inquire about the accident, she's so shaken and nervous that she tells them the traffic light was green, even though she knows otherwise. She spends the remainder of the film struggling to make sense both of this brutal tragedy and of her own miscarriage of justice.
The bus accident is one of the most dynamic scenes I've ever witnessed on film. It's shocking, it's violent, it's funny, it's sad, it's horrifying...in a few brief moments Janney creates an character so rich that her subsequent death is absolutely devastating despite having only just met her. It's easy to see how such a moment would fuel Lisa's emotional turmoil throughout the rest of the film. It's nothing short of a master class performance from Paquin, who gives an incredibly honest portrayal of the teenage mindset and experience. She's an exposed nerve, desperate for knowledge and experience and holding absolutely nothing back as reacts to a world that is beginning to make less and less sense to her. In many ways it's all about that moment when you realize that the adult world doesn't really operate on the rules you thought it did, and "doing the right thing" isn't necessarily as important to society as you were led to believe. When Lisa tries to come clean about her false testimony, the cops have already closed the case and there are no real charges they can bring against the driver either way. Lisa therefore inserts herself into the life of Monica's family in order to help them bring a civil suit against the bus company, but that only ends in an out of court settlement and a check to distant relatives. Lisa wants the bus driver fired, to be held accountable for his actions and to be squarely labeled as at fault for killing a stranger, even if it was an accident.
On the one hand you feel for Lisa because in a way she's right. A good woman is dead and seemingly no one is being held responsible. While Lisa intellectually knows that's wrong, she has no idea how to appropriately express her frustration or relate to those around her. This mindset is mirrored in classroom scenes where Lisa argues with classmates over the events of September 11th, the nature of terrorism and current events in the Middle East. (Filmed in New York circa 2004, this is a film in which 9/11 still feels like an open wound.) Her arguments are not necessarily wrong, but she screams and insults her classmate while other students sit with hands raised, wanting to join the conversation and annoyed at Lisa for ignoring the rules and talking over them. Similarly, Lisa makes Monica's death all about her own distress, unable to actually relate to Monica's partner Emily or her semi-estranged family. When she tells Emily about the confusion when Monica was asking about her nominally identical daughter, Lisa says that in that moment she felt like she really was Monica's Lisa. This declaration only serves to anger Emily, but rather than empathize and/or apologize, Lisa turns indignant and calls Emily "strident." It perfectly sums up the kind of self-centered, self-righteous perspective that typifies so many teenagers, determined to prove their own worth and that above all THEY UNDERSTAND, even if nothing could be further from the truth.
That's why I chose the above quotes, as they perfectly sum up Lisa's state of being. While she probably doesn't realize it (and wouldn't admit it even if she did), she treats everyone around her as a means to her own emotional exploration, and is determined to make that exploration as loud as humanly possible. This attitude also drives Lisa's relationship with her mother, a divorced actress who's starting a potentially career-changing stage show while entering into a new relationship for the first time in ages. But when she tries connect to her daughter, Lisa's response is to tell her that she doesn't care because nothing in her mother's life is really important. Lisa's friend Darren is clearly in love with her, but when she decides to start having sex she completely disregards him in favor of some incredibly bad decisions, the latter of which devolves into Hannah Horvath-ian levels of cringe-worthy behavior on her part. Each individual component can be hard to watch, but they all come together to form an incredible tapestry of emotional catharsis.
There's so much more to Margaret. I could write another full length piece just on Lisa's relationship with her family (Lonergan plays her father, appearing via long distance phone calls from California) or her interactions with her classmates and teachers. Matthew Broderick has a few fantastic scenes, (particularly the King Lear scene), as does a babyfaced Matt Damon. I can't wait to get a hold of Lonergan's longer version, as I'm curious to see how much of the editing style carries over to both cuts. Some scenes are protracted arguments, while others jump-cut mid conversation or give us only brief moments surrounded by lingering shots of New York intersections or skylines.
Margaret is a film of epic nuance, a story that is both sprawling and intimate and will likely offer fresh revelations at least the next five times I watch it. Even if Lonergan's script wasn't as phenomenal as it is, the performances alone are reason enough to check this one out. It's certainly an investment of both your time and your emotions, but in the end each will yield a remarkable profit, and you'll be the richer for it.
--------------------------------------- Title: Margaret Director: Kenneth Lonergan Starring: Anna Paquin, J. Smith-Cameron, Mark Ruffalo, Allison Janney, Matt Damon, Jean Reno, Kieran Culkin Year Of Release: 2011 Viewing Method: HBO
