Feature: Home for the Holidays

Home for the Holidays is not a Christmas movie, it’s a Thanksgiving movie. With the exception of some Peanuts films I can’t think of too many things right off the top of my head that center around that holiday. However, Home for the Holidays has quickly risen on the list of my favorite holiday films.

My best friend once said that Home for the Holidays made her feel better about her holidays because nothing could be worse than what the Larson family goes through in this film, and with the exception of knife pulling, or acts of horrendous violence that is basically true. Home for the Holidays isn’t your typical holiday film, in fact the Larson family in the film is incredibly dysfunctional, each of the family members tend to keep to themselves, and they all dread getting together but like any good American family every Thanksgiving and Christmas they do it anyway.

The central lead of this ensemble piece is Claudia Larson played by Holly Hunter. Claudia is down and out depressed by the loss of her job and her personal life and having to go to her parents without even the security blanket of her daughter is tough. We soon uncover why as her parents Adele & Henry Larson are overbearing and pushy; what I love is that I am guessing most of the audience can identify with this as the Larson’s aren’t really horrific parents, but their children’s reaction to them is much the same as we’ve all felt towards out parents at least once in our lives – we just want to be allowed to run our own lives without interference and commentary.

The most outstanding member of the family is Tommy Larson played by Robert Downey Jr. Tommy is gay, but doesn’t make an issue of it. It’s part of who he is and it completely fits his already over the top personality; he is the member of the family that usually starts or aids in any of the chaos that is occurring. Tommy and Claudia are the closest of the two siblings, and it’s their bond that helps to carry the movie, turning it from a cynical holiday tale to a heartwarming film.

The Larson family has issues, issues that tend to come out when you wouldn’t want them to – in this case at Thanksgiving. Tommy & Claudia’s sister Joanne looks down on her siblings and tries to control her parents and her own family so tightly that she manages to suck the joy out of the celebration. She can’t handle the chaos that her family seems to thrive off of and her way of handling the situation is to make Tommy & Claudia the brunt of her insults and barbs to elevate herself.

Even though I’ve painted this film as a bleak picture of a holiday and a family I assure you that it’s not. The entire reason I love Home for the Holidays is that behind the chaos, the family craziness, and even the aggravating sibling is a heart. That heart is Tommy & Claudia.

Tommy & Claudia are the members of the Larson family that care about each other and their lives the most. They care about each other’s relationships, their hardships and are there for the other when it’s asked and even when it’s unspoken; their lives couldn’t be more different but Tommy & Claudia have reached through the muck and mire of family drama and found each other on the other side.

Home for the Holidays also works because the Larson family is easily relatable, but like any good filmic representation they are just a little larger than life. Mom walks & smokes while worrying about her wig, Dad has become over affectionate with his wife, even around his children and sneaks pie but then admits it, Joanne raises children concerned with aerobics and white meat vs. dark, Tommy talks incessantly about anything and everything, and Claudia frets constantly about the daughter she left hundreds of miles away. All of these characters together create a dynamic that is wonderful to watch and much more heartfelt than a printed blurb about the film can ever capture.

Jodie Foster made Home for the Holidays as her second directorial effort and she chose her story, cast and setting very well. One of the most wonderful things about watching talented actor-turned-directors is that they tend to have actors that deliver phenomenal performances and the interplay between characters is always astounding. This film is no exception. As an actor herself, Jodie Foster was able to bring out the nuances in the performance of not just one actor but all of them and this is what helps the film be so dang entertaining to watch. The actors have a genuine, familial chemistry on screen and disappear into their roles leaving you wondering what will happen next, or what childhood shadow will come out to play.

I highly recommend Home for the Holidays but I am very aware it is not everyone’s cup of tea when it comes to holiday films. However, if you’re looking for something different this Holiday season I think this might be the film for you, and if not, well I also recommend a few others that run the spectrum of Holiday goodness.



Megan’s Holiday Viewing:
Elf
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
How the Grinch Stole Christmas (original)
A Charlie Brown Christmas
Scrooged
Muppet Christmas Carol
When Harry Met Sally

Alfonso Cuaron

My love affair with the works of Alfonso Cuaron began with The Little Princess, a film that when I first watched it I had no idea who Alfonso Cuaron was, but I knew the film’s visual style was uniquely beautiful and that I would love to see one of his films again. After A Little Princess I forgot about Cuaron, both because I was only a teen and because he didn’t make a wave in the world of cinema until his Spanish language film Y Tu Mama Tambien which went on to reach international acclaim. Since this film he’s continued his rise in international cinema by being the first director post-Christopher Columbus to be given the reigns to the Harry Potter franchise, and creating the stunning film Children of Men.

When I think of Cuaron’s films what strikes me is how organic they feel. Organic is the perfect word for Cuaron’s style as he is a director who thinks about and fully realizes the world of his characters without neglecting genre, locale or story – the setting and design of his films is one that is completely formed for the characters yet one that you would somehow feel comfortable in and familiar with if you were transported into the world of the film. Cuaron is a director that has a fully realized vision, one that blends fantasy and reality in such a way that it becomes almost impossible to distinguish between what exists and what does not. Every one of Cuaron’s films that I have seen takes a unique fantasy element and blends them into our world creating a sense of fantastic realism that I haven’t seen done quite as well by any other director.

Each and every element of fantastic realism to Cuaron’s films is totally different and helps the film ground the story and the characters inexplicably together into one perfect realm. The fantastic element in The Little Princess is the use of Sara’s past in India and Cuaron uses magical realism to pull Sara’s stories & past into her new life. Y Tu Mama Tambien uses an omniscient narrator who will pause the story and tell us the past or future of the characters which we will never see on screen, making each one a little more flawed or tragic than they would otherwise be. Every other film in his repertoire has similar elements that make the film special visually and the characters memorable.

In what are perhaps Cuaron’s most famous films, The Prisoner of Azkaban & Children of Men, Cuaron took his biggest career and creative leaps. Cuaron found a massive audience when he was handed the reins of the Harry Potter franchise and though he only stayed on for one film he gave something to Prisoner of Azkaban that no other film in the franchise had – atmosphere. When you watch Prisoner of Azkaban you can see the marks of Cuaron all over it, flowing shots, long camera moves, and a magical sense of wonder, but it’s a truncated version of Cuaron.

Cuaron’s next film was the best film of 2006 - Children of Men. This is perhaps one of the single most visually beautiful films I’ve ever seen; the camera work, cinematography, color choices, acting and the million nuances of directing all work together to create one of the most thrilling, moving and smart films in my film vocabulary. Cuaron paints this world in a way that makes it utterly real yet fantastic enough to seem like a near future that might one day exist; there are no flying cars, transporters or space ships but there are drugs being distributed by the government, television screens on every corner & religious factions of every kind pamphleting the street. Cuaron’s vision of the future is chilling but believable and one that stays with you long after you leave the theatre.

Alfonso Cuaron is a phenomenal director in every aspect, but the one element that stays with me in all of his films are his visuals. Cuaron is a modern day Hitchcock in terms of his shots; he composes his shots like visual paintings that can flow and move. While this may seem like a fundamental point to someone who likes watching films, it’s an entirely different thing when you’re the one who has to plan and execute the shots. Hitchcock would design lenses for specific shots, Cuaron will design camera tracks, moving car rigs and anything else to make the shot he needs as long and as fluid as he needs it to be.

Cuaron is still finding his audience. He’s still a burgeoning director and with each film his style has come more into focus and his stories more beautiful. Alfonso Cuaron is going to have many more films and many more years ahead of him and I cannot wait to see what he brings next.


Recommened Viewing: Children of Men

“I can't really remember when I last had any hope, and I certainly can't remember when anyone else did either. Because really, since women stopped being able to have babies, what's left to hope for?”
~ Theo, Children of Men

FotM: The Final Frontier

In 1961 John F. Kennedy set the nation on the path to the moon and ignited the imagination of the American people. Space adventures were a thing of science-fiction movies with characters like Buck Rogers & Flash Gordon; the only people that claimed to be in space already were the Russians and at the height of the Cold War this frightened us as a nation. However, Kennedy ignited our nation with a collective goal – in less than a decade he not only wanted to have men in space, he wanted to have them on the moon.

Traditionally, our nation is a nation of adventurers and pioneers; we blazed across the great west, heralded Lewis & Clark, & romanticized the cowboys and it was natural that we would do the same thing to space. Gene Roddenberry was just as captivated as the rest of the nation and in 1966 “space, the final frontier” was uttered for the first time and though Kennedy’s speech had been eloquent, nothing summed up our nations desire for space better than the words that started Roddenberry’s show. Thirty-seven words changed the face of science fiction, and how we look at space forever.

In the sixties NASA shot into space, but not as quickly as Roddenberry blazed into the final frontier. Though his original adventure series only lasted for three seasons its appeal was so grand that in 1979 his space adventure would hit the big screen with Star Trek the Motion Picture. The first installment of the franchise dealt directly with NASA and its exploration of space, something the rest of the films would not do; with the first Trek to the big screen Roddenberry brought Kirk and crew to V-ger a powerful extraterrestrial being who turns out to be an accidental by-product of our nations original forays into space. Though this film literally played on the space race that spawned Star Trek it did not manage to capture the imaginations of the nation.

However, Roddenberry managed to squeeze a second film out of Paramount Pictures and The Wrath of Khan managed to do what the original series and the first film could not. It made space as glorious as we’d always imagined it, and brought the excitement back to Star Trek; with the perils of revenge, exploration, friendship and sacrifice Kirk, Spock and the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise tapped back into the pioneering spirit that fascinates us about space exploration and continued to push into the great unknown that is not just space but the universe and attempt to explain the unexplainable.

Though each Star Trek film would take the Enterprise to a thematically different place what mattered was that Star Trek embodied our future in space, a blend of “adventure, discovery, intelligence…that assumes a positive future for humanity” [NASA]. Only a handful of brave men and women could go into space on the Apollo missions and the voyages that would come after it but anyone who could get to a theatre could take part in the adventures of Captains Kirk and Picard and could imagine themselves as a space explorer, a member of Star Fleet or a crew member on the Enterprise.

As Star Trek continued to influence the imaginations of the public it managed to influence generation after generation of astronauts as well. The first space shuttle was named Enterprise in honor of Kirk’s Enterprise, Roddenberry's ashes launched aboard the Columbia and most recently Paramount let NASA screen the newest Star Trek for its people in space.

Forty years ago we accomplished one of our nation’s most ambitious goals and landed a man on the moon. Just as the memory of the Apollo 11 astronauts will live on forever in the heart of our nation so will Star Trek because it “touches a fundamental nerve in…Americans, because we're pioneers and explorers...things that are the good parts of our country, and Star Trek captures that in a glorious way and gives us a picture towards the future" [space.com].

As it turned out Kennedy was correct “no single space project in this period [would] be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space”, Kennedy just didn’t know he was talking about Star Trek.

FotM: Summer's Coming!

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Originally uploaded by carlosjtj

For me the love of movies doesn’t stem from a specific film, but the entire pantheon of films themselves. While I may like some films a lot more than others there is nothing like sitting in a darkened theatre and watching a movie flash before your eyes. The summer may not hold the movies that I consider the technically best of the year, but it traditionally holds the most entertaining movies of the year – the kinds of movies that drew me to the theatre before I knew how to define a film from Bergman, Coppola or Altman – the movies that the average moviegoer rearranges their weekend to see and tops the box office charts with astronomical numbers.

When I look at the summer charts it is really hard for me to narrow down to one film that I am excited about seeing more than the others; May in particular is a huge month this year with Wolverine, Star Trek and Terminator: Salvation crammed into the first official summer month. Still, I think that I have to say more than anything else I want to see Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in July.

Harry Potter gets my final vote not because I am more excited for it than any of the other films I have mentioned, but because by the time July rolls around the film will be eight months overdue! The Half-Blood Prince was slated to come out in November, as the fall is typically when the Harry Potter films are released (with the exception of Order of the Phoenix) but in July of 2008, right after director David Yates announced that editing was completed Warner Brothers announced that due to the WGA strike and the lack of a July tent-pole The Half-Blood Prince would be moved into the same 2009 weekend that The Dark Knight occupied in 2008.

The problem with this little announcement is in the second argument.

Harry Potter wasn’t moved because of the writers strike and a hole in the summer schedule, it was moved because in July of this past year The Dark Knight creamed any and all box office competition and continued to break box office records until its release on DVD. Warner’s thinks that The Half-Blood Prince will make more money in the summer than the fall. I’ve already written an entry about what I think of the box office shifts this past year, but I still hold that this is one of the most absurd.

My grievances with Warner’s decision aside I must say that I am looking forward to part six of the Potter installment because not only is it a game-changer, but it is by far one of the most emotional and gut-wrenching books of the entire J.K. Rowling series. I also think that after cycling through three other directors Columbus and his producers finally found the perfect performer in David Yates. Yates began his work on the series with Order of the Phoenix and will continue through the end of the franchise; he is a powerful, competent director who has finally brought the books to the screen almost exactly as I saw them in my head.

I hope that this summer will be a great time to escape into movies that will excite my imagination, and maybe a few that will stimulate my intellect. Right now I am incredibly excited that I get to see The Soloist this month – another fall movie that got pushed onto the 2009 calendar…but April 24th doesn’t quite count as a summer film.

FotM: Wishing It Were Somehow Fall Again

Boo hoo, boo hoo, the summer movie season is almost upon us. While fanboys and fangirls across the country are getting their pup tents ready for the sidewalk in front of the theater playing the big movie and people everywhere are already loading up on enough caffeine to power a small country to stay awake through midnight screenings of new summer movies, I’m wishing that it was fall again. I used to get into the summer movie season, I really did. But, after the disappointment of the last few years, there’s just not much to be excited about.

I know, I know. My compatriots and fellow contributors to this blog will no doubt talk to you quite effusively about the number of upcoming summer films that they simply cannot wait for.
To be honest with you, I’m only looking forward to a few films this summer. Who knows? Maybe they’ll be awesome. However, I don’t have very high hopes for the remainder of the summer movie season. Let’s take a stroll through a few of big up-and-comers and I’ll give you my rundown.

X: Men Origins: Wolverine - This looks like it could be a very good addition to the franchise. This is encouraging, due in no small part to the fact that Brett Ratner had taken the X-Men series for a drag in the mud with the awful X-Men: The Last Stand. I understand that Bryan Singer’s heart was set on doing Superman Returns, but you’re telling me that BRETT RATNER was the best choice that they had? BRETT RATNER? Mr. Rush Hour? Really? Hopefully, X-Men Origins: Wolverine will result in a rebound for the franchise. We’ll see.

Star Trek – BLASPHEMY. Pure and simple. Star Trek, at its heart, has always been about ideas. It’s never been about blowing things up or seeing skin or whatever, it’s about ideas. I agree that the franchise needs a kick in the pants. This just ain’t the way to do it. By giving control of the franchise to J.J. Abrams, a non-fan, the powers that be have committed a gargantuan blunder. He might think that there’s something exciting about rewinding everything and going back and seeing Kirk and Spock’s first mission together. I do not. I could care less about their first mission together. I would very much like to see what happens NEXT in the Star Trek universe. There are a multitude of characters and storylines that could be combined to make a great Star Trek film. J.J. Abrams might think that there’s something exhilarating about seeing Spock struggle with human emotions. Well, J.J., you might not know this, being a non-fan and all, but we’ve been there and done that. TONS of times. He might think that there’s something cool about seeing Uhura in various stages of undress. I’m revolted. Uhura is an icon. I think of her on a similar plane as my mother . . . I don’t need to see that. I don’t want to see that. J.J. might think that seeing everything blowing up all over the place is cool and exciting. Dude, those movies have already been made. They’re called Star Wars films. That’s why Star Trek doesn’t have the wide appeal that Star Wars does. Where Star Wars had the Saturday morning matinee feel down pat, Star Trek has always been about ideas. A great Star Trek movie like Star Trek: First Contact isn’t just a great film because of how exciting and visually dynamic it is. It’s also great because it delves into what it’s like for a man to face the deepest, darkest part of himself and what he’ll do to save the life of one of his closest friends. J.J. doesn’t get that. I do. As if all of this wasn’t enough, J.J. has supposedly decided that he needs to mess with the Star Trek timeline too. For the love of god, can you not leave me with ANYTHING, J.J.? This movie will probably make a ton of money and a sequel will probably get greenlit in the second week of release, but I won’t be there. Abrams, how would you like it if I went and took something that meant a ton to you and screwed with it until it was almost unrecognizable? Would you? That’s what you’re doing, and I can speak from this side of it. It’s awful. I hope you’re not happy.

Angels and Demons – I’m kind of up in the air on this one. I never saw The Da Vinci Code, and this one does look interesting. Still though, sometimes seeing movies that set high energy storylines in established institutions is a bit of a turn off. You wake up the next morning and everything’s the same in the world and end up feeling let down. Or you spend the whole time in the theater thinking about how fake it is and how you’ll wake up the next morning with nothing changed. Get what I mean?

Terminator: Salvation – Has a summer movie ever looked more uninteresting? I’m not exactly a Terminator fan, but what’s supposed to be compelling about a guy who’s supposed to hold the fate of mankind in his hand having to work with a compassionate killer robot while trying to keep his relationship with a pretty girl afloat? It’s not like we haven’t seen this before. What’s more, what I’ve seen of the film’s color palette from the trailer is nasty. How many different shades of grayish brown can there be? In addition, is there some good reason that Christian Bale is the new face of the franchise? He’s already not very compelling as Batman, and I’m not thoroughly convinced that he’s capable of carrying the Terminator franchise from here on out. I understand that Arnold can’t do the films anymore since he’s busy trying to govern the state of California and all, but he sort of IS the franchise.

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian – Are you kidding me? I have 4,003 better ways to spend an hour and a half.

Up - With Up, I’m hoping that Pixar can rebound after WALL-E, a lovely but unlively public service announcement. The trailer looks good, so hopefully this is a harbinger of good things to come.

The Taking of Pelham 123 – This looks like it could be either really good or really bad. I’m hoping for the former. Denzel Washington vs. John Travolta? Now that’s got possibilities!

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen: I had no interest in watching a bunch of machines beat up a bunch of other machines the first time around. My feelings have not changed.

Public Enemies – This feels like a fall movie trying to sneak its way into the summer marquee. I’m quite looking forward to this one. The combination of Michael Mann, Johnny Depp, and the story of John Dillinger makes this one a must-see for me. Heck, just Mann and Depp together would make this a must-see. I’m also pleased that Marion Cotillard has a major role. She’s a terrific actress that deserves more work. There might not have been a ton of folks that saw La Vie En Rose, but, oh man, are they missing out! Now, THAT is a great movie. Sorry, getting sidetracked . . . Unfortunately, when I saw the trailer for Public Enemies, the sound mix was terrible and I had a really hard time understanding Depp’s dialogue. I hope that it’s not indicative of the mix that’ll be used in the final film. Here’s hoping Public Enemies lives up to its potential. It’s got LOADS.

Bruno – No thanks.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince – I’m not going to watch any of the films until I’ve read all of the books, so that rules this one out for me.

G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra – I couldn’t care less.

Inglorious Basterds – Tarantino is back!!! This one looks very interesting. Now, I’m concerned that it might be too violent for my sometimes delicate sensibilities, but I definitely want to see this. The question is, will this be one of QT’s talky, loopy, violent movies a la Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill, Vol. 2 or a straightforward bloodbath a la Kill Bill, Vol. 1? The casting of Brad Pitt is really bizarre too. When I think of people that QT would want to work with, Pitt’s not the guy that comes to mind. However, knowing his track record, it’s probably a really good idea. Tarantino’s one of those filmmakers that, unless you absolutely can’t handle the subject, when he makes a new film, you don't ask a ton of questions. You just pack up and go.

So that’s what I think of the summer movie season. After having my hopes dashed year after year, I just think it’s better to keep ‘em at a minimum. I’m always willing (and hoping) to be surprised. We’ll see.

Let the hate mail begin . . .

FotM: American Beauty - Best Picture 1999

I debated about whether or not writing about American Beauty was the best idea. I really did. For starters, I hadn’t seen the film until last year, and, while I’ve been meaning to watch it again, seeing a film once doesn’t exactly give me the level of confidence I’d like before getting in-depth on it in an article like this. That said, the reason I decided to do this is because I am hard-pressed to think of a film in recent memory that has affected me like American Beauty has. I’ve said enough in the past about my feeling about “experience movies,” so I don’t intend to bore you with a repeat of that little soapbox speech.

It’s ironic, because I can clearly remember when the film was in cinematic release in 1999, otherwise known to all “normal,” well-adjusted individuals as the year of the return of Star Wars. I used to pick up this little movie newsletter at the grocery store and I clearly recall American Beauty being advertised in it. I can even remember the picture that was in the advertisement. As you might guess, for a 14 year old kid growing up in a conservative household, it was not tops on my “must watch” list. At the time, we didn’t watch R-rated films, so that ruled it out automatically. Additionally, the amount of flesh on the poster seemed positively scandalous to me. I remember one of my esteemed co-writers for this blog telling me in high school, “I have no interest in seeing a film about a man going through a mid-life crisis.” Boy, did we have the wrong idea.

Anyway, times change and, last year, I watched American Beauty for the first time. I found myself amazed at the film’s ability to both supersede my expectations and bypass my preliminary responses to it while I was watching it. The tonal shift that occurs in the film is second to none. The tagline that appears on the film’s poster, “Look closer,” is the key to understanding American Beauty. Talk about the answer being in plain sight.

On the surface, the film’s characters are broad stereotypes of people that we’ve all either had personal experience with, have talked to people who have personal experience with similar people, or know people who know still other people who’ve known people like that. Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) is the grown-up teenager in midlife crisis. Carolyn Burnham (Annette Bening) is the controlling housewife with everything in its right place and matching gardening accessories. Angela Hayes (Mena Suvari) is the high school slut who won’t stop talking about all the guys she’s bagged. Col. Fitts (Chris Cooper) is the homophobic next door neighbor who thinks the world ought to be rewound to 1955 and won’t stop talking about it. I think you get the idea.

Some have accused American Beauty of containing nothing but caricatures, as though these generalized characters and the situations that they find themselves in lean toward broad statements about American suburban life that become the sole thing that the film is trying to say about that life. I tend to disagree. While the film has many aspects that appear formulaic at first glance, it does one thing that so many, if not most, films with stereotypical characters fail to do. After establishing those conventions, American Beauty sidesteps them in one fell swoop with one of the best third acts of any film that I’ve seen. Almost every single character is proven to have depths that the audience never dreamed existed. These previously hidden facets grab us by the throat and refuse us the luxury we have grown accustomed to when dealing with stereotypical people and stereotypical situations. We are no longer allowed to dismiss these people because we think we know everything there is to know about them because of the label they wear. Instead, we are forced to think of them as real people, which is what they deserved all along.

The biggest mystery of American Beauty is how it achieves such a sense of grace and beauty when it ends. We’ve known all along that Lester is going to die. He said as much at the beginning of the film. The film is fascinating in the way it moves and changes from a twisted, disturbed, creepy look at American suburban life into a meditation on life, love, and the things that make both of them worthwhile. We may have known how it would end, but I dare anyone to say that they’d figured out the twists and turns that would bring American Beauty to its breathtaking climax. I've seen a lot of films in my life, but the climax of American Beauty ranks as one of the most moving of any I've seen.

The 2000 Academy Awards were hosted by Billy Crystal and held at Los Angeles’ Shrine Auditorium. The nominees for Best Picture were American Beauty, The Cider House Rules, The Green Mile, The Insider, and The Sixth Sense. In addition to winning the top prize, American Beauty won Best Director (Sam Mendes), Best Actor (Kevin Spacey), Best Original Screenplay (Alan Ball), and Best Cinematography (Conrad L. Hall), winning a total of 5 Academy Awards out of 8 nominations. You won’t be surprised to learn that I believe that the right film won that year. I’d also argue that Annette Bening should have won Best Actress over Hilary Swank for Boys Don’t Cry. Here’s the real kicker: Sam Mendes and Alan Ball had never worked on a motion picture before, and THIS was the result. American Beauty is a modern classic that I’ll go back to again and again for the rest of my life. Those films don’t come along very often. I am very, very grateful that this one did.

FotM: THE FRENCH CONNECTION - Best Picture 1971

1971 was an interesting year for movies. The first year of the seventh decade of the 1900s saw the likes of FIDDLER ON THE ROOF, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, KLUTE, MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER, WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY, SHAFT, THE LAST PICTURE SHOW and DIRTY HARRY all grace the silver screen. The film that came out smelling like roses, atop that veritable heap of cinematic classics was THE FRENCH CONNECTION, winner of the Oscar for Best Picture and 4 other golden boys that year. On the surface, watching the film for the first time I found myself questioning the validity of these honors. Then the final credits rolled and I realized I was an idiot.

Other than the equally brilliant BULLITT no one had ever seen cop films like the ones released in 1971. With DIRTY HARRY and THE FRENCH CONNECTION cops were shown as valiant and determined but also as flawed and driven sometimes to the point of fault. The badge adorned knights of the streets were shown as real human beings with real human emotions and real human character flaws. DIRTY HARRY did all this while masked with the iconic visage of one of the greatest purveyors of vigilante justice in the history of cinema but THE FRENCH CONNECTION made no such attempt to show it’s characters or their story through anything but the harsh prism of cold, hard reality.

What first caught me so off guard about THE FRENCH CONNECTION is how desperately simple it all plays. For the most part William Friedkin’s masterpiece bears more in common with an episode of Law and Order than say SERPICO or COLORS. Almost the entire movie focuses on one particular investigation led by two very determined cops. Very little is time is spent delving into their pasts or their private lives, likewise the case, while important to temporarily stopping the influx of drugs into the city bears very little significance in the grand scheme of things. What becomes crystal clear by the end of the movie though is that this is exactly the point.

The beauty of THE FRENCH CONNECTION is that it is not trying to tell an L.A. CONFIDENTIAL type story. Using the sparse cinematic language that film makers seemed to be so adept at during the 70’s Friedkin paints a sharp, concise, brutal picture of crime and justice and the men that dedicate their lives to trying to uphold a system that sadly often times doesn’t work the way it should in a world that more often than not doesn’t play fair. Within 100 minutes everyone in this film is able to tell a tale, touching on themes and ideas years ahead of their time, that to this day very few have been able to touch.

While I don’t know if THE FRENCH CONNECTION deserved to win Best Picture (Sorry but it was up against DIRTY HARRY and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and trying to pick between the 3 is like trying to pick a favorite child) there can be no doubt that it deserves it’s place amongst the all time great film classics. It in one fail swoops displays a style of film making almost all but forgotten today, yet deals with ideas and themes decades before their time. One would be hard pressed to find a better constructed cinematic nugget and the fact that it contains one of the greatest car chases of all time doesn’t hurt either.

FotM: The Lost Weekend - Best Pic 1945

some like it hot
Originally uploaded by jimmyporter

In 1945 the Academy Awards were hosted by Bob Hope and Jimmy Stewart at Grauman’s Chinese Theatre; the best picture nominations for that year were films that are now considered classics - The Lost Weekend, Anchors Aweigh, The Bell’s of St. Mary’s, Mildred Pierce, & Spellbound. That year Billy Wilder’s The Lost Weekend walked home with the Oscar.

The thing about Wilder’s films that fascinates me is that his films transcend time. Though visually Wilder’s movies are obviously set in a specific era, they remain fresh and current because his stories and themes are not rooted in the time period; instead, the stories are rooted in universal concepts, concepts that are not rooted to one time period. The reason The Lost Weekend won best picture, the reason it remains a great film to this day is because it deals with an issue that is still in society today – alcohol addiction.

When Wilder made The Lost Weekend it was so realistic for the time that Paramount briefly shelved it because they were afraid of the reaction it would received, in fact as they were filming Wilder had to keep sending pieces of the script for review as he shot. It is actually an amazing thing that The Lost Weekend was even finished, much less a best picture winner.

What is so controversial about The Lost Weekend is merely the fact that it brings addiction, and the conspiracies so many people were using to hide it to the surface. Wilder has the lead character become so completely desolate that being as high as rock bottom would be a relief; this is a movie that shows hopelessness, despair, and the emotional trauma that the addicted person and those closest to them go through – it is a vicious, painful, shocking cycle that cannot end unless the addicted party can manage to face what they have become and why. This movie does not pretend; many of the themes reflected in The Lost Weekend are the same themes that someone like Darren Aronofsky later goes on to address in Requiem for a Dream, but Aronofsky and the filmmakers like him are able to be so blunt about an issue like addiction because of the inroads started for them by pioneers like Wilder.

While The Lost Weekend is an incredibly real, stark film it is only the first in a series of films where Wilder pushes the envelope of societal convention and taboos. I really think that The Lost Weekend prepared Wilder for two of his most biting films - Sunset Blvd. and Ace In The Hole - these are films that were highly controversial and two of his most relevant. Throughout his entire career Wilder was not afraid of replicating the controversy he created in The Lost Weekend.

FotM: Really? It just sort of comes naturally to me.

Steven Spielberg often says he can remember the first movie he ever watched and how it affected him. I have been in love with the movies for as long as I can remember, so in a way it makes me sad that I cannot remember the first film of my life.

When I sat down to think about the films that have influenced me or changed me in some way an entire rolodex of films flashed through my head, these were all films that I remember watching for the first time and watched many more times after that, movies like The Princess Bride, Star Wars, Blazing Saddles, L.A. Confidential, The Fountain and a whole slew of movies in between. I was fully prepared to write about The Usual Suspects and how greatly that movie influenced my view on movies and filmmaking until I realized that sure, The Usual Suspects influenced me but it was not the first movie to influence me – there had to be movies that put a love of films in place long before I ever encountered the world of Verbal Kint as a high schooler. It was then that it struck me, one of the movies that has had the single most influence on me through my entire life is Superman.

From my earliest days I remember that my father had a hardbound copy of a collection of early Superman comics. He kept it on an immense bookshelf that was built into an entire wall of my brother’s room. More than once I remember (before I was tall enough to reach) climbing up this book shelf so that I could grab this book and haul it back down where I would sit and flip through the pages watching Clark Kent & Superman’s exploits. Superman fascinated me. You can imagine how much more I was fascinated when I was old enough to see and process Superman the movie.

To this day I remember the awe my childhood mind felt as I saw Superman stand on the side of a building and thwart a jewel thief, fly with Lois Lane and yes – even fly around the world backwards to reverse time and save the day. I didn’t think about the special effects involved, I just thought about Superman and that maybe Christopher Reeve really was him, he just hid it like Clark Kent did. I loved that movie and it increased my love of that hero. Superman was real to me because he had flown off the pages of my dad’s book and into a movie.

As I grew up I kept watching Superman and as I evolved as a film viewer and later a filmmaker how the movie influenced me evolved too. I saw Superman II and realized that Superman had other levels to him, I then watched Superman III and realized I wasn’t going to like every Superman film that was ever made. But I would still watch the first film and I would be happy, even as I realized that Christopher Reeve wasn’t Superman, and that the film itself was very flawed in regards to the story itself and the way it treated the main characters.

One of the saddest days of my life was the day that Christopher Reeve was thrown from his horse. I remember thinking that Superman couldn’t be hurt like that, even though I knew he wasn’t really Superman. It was after that accident that Superman and Christopher Reeve somehow separated and entwined even more for me because as Christopher Reeve came back into the public eye as a quadriplegic and became an activist for the paralyzed research into spinal cord injuries he showed me that it was possible to conquer even the most daunting odds, and somehow doing all of this in a broken body made him even closer to the Superman I always thought he was as a child. To this day I am a fan and supporter of the Christopher Reeve Foundation. I don’t admit this often but I actually cried the day that Christopher Reeve died.

Through my adolescence I became more interested in Superman the character and I continued to watch Superman the movie. At some point as I became what I call a Superman purist I realized that no matter how much I adore that movie when it boils down to is Superman has never been faithfully adapted to screen and Superman & Superman II were fatally flawed and cheesy, though not entirely the fault of the filmmakers (who didn’t have movies like Rami’s Spiderman to bolster them) as too few good versions of comic book movies existed until a few years ago. This has not made me hate Superman, it has simply made me realize that despite the talents that went into making the movie, a better version could still exist.

When God finally hit me over the head with the knowledge I wanted to direct Superman stayed with me, but again my interest in it kept evolving; I could see the flaws and the beauty of the film and when Superman Returns came out my love of Superman evolved yet again because I realized if I ever am going to get to see Superman and Clark Ken the way I see the characters in my head, I or someone like me needs to be the one that makes a Superman movie. The first real hard thoughts of a dream project were born. It’s a project that I may never get to make, but it’s a project that inspires me – all because I fell in love with Superman as a child.

When it boils down to it Superman is one of the many, many movies that influenced me as I grew up, but I think it is one of the few movies that is going to stay with me in some way my entire life. So as I work on my computer at my job and Superman stares at me, as the symbol hangs on my Christopher Reeve Foundation key tag, my Superman shirt stares out from my closet, or one of many images looks at me from my bedroom walls I can remember that it all started with my Dad’s book and Superman the movie.

FOTM: The Dark Side of "Christmas"

This is spoiler heavy, if you have not seen It’s A Wonderful Life or know most of the plot I would not suggest reading this or listening to the below podcast until you do see the movie. However, if you don’t care about spoilers more power to you and read on!

We picked It’s A Wonderful Life as our feature of the month for December because it is the classic holiday film. You cannot have a Christmas season without seeing It’s A Wonderful Life on TV, in select theatres, and showcased at DVD stores everywhere. It really is a tradition, which is odd if you look at the text of the film. I was going to go detail by detail of why this is a great noir but I realized I couldn’t do better than Clute & Edwards (check out their podcast on It’s A Wonderful Life here) so instead I am going to point out what I see as the obvious about this movie - It’s A Wonderful Life is a very dark film populated by a very dark central character in George Bailey.

You might be wracking your brain right now to argue with me about how wrong I am about It’s A Wonderful Life; what we celebrate and love the film for is the uplifting message that we take away from the film. However, until the end of the film George is a very selfish character and this trait is marked by periodic outbursts of depression and anger until he ultimately decides to commit suicide – that’s right – we get the ultimate message of this movie because George Bailey wants to die.

To understand the very natural human progression of George Bailey you have to start from the beginning. George Bailey wanted to go to college and see the world. He is stopped from doing this because first he needs money for college, then his father dies and he must take charge of the family business. When George finally thinks he is going to be able to shake the dust of Bedford Falls off his feet and let his brother Harry deal with the business Harry returns to Bedford Falls with a young wife in tow but soon George is married as well and thinks at least he’ll get to escape no matter how briefly on his honeymoon with his new wife Mary.

This is when George’s life completely changes and it becomes impossible for him to leave Bedford Falls. On the day he is married and as he is headed to start his honeymoon the stock market crashes and the depression hits. George and Mary use their honeymoon fund to save the business and some of the residents. Now George and Mary begin to have children and WWII hits. Unlike every other man his age George can’t fight in the war because he is dea fin his left ear – as such George stays and fights the “fight of Bedford Falls”.

But finally, finally George’s life beings to look up. Harry is a war hero. The business is almost turning a good profit. That is how you know George’s luck can’t hold. Sure enough the businesses deposit is lost by Uncle Billy as they are being audited and when it is discovered both he and Billy will become convicted felons. This is when George snaps –he does not want to pay for a crime he didn’t commit because of a life he didn’t want.

George is in a rage. He accosts Uncle Billy, he goes home and screams at his children and wife until he sees that they are afraid of him. That sets in the depression and George reacts like anyone might. George goes to the local bar and gets drunk only to end up being hit by another bar patron and on his way out of the bar crashing his car into a tree. This all finally leads up to his ultimate decision to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge.

This is not a uplifting character. George Bailey is not idealized or heroic in any fashion; even if his actions were good he wanted to be anywhere but here. He is a disappointed man who only comes to his final epiphany because someone has to prove to him that his life was not wasted; the man is so self involved that it takes an supernatural experience to show him how great he has life.

There are two reasons we remember George Bailey as the truly fabulous character he is – Jimmy Stewart and Frank Capra. Stewart layers Bailey with warmth, humor, anger and disappointment in a way no actor of any other generation may ever be able to. We care about George Bailey because Stewart’s performance makes Bailey a character that is all too human, and as viewers you will empathize with something in George Bailey’s circumstances. In the same vein Capra take Bailey’s world and shapes it into one that is all too real – whether we are looking at Bedford Falls or Pottersville the worlds are so real that we can imagine living there ourselves. Capra layers his world with characters that mirror the people in our own lives and though the movie is supernatural in nature it is very real.

The thing to remember in the end is that George Bailey and It’s A Wonderful Life are so very real to us, so uplifting to us, because the character goes through such realistic situations; while you or I may never have the urge to throw ourselves off a bridge I can guarantee that more than once in life we have been faced with a situation in which we did the right thing, but it was very much not what we wanted to do and usually, however subtlety this situation changed our life just like it changed George Bailey’s. That very empathy that we feel between ourselves and George is the reason this film went from being a box office flop in 1946 to one of the most beloved movies of all time. We don’t like it when life disappoints us but over time if we try we will appreciate the changes and over time we have realized that It’s A Wonderful Life had something very important to say. It’s A Wonderful Life is a lot more than a “Christmas movie” it’s a movie about life.

Feature of the Month: Favorite Halloween Films

It is Halloween, a time known for causing thrills, chills and wondering what goes bump in the night and we all have different things that scare us or at least cause us great tension; this is why movies in the horror, suspense and thriller genres can endure for so long and become indelible franchises. It is to those thrills, chills, tense moments and genuine frights that we dedicate this month’s Feature of the Month to – our favorite Halloween movies. These can be anything from the horror movies you’re familiar with to the suspense films you wouldn’t think of as scary, but part of the fun is seeing why we love them so. For this month you may or may not be surprised to learn that my favorite Halloween film is Scream by Wes Craven.

I tend to not easily scare at movies so I really enjoy when a movie surprises me or keeps me guessing what is going to happen – Wes Craven did that for me in this film. I don’t remember ever being truly scared by Scream but the first time I watched it the film did keep me on the edge of my seat; it’s one of the only films where I wasn’t able to guess the ending and was fully satisfied by every aspect of the plot – in a world where my only experience in the “horror” genre was Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein it was a breath of fresh air.

The thing that is different about Scream is the fact that it defies the traditional “rules” and conventions of horror films while somehow managing to pay homage to all of them, Craven even manages to create a new horror convention – the character that dies in the opening act, the character you assumed was a crux of the film. Everyone remembers Scream for its brilliant marketing campaign that favored Drew Barrymore so much, and the shock it created when everyone found out that she didn’t last more than fifteen minutes into the film – it was a whole new way to use a McGuffin and set your audience on their toes. On top of this unsettling new development Scream created, the film is filled with characters that seem to know they are in a horror film.

What Scream is now truly known for is beginning a trend of self-aware horror films; suddenly horror movies began to copy Craven and Kevin Williamson and try to play with conventions and have characters that knew the conventions of horror and that trend slightly continues to this day. The only problem is that so many films who tired this approach ended up being just plain derivative or in spoof territory and Scream managed to avoid that trap; Scream is a smart film that defies conventions and has a reason and purpose for everything that happens to the characters and plot.

The best example of this self-awareness would have to be the character of Randy played by Jamie Kennedy. Randy is the character that works in a video store, has a vast knowledge of horror films and is the person who constantly tries to compare life to film. The best known scene in Scream is attributed to Randy: the scene where Randy lays down the rules for surviving a horror film as we see the actions he warns of being played out on the video the teens are watching and with the characters in the room who scoff at his set of rules. Throughout the entire film Randy is able to predict every aspect of the serial killings as they happen and is of course laughed at or ignored by almost every character.

However, equally important to the intelligence of the film is the main character Sidney Prescott played by Neve Campbell. Sidney is a smart teenage girl with a tragic past who refuses the role of helpless victim and takes on every challenge she meets instead of shying away from it – she is a character that refuses to sit down and be beaten. This does not make Sidney a flawless character; Sidney is close to the killer without knowing it and of course her most memorable scene is when she talks to the killer on the phone telling him that she hates horror movies because the women are always “running up the stairs when they should be running out the front door – it’s insulting”, then before the scene ends she herself ends up fleeing from the killer by running up the stairs when she can’t get out the front door.

I can thank Scream for many things: it introduced me to the horror genre, an admiration for Wes Craven and the realization that a “horror” movie can be so much more than gore, jumps and a building body bag count. Scream was a very influential film for me and I think it will be remembered among the classic horror films of this era. To this day Scream is the only horror franchise where I made sure I saw each sequel in the theatre as close to opening day as possible.

Recommended Halloween Viewing: Halloween, Scream, Night of the Living Dead, Young Frankenstein

Feature of the Month: Paul Thomas Anderson and dramatic scope.

It starts with Kevin Costner. In the spring of 2007, as a senior at California State University, Fullerton, I had the chance to sit in on a question and answer session with the Academy-Award winning filmmaker. In addition to those of us who were film students, the business students and the acting students (who proceeded to monopolize the session) were also invited. A lot of the standard questions like "how did you break into the industry?" were asked. The one thing that really impressed me the most about Kevin came when he was asked what kind of advice he would give to people like us who were trying to make our own start. Most people usually go off on a doom and gloom sort of answer about how hard it is, and how you won't get any sleep, and the fact that you won't see any real money for a long time, and things like that. Kevin broke the mold, so to speak. His advice was simple. He said, "If you're a writer, write a screenplay. But don't just write a good screenplay, write a great screenplay. If you're a director, make a movie. But don't just make a good movie, make a great movie." As you might imagine, this advice, despite appearing somewhat simplistic, was very inspirational to me.

Then, about a month ago, I watched Gone With The Wind for the first time in something like 16 years. After watching it, I was struck by the realization that David O. Selznick was doing something with that film that few filmmakers do anymore. From the outset, he had one goal, and that was to make a great film. This might not seem that important, but think about it for a moment. When was the last time that you watched a current movie in which the filmmaker's aspirations for greatness were apparent in every frame? Can you think of any? Can you think of one?

It seems to me that Paul Thomas Anderson has been following Costner's advice throughout his entire career. I don't think he's ever done a project in an attempt to score a base hit with a solid film. Just about every film he's ever made has been a swing for the fences. This is something that I admire a lot, because, like I said, so few people try to do this anymore. I've seen three of Paul Thomas Anderson's films so far, which amounts to 60% of his output. Each of these films has been unlike any other film I've ever seen.

One thing that strikes me about Anderson's work is the sense that he doesn't seem to believe in doing anything small. For example, in each of the three films of his that I've seen, the characters are larger-than-life, filled with conflicting emotions that would crush a lesser person. It's to his credit that he's been able to cast actors for these parts that have found a way to transcend the material, instead of being overwhelmed by it. In addition, in some cases, the actors that he's cast have been, on the surface, very unlikely choices. However, I think that he tends to be right on the money.

Magnolia (2000): This film is probably, to this point, the most archetypical Anderson movie. He approaches the material in a way that is reminiscent of the style of a filmmaker like Robert Altman. Like that legendary director, he takes a group of characters (played excellently by a terrific ensemble cast) from vastly different walks of life and places them on the screen almost like a chess player moving the pieces around on a board. It's particularly fascinating to watch to see where the character's lives do and don't intersect. What's equally fascinating is that the film's action takes place within one twenty-four hour period, and, within that period, instead of adhering to standard constraints of "reality," Anderson does something completely different. When the film begins, for the most part, things seem normal. The action (and, concurrently, the tension) rises as the film continues until, at the film's conclusion, I felt as though I'd entered a strange new world, where the rules were completely different. Seriously, if I were to tell you what was the climax of the film is by printing it here, you would not believe me. This, however, is a good thing. Far too many films settle for using conventional plot devices and conventional endings to the point where there is little surprise when a film arrives at its conclusion. Even the use of a twist ending, unless it's superbly executed, doesn't really create that much surprise. This is why the climax of Magnolia works so well. It serves as a means to challenge our ideas of what is possible within the confines of a film, that, despite its quirks, probably, until the climax, was such that a viewer would probably think that they had it figured out. A little bit of transcendence never hurt anyone anyway.

Thematically, Magnolia has a very interesting story to tell. By my interpretation, the film is primarily about forgiveness and, more specifically, what people can and cannot forgive. One thing that I find very appealing about Anderson’s approach to the subject is related to the arc of one of the characters. (I will refrain from divulging which character in order to leave you to the joy of finding it out for yourself.) This character is speaking with another character about why someone hates him. The second person seems to have an idea as to why this is possible, but forces the first person to say it for himself. What’s ingenious about this moment is that Anderson, instead of merely having the character admit to his past transgression, has him say that he doesn't remember if he's done it or not. He truly doesn't know whether or not he needs to be forgiven. This makes the moral dilemma much more compelling. In the film, Anderson never says what really happened with this character, and that is to Magnolia's benefit.

Punch-Drunk Love (2002): First and foremost, this film stars Adam Sandler. Yes, that's right, that Adam Sandler. What's more, he's excellent as Barry Egan, an emotionally challenged young man who, one night, calls a 900 number to have someone to talk to, only to have it backfire beyond his wildest imaginings. Unfortunately, by summarizing Punch-Drunk Love this way, I have made it seem like either a thriller or a wacky comedy. Here's the great thing: it's both, and more. In some ways, I felt like this film was a throwback to a more traditional type of Hollywood romantic storytelling. One of the things that makes Punch-Drunk Love different from other Anderson films is that, with Barry, he's created a singular, sympathetic character. In Magnolia, for instance, there are a vast multitude of characters, most of whom are sympathetic in some way. In this case, though, by concentrating on one character, the film's focus seems to be a lot tighter. The film's theme, one person learning how to take charge of his own life, is nothing new, but the joy is in Anderson's stylized approach, the performances by Sandler and Emily Watson, and the sense of discovery. After watching Punch-Drunk Love, I don't know why Sandler would want to work with anyone else.

There Will Be Blood (2007): This, I think, is the crown jewel in Paul Thomas Anderson's body of work. The film works on every level. What's really fascinating is that, on many levels, There Will Be Blood is a standard epic film that takes a character, places him in a period of history, and follows him for several years. On the other hand, if this film is "standard" in any sense of the word, then I'm Doris Day. The best way that I can describe There Will Be Blood is as an epic film on steroids. All of the genre conventions of the epic film are present, but the way that they're presented makes for a wholly original experience. For example, the score was composed by Jonny Greenwood, a member of Radiohead. Most epic film scores usually make liberal use of the string section to play sweeping melodies. Greenwood, on the other hand, uses the orchestra in entirely different ways. The music is at once jarring, unsettling, and pulsating. The one thing that truly makes There Will Be Blood "work" is the performance of Daniel Day-Lewis. Already known for his, shall we say, "intense" performances in films like In the Name of the Father and Gangs of New York, Day-Lewis gives, I think, the performance of his career. Everything about his character, Daniel Plainview, is overstated. Plainview's battle for control of the oil deposits of a small California town causes his social inhibitions to come to the forefront in often violent ways. Day-Lewis commands the screen in a way that few actors this side of Marlon Brando ever have.

Thematically, on the surface, There Will Be Blood would appear to be about the nature of control. I think, however, it goes a lot deeper than that. In my estimation, Plainview's struggle with Paul Dano's Eli Sunday is nothing less than the story of the United States of America. Plainview represents extreme capitalism and Sunday represents religious fundamentalism. These two forces have been in play since the formation of our republic, and their relationship receives a fascinating treatement in this film. Interestingly, one of the film's posters alludes to this. It features the following tagline" "When ambition meets faith . . . there will be blood."

Many people have criticized the film's ending, which I will not divulge here, as being too far out of left field to be effective. I disagree completely. As is the case with Anderson's previous work, the ending here serves to do what he does best: pull the rug out from under the viewer. I don't really think that the film can end any other way. Is it strange? Yes. Does it come as a surprise? Without question. Is it necessary? Absolutely. For me, the ending makes the movie. It comes with a kind of apocalyptic finality that is unforgettable. Originally, I picked Joel and Ethan Coen's No Country For Old Men as the best film of 2007. There Will Be Blood made me change my mind.

Paul Thomas Anderson's work challenges me like few films do. I truly appreciate his courage to swing for the fences time and again. In a world where far too many films have no lasting value beyond the ticket stub, Anderson is one of a small group of filmmakers that strives to create real art each and every time. For those of us who are in love with the cinema, we couldn't ask for anything more.

Recommended viewing: Magnolia, There Will Be Blood.

Feature of the Month: P.T.A.

[Warning: This Article is Spoiler Heavy]

There are three excellent contributors to this blog, and we have vastly different bends on the films that we watch. One of the best ways we thought we could all form a more cohesive batch of content for this arena was to start a monthly feature where all three of us focus on one subject but get to approach it from any angle we wish. For our inaugural "Feature of the Month" we settled on one prolific writer/director, Paul Thomas Anderson.

Paul Thomas Anderson is a difficult filmmaker to try and pin down to a simple definition; he makes films that are epic in a whole different way than we are used to defining the word epic as it applies to cinema. He doesn’t make films like Lawrence of Arabia that are period pieces of a giant, sweeping nature; instead his epics focus on the average and seemingly mundane members of society, characters that are in extreme situations but when it boils down to it they are just like you or someone you know. Each and every one of Anderson’s films is completely different, new, original and never what you expect. However, there are some things that tie his films together; his films are defined by characters looking for family or a sense of belonging, and a life changing event.

Hard Eight is probably the most “typical” of all of Anderson’s films, but he establishes his theme very strongly from the opening of this movie. The relationship between John (John C. Reilly) and Sydney (Philip Baker Hall) is what defines this movie; though they are not blood related they have a father/son relationship that is just as strong as if they were biological family. John emulates Sydney in every way possible from drinking the alcohol he likes, to learning to gamble the way Sydney does – he has allowed Sydney to fashion him into the man he has become. What the audience doesn’t find out until the denouement of the film is that Sydney came into John’s life because of an event that changed both of them, an event that only Sydney knows the truth of: Sydney killed John’s father.

Anderson followed up this gambler drama with the story of Dirk Digger in Boogie Nights. This film follows Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg) who is recruited into the porn industry to become Dirk Diggler, and he is folded into the make-shift family headed by Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) and Amber Waves (Julianne Moore). Dirk has a purpose and place to belong finally, but slowly and surely this family falls apart through the years because of another life altering event (though this one is slower than some of the others) – the inclusion of video in the porn industry.

One of the most complex movies ever made would have to be Magnolia which is one of Anderson’s absolute masterpieces. To include all of the relationships or those seeking them in this post would take far too long, but I do not think that you can deny that this film is about those bonds and the events that shape the characters. This film has many kinds of relationships focusing primarily on lovers and parent-child relationships. Everyone is looking for some kind of attention, love or respect out of the people around them, and this time the life changing even is so varied that it is hard to pin down as there are different ones for each character, but it is symbolically shown through the rain of frogs at the end of the film – life will never be the same for these characters.

Punch-Drunk Love is possibly the most simple story Anderson has ever told. Barry (Adam Sandler) is part of a large family but feels isolated and seeks love so that he can belong, he finally finds this he believes in Lena (Emily Watson), but not before being blackmailed by the phone sex line he used to endorse to get his sense of belonging. His life changing event comes in a car crash the involves he and Lena that is caused by the “henchmen” of this hotline. This event makes Barry finally take charge of the life he has built and force it into the position he wants to be in.

Anderson’s latest epic is the awe inspiring There Will Be Blood which is the only film I can imagine that he could have made to top Magnolia in scope and beauty. This film focuses on oil baron Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day Lewis) and his son; Daniel has adopted his son after a tragic accident kills one of his workers. Daniel has his family and his success until his life changing event occurs – an accident on a oil rig harms his son and takes his hearing. Daniel then becomes incapable of dealing with his family and his business and this sends his life into a spiral that completely changes things for him; this lasts until the end of the film when his son tries to be independent with his father’s blessing and Daniel strikes out and cuts his son off from his life, unable to accept that his son does not want the life he has fashioned for him. However, the story does not end there. Daniel eventually gets his revenge by destroying the person who helped start his chain of events the charismatic preacher (Paul Dano) from the community most of the film takes place in.

While Anderson may have one theme that seems to define his work I greatly enjoy him as a director because I think that on some level his films are beyond definition. They simply hold something in them that defies convention.

I am extremely intrigued to see what Anderson does next because I have a theory about his catalog of films so far. I think that he’s emerging into something new for his films; I’m not sure what it looks like yet, but I think There Will Be Blood was the first step in the next phase of Anderson’s career. In a way similar to Baz Luhrmann’s Red Curtain Trilogy (Strictly Ballroom, Romeo + Juliet & Moulin Rouge!) I think that in all Anderson’s film’s leading up to There Will Be Blood he was using variations on the same style, and now he is emerging into something new; I think his theme is being refined, and his style evolved. His next film will be one to watch for.

Recommended Viewing: Magnolia & There Will Be Blood