#although i like the movie version of audition way better than the novel

[leonsrightarm]

i feel like ringu and audition are the same in that you can't just read the book or watch the movie you have to do both or else you're missing out on half the story. the book and movie both complement each other, enhancing the narrative in one way while completely ignoring something that feels key when you visit the other.

[antiquery]

top 5 Lovecraft stories?

the dream-quest of unknown kadath: where to start? last semester i audited a class on underworld journeys in literature over at trinity, in which we talked a lot about what narrative elements make a katabasis— cues to look out for that tell you “this story might not be a literal journey into hell, but that’s basically what you’re looking at because it utilizes all the tropes common to that genre.” the dream-quest is a pretty textbook example, and the fact that it is makes it a component in one of lovecraft’s most interesting themes: the connection between death and dreaming, between underworlds and otherworlds (which of course makes me think of la vita nuova, but that’s a post for another day). Serious Literary Analysis aside (and not even getting into this story as postwar lit, which i’ve talked about before), though, this one is my favorite for entirely self-indulgent reasons. the dreamlands are a fascinating setting, and the worldbuilding is just well-developed enough to work, but not so explicit that you don’t desperately want to know more about what’s going on. much to my chagrin, i also find carter annoyingly endearing, and (again, for reasons i’ll go into below) his canonical story arc is probably my favorite sequence of stories that lovecraft wrote. besides that, nyarlathotep is far and away my favorite lovecraftian villain, and this is the story where he gets the most page-time (i also have some, uh. some thoughts about his scene with carter). on a more general level, i love this story’s surrealism and brightness, how unabashedly technicolor weird it is; how it’s so good that it manages to not be laughable, but genuinely engaging because of that strangeness. if there’s any hpl story i want to see as a movie it’d be this one, pref. directed by taika waititi and with a soundtrack featuring no less than three eighties hits (talking in your sleep and every breath you take are excellent candidates).

the silver key: so funny thing, i actually wrote my common app essay about this story. seeing as i’m now headed off to the college i’ve been drooling over since i was 15 next fall, i’m somewhat obligated to include it on this list (although i’m convinced that it was actually the supplemental essay where i wrote about fbi special agent dana katherine scully that got me in). jokes aside, though, i love this one. i love the purple prose, i love the melodramatic narration, i love how well it retrospectively foregrounds the dream-quest. i love the ending! i think the reason i like carter’s storyline as much as i do is that it’s very self-referential in terms of lovecraft’s other work, and it turns the tropes we’ve come to expect from him on their heads. this is a great conclusion to that idea— after ages of set-up for a very bad decision, carter does something that in any other cosmic horror story would lead to a terrible fate, but for him it...doesn’t? that subverted expectation is weirdly delightful. and maybe this is just me and what i research, but i really love that it follows the same basic narrative template as the divine comedy, considering what i said about the dream-quest as an underworld journey— in the middle of our life’s path i found myself within a forest dark for the key to the gate of dreams straightforward path had been lost. or something.

the case of charles dexter ward: this one basically hits all my thematic buttons: weird terrifying magic, necromancy, a charismatically horrible villain, and an attempt to get at the soul of new england in the same way the next story on this list does. the way lovecraft writes about new england actually reminds me a lot of the way flannery o’connor writes about the south: this place that is your home, that you love in the way you can only ever love your home, is inarguably haunted by its past, full of a deep-rooted horror that’s inextricably intertwined with its identity, and thus the thing that you love more than anything. besides that, i love the related idea that this story explores with curwen: that same past is never far from the present, always ready to rise up and overwhelm us. i always talk about analyzing the dream-quest as a modernist piece, but there’s probably a lot to say also about this novel, that fear-fascination with the past in the wake of the collapse of the present into globally traumatized chaos. and on a purely indulgent level: i adore curwen, he’s great, i would read an entire 600-page novel about his adventures in weird awful magic and charming villainy.

the dreams in the witch house: i am a HUGE sucker for new england horror, specifically new england puritan horror, as you all probably know by now. i think that this was lovecraft’s most successful attempt at incorporating all the cultural baggage that 20th century america associated with early new england into a horror story. it’s also a much better, much more well-thought-out version of through the gates of the silver key, which is a weird, extracanonical, half-baked attempt to shove some of the themes that lovecraft came around to later in his career into a character arc that was already done and over with, and which consequently didn’t end up making any thematic or narrative sense. dreams in the witch house takes a lot of the ideas in that story and re-works them in a way that’s much more compelling and interesting, and grounds them solidly in the kind of cultural introspection that with lovecraft either went really well or really, really, really terribly. (see: horror at red hook, the.)

at the mountains of madness: when i was a little baby 13 year old watching the x files for the first time, the episode that really got me hooked was ice, in which our heroes are trapped in an antarctic research station with an ancient, malevolent alien entity. that episode was actually based on john carpenter’s the thing, which was itself based on this story. besides that, though, i love this story on its own merit: the delicious sense of “oh god get out of there while you still can” that builds and builds as the narrative goes on (lovecraft is quite good at that), the objectively awesome worldbuilding surrounding the rediscovery of the old ones’ civilization (and how horribly small it casts human civilization as, maybe more effectively than anything else lovecraft wrote, save for shadow out of time) and most of all the introduction of shoggoths, which are 1. cool on their own and 2. a great concept to analyze in terms of horror as reflective of cultural anxiety. 

[salmankhanholics]

★ Bollywood comedy set for Lantern Festival release in China !

Zhang Rui | February 28, 2018

Nearly three years after its original release in India, the critically acclaimed "Bajrangi Bhaijaan" will hit Chinese theaters on March 2.

Director Kabir Khan and the film's young star Harshaali Malhotra, both wearing traditional Chinese clothing, attended the Chinese premiere held in Beijing yesterday. Malhotra, now 9, smiled throughout the event but spoke very little, just like the character she played in the film.

"We auditioned maybe 2,000 girls, and finally chose Harshaali because she not only has a pretty face but also had enthusiasm to do the film," the director said at the premiere, "and she is totally a natural-born actress."

He also revealed that although co-star Salman Khan was known as the biggest action star in India, the director felt they should do something different after their collaboration on the spy thriller action film "Ek Tha Tiger" (2012). Salman Khan agreed and happily took part in the "Bajrangi Bhaijaan" project, a movie that is instead, according to its director, "about love."

The film tells the story of how Bajrangi (Salman Khan), an ardent devotee of Hindu deity Hanuman, embarks on taking a mute six-year-old Pakistani girl (Harshaali Malhotra), separated in India from her parents, back to her hometown in Pakistan.

The director Khan said that he made this film to talk about "love within people and the fact that borders cannot divide people."

"Bajrangi Bhaijaan," which means "Brother Bajrangi," will be released in China under the title "Little Lolita's Monkey God Uncle." "Monkey God Uncle" refers to the character Bajrangi, who is named after Bajrangbali (Hanuman), the Hindi God who provided the inspiration for the Monkey King character in the classic Chinese novel "Journey to the West." "Little Lolita" in Chinese slang often has no sexual connotations, instead only meaning "cute little girl," in reference to the young character played by Malhotra. The Chinese version will also be cut down in length from 159 minutes to 140 minutes.

The worldwide gross of "Bajrangi Bhaijaan" has already been 629 crore (US$98 million) as of 2016, making it the second-highest-grossing Indian film ever at the time, behind Rajkumar Hirani's satirical sci-fi comedy film "PK." Now with its upcoming release in China, it may earn a much higher box office haul.

The Chinese film market has provided an unmistakable boost to Indian films' earnings and chart positions. Last year, the booming market shot "Dangal" to the number one spot as the highest-grossing Indian film ever. "Dangal" grossed over US$330 million worldwide, including more than US$204 million in the Chinese market.

Another Indian film, "Secret Superstar," also made 746 million yuan (US$118.28 million) since its release in China earlier this year, which helped the film become the third-highest-grossing Indian film of all time. India's domestic income for "Secret Superstar" pales in comparing to what it has done in China - by the end of 2017, the film only grossed 89 crore (US$14 million) in India.

Director Kabir Khan is not too surprised by the phenomenon. "India and China have so much in common, " he said, "they are giant Oriental civilizations that has been living next to each other for thousands of years." He said he believes the peoples of the two countries have the same way of looking at emotions, family structures and relationships. "We could find more relevance in China than in other parts of the world, and I'm sure Chinese films will find relevance in India."

The director's next film will be the travel drama "Zookeeper," an Indo-Chinese film production slated for release later this year which will be shot in China's Chengdu city and the surrounding area.

Building on the success of "Dangal" and "Secret Superstar," as well as positive word-of-mouth since 2015, "Bajrangi Bhaijaan" will be getting a wide release in China on March 2. The date coincides with the Lantern Festival that ends China's traditional Spring Festival and Lunar New Year holidays, a time of year when people celebrate family reunions, mirroring the theme of the movie. The film had advance screenings in 29 Chinese cities on Feb. 6, receiving positive feedback from audiences.

China Org

-----

★ Can Indian comedy drama ‘Bajrangi Bhaijaan’ recreate the success of ‘Secret Superstar’ in China? 

Huang Tingting | 2018/2/27 

After Aamir Khan's extremely successful films Dangal and Secret Superstar, China is set to embrace yet another hit Indian movie Bajrangi Bhaijaan. Starring Bollywood star Salman Khan and the then 7-year-old Harshaali Malhotra in the lead roles, the 2015 film follows Bajrangi (Khan), an ardent follower of the Hindu deity Hanuman, as he brings a mute Pakistani girl (Malhotra) back to her family. The film is set to hit Chinese mainland cinemas on Friday, the same day as the traditional Lantern Festival. The choice of release date seems well thought out as the Lantern Festival celebrates families coming together and the story fits perfectly with this festive atmosphere. The now 9-year-old actress Malhotra and the film's director Kabir Khan appeared at the film's Beijing premiere on Monday, dressed in traditional Chinese cheongsams. The two greeted fans by saying "Happy Lantern Festival" in awkward Chinese and posed for photos holding a giant Chinese festive decoration. High anticipation "I think India and China have so much in common. We have civilizations that have lasted for five to six thousand years and we have so much in common in the way we express our emotions, our family structures and relations," Kabir Khan said at a press conference at the Monday event when asked why he felt Indian films have been gaining ground in China in recent years. "We often find more resonance with people in China than those living in the other parts of the world," noted the Indian director. "I am sure Chinese films can also find resonance in India." While the recent success of Dangal and Secret Superstar in China might serve as one of the prime motivators for Chinese investors to put more stake into Indian films, the film's impressive performance in the Indian market and its relatively high rating of an 8.1/10 on IMDB and an 8.6/10 on Chinese review platform Douban have also caused movie lovers to pay more attention to Bollywood. The latest popular Indian film to come to the Chinese mainland, Bajrangi Bhaijaan is receiving quite a lot of attention from Chinese press and movie fans. On Douban, the film is now the third "most-want-to-see" film among the nine imported films that are hitting theaters in the mainland in March, following Golden Globe-winner Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, which is scheduled to debut on the same date and Shape of Water, a strong Oscar contender that is set to premiere on March 16. While admitting the parts of the film concerning religious beliefs and border disputes between India and Pakistan may be difficult to understand without certain background knowledge, reviews from Chinese moviegoers have been relatively positive so far. "Great film! Previously I thought I might fall asleep as 141 minutes is a bit too long for me, but I was moved to tears, especially by the end of the film," Xiao Lan, a moviegoer who attended Monday afternoon's VIP screening in Beijing, told the Global Times. "I think this film expresses the theme of religion better than [Indian film] P.K.," posted movie blogger Capital's Haha Brother on Sina Weibo on February 7, a day after a Beijing prescreening. "It uses specific scenes rather than the typical dance scenes to show the different religious beliefs that Indians and Pakistanis hold. And unlike the comical atmosphere in Aamir Khan's P.K., these scenes are usually very serious," he wrote. Growing a fandom The film's lead actor Salman Khan, one of Bollywood's most influential stars, was constantly introduced at Monday's premiere as one of "Bollywood's Three Big Khans" - the other two being Aamir Khan and Shah Rukh Khan. Overseas media and netizens have already begun predicting whether Bajrangi Bhaijaan, Salman Khan's first film to show in Chinese mainland cinemas, will help the Bollywood star to become as popular as Aamir Khan has become. For many of Salman Khan's Chinese fans there is no need to compare the two. "Salman and Aamir are very good friends in real life and so are their Chinese fan clubs," Huo Huo, a manager for the Salman Khan China Fan Club, told the Global Times on Monday. Boasting some 30,000 followers on Sina Weibo and over 3,000 registered members on Baidu Tieba, China's equivalent to Reddit, the Salman Khan China Fan Club has taken on the mission of translating and updating the star's news on Chinese social media platforms. "We also make special videos every year for his birthday. Veteran fans often call him by his Chinese nickname Xiao Sa or simply Sa," said the 25-year-old fan club manager, who fell in love with the star in 2014 after watching his film Wanted. "He looks so hot in the film but it wasn't until a year later when I got to know more about him and his philanthropy that I officially became a hardcore fan," Huo explained. Though the Bollywood star's current Chinese fandom is not very large compared to other popular foreign stars, "the number is growing and we have had more new members join us over the past two years," Huo noted. The Chinese mainland release of Bajrangi Bhaijaan has excited Chinese fans such as Huo since previously they either had to make do with the Hindi-language versions of his films or wait desperately for Chinese subtitles. "The moment we saw Salman's face on the big screen for the first time at Sunday's prescreening, many of us including me couldn't help but burst into tears," Huo told the Global Times.

global times

[brianroweauthor]

Watching Like a Writer: La La Land (2016)

Watching Like a Writer is a movie review series that looks at films from the perspective of a fiction writer, complete with one writing takeaway, and an exercise that will help better your fiction! Each Monday I will look at a film currently in theatrical release.

Summary: "Mia (Emma Stone), an aspiring actress, and Sebastian (Ryan Gosling), a jazz musician, are struggling to make ends meet in a city known for crushing hopes and breaking hearts." (via Amazon)

Review: La La Land is unlike any movie that's come out this year, or last year; not since director Damien Chazelle's own Whiplash in 2014 have I seen a film that so beautifully depicts both the wonder of great music and the desire to go after a dream no matter how improbable or illogical it may be. My favorite film of 2014 indeed was Whiplash, Chazelle's absorbing and ridiculously entertaining debut feature. I loved it so much and couldn't wait to see what he'd do next. When I heard his follow-up was going to be a musical starring Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling, not to mention a film that he had been trying to get off the ground before he even made Whiplash, told me this was going to be a passion project that he'd put every last bit of his great talent into. Although I didn't love La La Land as much as I adore Whiplash—the film has a few pacing problems, with a short lull in the middle—it's for the most part a winning and grand time at the movies.

You know you're in good hand with a filmmaker who makes the bold choice to open his musical with people dancing on the hoods of their cars in busy L.A. traffic. The opening number of La La Land marks one of the best scenes of the movie, perfectly setting up the tone and the surrealistic nature of the film that is to come. Although much of La La Land is set in reality, Chazelle gleefully goes into the occasional flights of fancy and extended dance numbers that give the film a fabulous dream-like quality that always keeps you guessing as to what's going to happen next. One of the best of the musical numbers is actually the most simple, just Ryan Gosling's character of Sebastian and Emma Stone's character of Mia having a long walk up an L.A. canyon that results in the two breaking out into a delightful little dance number, all done in one single shot (the way dance numbers used to be captured in the musicals of old—think Singin' in the Rain).

La La Land is a lot more than a bubbly musical, however. Telling the story of two aspiring artists—Mia, a wannabe actress; and Sebastian, a budding musician—the film goes into both the light and the dark of trying to make a career in the toughest of businesses. Chazelle always treats the ups and downs of these lofty pursuits with the utmost sense of reality, never making their lucky breaks feel too easy and unearned. Mia goes through endless rejection to get where she is at the end of the movie, always one step away from something great until she's told the inevitable no and better luck next time. At one point she chooses to finally give up and move back home with her parents, maybe go back to school and look for something else, and this part of the movie hit me so hard I struggled to separate Mia from myself. Chazelle taps into the sad epidemic that happens to so many—those who choose to go after a big dream and then, after many years and no luck or opportunities, finally say good-bye to that dream and pursue something else—and he captures it better here than I've ever seen in any other movie on a similar subject.

The film ultimately balances the seriousness of its characters' dreams and failures and successes with the giddiness of the movie musical near perfectly. He never lets the fantastic musical numbers detract from the main compelling story of following these two people on their journeys. Chazelle obviously has a passion for jazz, since it's featured in both this film and in Whiplash, and he does a great job showing how far Sebastian will go to find his own happiness. Even better is Mia's storyline as she goes on audition after audition to find that big break. A lot of the comedy in the film comes from these pathetic auditions, where Mia practices her lines for hours only to be told to stop after five seconds in the audition room (I worked in casting for two years in L.A., and let me tell you, we always let each actor do the entire scene, we were professionals!). She hits one roadblock after another, even putting her own money into and performing her one-woman show, only to have about a dozen people show up and give her a big thumbs-down. All these scenes of their struggles, both in their careers and in their romantic relationship, smack of realism even when the musical numbers provide a relief from reality.

Chazelle cast the two perfect actors for his leads, particularly Stone. Gosling is great in everything he does, able to exude menace in something like Drive and also able to be charming and lovable in something like this. He's not only one of the most handsome actors in Hollywood; he's able to adapt to nearly any genre imaginable, and he's terrific in this. Stone is the real breakthrough here though. In what is easily my favorite performance of hers to date, she gives Mia the right amount of aw-shucks cuteness and unflinching passion to succeed. She's beautiful and funny, all that we've come to expect from Stone, but she presses deeper here that she has before, as her character tries to come to terms with failure both in her career and in her once-promising relationship with Sebastian. Her last-ditch effort to make a name for herself, an audition where the casting director asks her to tell her a story, is my favorite scene of the movie, one in which Stone breaks into song in such a glorious, truthful way that I was eventually brought to tears. This scene offers the film's greatest magic.

And then there's that perfect ending, one that took me by surprise. I kept hearing that La La Land's opening and closing sequences are its best, and while I wouldn't agree with that completely, I agree that the ending sequence is about as perfect as it can be, those subtle looks Mia and Sebastian give each other at the jazz club, that wonderful final musical number that showcases all that could have been. I do feel that La La Land, at more than two hours, is maybe twenty minutes too long. Whiplash just flies by, never a wasted scene or moment, but I did notice the occasional lull in La La Land, a scene here or there that would slow the proceedings down. I think there's a perfect 105-minute version of this movie somewhere. But for the most part, I fell in love with this movie. It's funny and true, sad at times but also optimistic, in a time when we need the most optimism we can get. With La La Land, Damien Chazelle proves he's a real-deal filmmaker, and although I still prefer his powerhouse Whiplash, La La Land is a worthy, dazzling follow-up.

Watching Like a Writer: La La Land made me think about how well the city of Los Angeles is captured on-screen. Having lived there for eight years, I remember its lows but also its many highs, the places I loved to visit and that I still miss to this day. So often the city looks awful in movies and ridiculed in many ways by filmmakers. This love letter to the city by Chazelle made me think about how I could showcase Los Angeles in a future story or novel and not turn it into the nasty caricature it so often is in the movies.

Exercise! Think of a story idea that would take place in Los Angeles. Who would the protagonist be? And how would you capture the city in your narrative? Share your thoughts below, or in the Facebook group, Watching Like a Writer!

[mallahanmoxie]

rogue one: the Experience

under the cut because i can and i am also full of despair. will talk a lot about cassian andor because i love him intensely and also, it’s gonna be very scattered. generally positive review tho.

first of all i want to say that i have seen a lot of disappointed people and sure, i guess you can demand stuff but i settle easily and i liked what i got. sure, i would’ve loved a lot more things and i wonder if i myself could’ve edited a better version of that movie but it was nice enough and i liked it. being honest, most of these opinions will probably change on a second watch so don’t judge me too harshly

also i, unlike a lot of people, have Feelings over jyn erso but i won’t talk about them a lot so it’s a technically #jynfree zone here

i was a foolish thing and walked into the cinema at the exact showing time and i had to wait fifteen minutes in line for the popcorn i didn’t even eat so i missed the opening scenes but it’s fine because i didn’t really care about any of the ersos prior to this, came just for cassian and was just like “oh it’s just jyn thank god” when i found my spot in the crammed movie theatre

i later regretted that choice = turns out i care about one (1) erso *high fives cassian*

listen. im just gonna get it out of the way. i am jyn erso. it’s fine, she’s terrible, im terrible, it’s fine.

real talk, i enjoyed her even if she was terribly unremarkable. she was endearing, to some degree, and i really really wish rogue one— the rogue one that cared about the rest of its cast—cared more about her. because i do believe jyn has potential as a main character, although more on that later, but it was just stomped down by the writing. her dialogue in the first teaser made me So Excited for her but it didn’t even make the cut. instead, the cuts used just made her seem sloppy and unconvincing. 

great introduction tho. as an adult, the jail/running from rescuers scene was a really nice touch. not as nice as cassian’s (a recurring problem), but it was nice.

it’s just that. look, jyn is a burnt down idealist, okay she’s that piece of coal that looks gray and cold but it was still burning on the inside when you stomp it down. she caught on cassian’s rebel fire so easily that i sincerely don’t think she didn’t already harbour some feelings that weren’t Despair and Rage inside about the whole rebellion. but also, like me and a lot of people, she just doesn’t expect anything any more and would gladly live a peaceful life never looking up to see the imperial flags.

except jyn WOULDN’T live a peaceful life, ever. despite herself, she is adventurous and things Matter to her that she can’t ignore and also that child can’t sit down ever i can see it. 

jyn erso: i don’t care about anything ever also jyn erso: *sees a child crying in the middle of a battle and launches herself to save him despite possibility of dying*

look. she’s selfish and terrible and utterly unremarkable. she’s not a leader. she repeats words—i will never not believe the line should’ve been something like “cassian andor told me that rebellions were built on hope and that’s why im here.” instead. but anyway, not my pen—and she is good at surviving and not commanding and idk. she’s a better person than she thinks she is and yes, im probably projecting but also? i don’t care. jyn erso deserved to be better.

and i said i wouldn’t talk about it so CASSIAN

what a. what a man. just. let me stop to contemplate that. i love diego luna. i love cassian andor.

BEST CHARACTER INTRODUCTION EVER. he shot a man?? right there?? he was so?? honestly props to diego luna i could see the resignation, the necessity, the fight. i love cassian andor.

truly The Face of the Rebellion. the face on the ground. the most unintentionally charming man ever. every word he spoke made me feel like he was igniting a fire within me. i wanted to overthrow a government and join a rebellion and believe in things every time he opened his mouth. 

which is, coincidentally, why he was a thousand times a better protagonist than jyn.

listen, im on the fence on whether or not jyn could’ve been a better protagonist than cassian, because her traits are interesting but not usually what i’d think is deserving of the spotlight, but what i got was what i got and cassian was just a really very tired, raging star that completely outshone jyn’s stardust.

the reunion with the counsel and mon mothma and everyone was terrible for me. i know jyn was excited and i believe i can parse why, but honestly why was cassian andor not in that room

why was cassian andor not in every room

but especially why was cassian andor not in that room

and like, i get that he was Gathering Forces and being a good second lead, following his place like always but even after they got on that imperial cargo ship, every word he spoke seemed a thousand times more sincere than what jyn said. her “plan” at the ship, talking to those men who she barely knew, were rendered extremely unsatisfying after cassian’s sincere, brave “make ten men feel a hundred”

i blame the writing. all of jyn’s words could’ve felt better if she had been written the right way. 

but who cares. i am bitter and will be bitter.

i —

okay i was not going to talk about this. but i’ve known diego luna as a household staple, i made fun of him in my youth when he and gael did rudo y cursi (there’s. a story there.), i once auditioned for one of his movies, and like, i knew him beforehand. and i was very angry about a lot of people talking about cassian being mexican, like that mattered at all in space, like it was more important that he was mexican than he was a capable man etc etc but i sort of get it. it does matter. sincerely believe each of us in that movie theatre were a bit shell shocked one of us managed to get all the way there.

maybe it was just me tho. idk. it doesn’t matter. but it was important.

THE JYNCASSIAN THING (a parenthesis)

as you could guess, idk. i dk. i sincerely do not know. if i ship this. but know this, that beach scene? ended me. that elevator scene? ended me further.

now that that parenthesis is closed,

BODHI MY BOY. MY HANDSOME BRAVE BOY.

frankly, his death seemed awfully short to me. if i hadn’t read the bit of the novelization on his last thoughts and thought back on his face, i would’ve been extremely dissatisfied. otherwise. it was fine

on that, the galen erso thing. i just?? he was a little in love. or something. it was complicated. it was a riddle. not even bodhi knew. but his last words... that was something

good thing i do not give a flying fuck about galen erso

anyway. BODHI.

my handsome son, my desperate son, my frantic son. so brave, so smart, so ready, so eager. my boy with the gaunt eyes and the messed up head and the wrecked heart. my boy with the eternal backpack of doubt and guilt. my boy with a shining heart. my boy that looked at himself and couldn’t live with the life behind him.

i love my boy.

i had read before that chirrut and baze were a married couple and i thought, there goes tumblr again overreacting

tumblr. wasn’t. overreacting.

i just honestly?? can’t believe?? they were actually a married couple???

i cannot believe they were childhood sweethearts too

real talk tho, they just. they were an item. they loved each other.

“look into the force and you will find me there”

dying in his lover’s arms, chirrut style.

i just. i can’t believe.

baze was so heartbroken. i could see him thinking about it. i could see him waiting for death with his eyes on chirrut.

he. prayed.

god. somebody.

i cannot really talk about anything else anymore. i don’t even know if this was a plot film, i literally just went in to watch diego luna in space. 

conclusion:

i liked jyn, bite my ass

loved cassian, will marry him, will pay liege homage to him

bodhi rook is my son, i will feed him and take him to bed

baze and chirrut are amazing and in love and im glad

PS: k2 was easily the best droid ever

[beaverla-blog1]

“The Shining” (1980) Review

Welcome back! This is going to be the first full movie review. Hopefully you have already listened to Season 1 – Episode 2 of “Here’s Johnny” and heard what both Justin and I had to say on this film. I am so very happy that this was the first movie we reviewed, not only because it is a personal favorite, but Kubrick is such a brilliant filmmaker and there is so much to dissect with this film. So before we start the review, let’s discuss some of the more important notes about the development and production of this horror classic.

This movie is based off of the novel of the same name, written by Stephen King. After the commercial failure of his last film, Kubrick needed to make a film that would be more financially successful but that would also allow him to flex his artistic ability. He decided to do a horror film, and for inspiration he locked himself in his office with a stack of horror novels and started his way through them. According to his secretary, there were constant slams against the wall as Kubrick discarded whatever book he was reading because it was not what he was looking for. However, the slams stopped and Kubrick emerged hours later with “The Shining” in his hand. According to Kubrick himself, the reason he chose the text was that “there’s something inherently wrong with human personality. There’s an evil side to it. One of the things that horror stories can do is to show us the archetypes of the unconscious, we can see the dark without having to confront it directly” (from Stanley Kubrick: The Complete Films by Paul Duncan). Kubrick did take a lot of artistic variance from the book, and although this allowed him to leave a great deal more to interpretation it also upset some people, including King himself.

A fun note in regards to casting; Kubrick’s top choice was the man who eventually took the role, Jack Nicholson. Others who auditioned for the role included Robert DeNiro, Harrison Ford, and Robin Williams. It blows my mind to try and imagine this movie with Robin Williams playing Jack Torrance. Stephen King is on record saying that he would not have picked any of these actors (B105FM in 2007).

Principal photography took place over a year, and each day is said to have been extremely long. Kubrick is known for his meticulousness and getting the exact shot he sees in his head. This is where some of the stories about the tensions between the actors and Kubrick arise. Kubrick apparently made changes to the script almost daily, and for anyone who has ever acted before it is obvious how frustrating that can be. Nicholson stopped even reading the new scripts and would just memorize lines or improvise right before shooting a scene. Shelly Duvall had an even more difficult time. She and Kubrick constantly argued, over the script, over the delivery of her lines, and her overall acting skills. Allegedly this fighting became so severe that she became physically ill and even started seeing her hair fall out. The scene where Wendy finds Jack’s manuscript was shot many, many times. This was not only due to Kubrick looking for a specific acting performance from Duvall, but also because he had different manuscripts each in a different language and with that language’s version of “all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” (from Chris Hooton at the Independent, January 2017).

“The Shining” was also one of the very first films to use ‘Steadicam’. Steadicam allows a camera operator to maintain a steady shot regardless of his movements or any rough terrain. Garret Brown, the inventor of the Steadicam, was very intrigued by what Kubrick was using his new technology for with this film. So much so, that Brown became heavily involved with the filming and still proclaims the master vision of what Kubrick sought to place on film (from the audio commentary on the 2007 DVD release). The final budget was $19 million and the film made $44.4 million in the box office.

Plot:

I am not going to go into an in-depth discussion of the plot of the film. If you want that, listen to the podcast, go to Wikipedia, or WATCH THE DAMN MOVIE! Needless to say, it’s a great film with a whole lot to discuss. First, I am going to highlight some pros for the film, and then I am going to look at some cons. The film is great. There is a reason why it’s not only considered one of the best horror films, but also one of the best overall films of all time. The script is tight, the acting is brilliant and the tension throughout is palpable. I have also found that the older I get, the more I start to understand what happens to Jack Torrance. When you watch this as a kid, his craziness is scary but hard to relate to. However, as you mature and life starts showing you its hand, it becomes apparent that it would not take too much to take a normal man and turn him crazy. This film is also my favorite kind of horror film, because of how easy it is to see a situation like this taking place in real life.

It is important to note that the plot is not perfect, and those imperfections are far more apparent when watching the film critically. The injury timeline is a little screwy. Wendy tells the doctor at the beginning of the film that Jack hurt Danny five months prior to the start of the movie. However, when Jack is telling the ghostly bartender Lloyd about why his wife hates him, he says the injury took place three years prior to the events in the film. Although it can be explained away that Jack is starting to lose his grip on reality and his view on time is screwed up. And Kubrick is not one to let an error like that fly. But it is never addressed as such and I truly believe it was an oversight. I also feel that Dick Halloran was wasted as a character. I truly don’t see the reason why they brought him all the way from Miami just to kill him. He doesn’t even get to interact with any of the characters and his arc never develops. The film would have been better off having some random forest ranger come up and see what was going on at The Overlook. The furry scene is another that I find out of place. There isn’t a lot of setup for it, and it doesn’t fit in with the rest of the ghostly sights Wendy is seeing as she flees the hotel. It is iconic, I just don’t think it is necessary. Next, I feel the use of the N word is unnecessary. It might be that living in 2018, the word is so far from normal context that when I heard it used in the film I was immediately taken out of the scene. I also don’t think they can even use the excuse “it was a different time” because the film was released in 1980 and it was already established that it was taboo. Finally, my biggest problem is how fast Jack devolved mentally. The film had five months to play with, and for some reason they decided to use less than two for Jack to completely lose his mind. I think that the film would have been better suited to allow more time to pass to make Jack’s devolution make more sense.

With all this in mind, I gave plot 8.5 out of 10.

Cinematography:

I believe that this is one of the best films to use when justifying Kubrick’s genius as a filmmaker. There are three scenes in particular that I find illustrate this best. The first is the opening scene, with Jack driving up to The Overlook. It is shot from a helicopter, and shows Jack’s car driving on the mountain roads, surrounded by nothing but wilderness. It lets the audience know right away, without any need to speak words, that the family is isolated and that there is NO ONE around. The second scene takes place after Wendy finds Jack’s manuscript and his craziness is brought to light. Jack has his back to the large windows in the room and since this scene takes place midday, his face is hidden in the shadow. Wendy however is facing the windows and the light is illuminating her. And it’s as simple as that. Jack is shadowy because he is no longer the man we first met, and Wendy is in the light because she is finally seeing what the hotel has done to her husband. It’s a brilliant piece of directorship. Finally, the last scene that I really feel show why this film is a work of cinematic genius is when Jack is cutting down the bathroom door. The film is shot with Steadicam, so throughout the rest of the movie there are no shaky shots. But when Jack’s axe hits the door, the camera shakes. Each time. This is used to make the audience FEEL how hard Jack is hitting the door through camera work. It is so flawless, that the audience may not even notice.

This is why I give cinematography a 10 out of 10.

Audio:

I also strongly feel that the overall audio of this film is exquisite. One scene that illustrates this is Danny riding his tricycle throughout the hotel. When he is riding on the carpet, it is quiet. But the moment he hits the hard wood, the sound changes. It is abrupt but it is what it would sound like in real life. And again, when Danny goes from the hard wood onto the carpet it is silent again. It would have been so easy to ignore this, but Kubrick knows how important it is to hit the small details. Another audio aspect that I love is the main score. It is brilliant. If for some reason you don’t know it, go listen to it on YouTube. It will speak for itself. I also really enjoyed the “buzzing” that takes place periodically throughout the film. The buzzing will build throughout the scene, and sometimes it will lead to a scare and other times it will lead to nothing. It keeps the audience constantly guessing about what is actually going to happen. The last thing that I think is very important when discussing the audio quality of this film is Jack Nicholson’s delivery. At the start of the film he is articulate and charming. As the film goes on and Jack loses his mind, his speech devolves as well. Ultimately, he is reduced to grunts and screams.

Not surprisingly I gave audio a 10 out of 10.

How Scary is it?

When discussing how scary this film is to me, I feel I have to talk about how scary I found it when I was a kid and then as an adult. The first time I watched this movie, the horror came from the things that were scary to Danny. It is very easy to see how the events that take place in the movie could scare a kid. A rotting corpse attacking you in an abandoned room, two little girls that want you to play with them forever and ever and sometimes appear chopped into bits. Blood rushing down an elevator shaft and filling the hallway. And probably most terrifying of all, your father wanting to murder you. I think every son has a very basic fear that they are not good enough for their dad, and to have it realized in such a malevolent way is brutal for a young kid watching this movie.

As an adult, the fear comes from seeing what happens to Jack. It would be terrifying to be isolated in such a manner as the family is in this film. And to not only be isolated, but to feel yourself losing your grip on reality. To start questioning what is going on around you. To have your wife blame you for something you (think) you could never do again. And probably most basic of all, not being able to trust the one you love while dealing with all of this. This may not be the same kind of fear one experiences when watching a movie like “The Conjuring”, but the fear is one you feel deep in within yourself.

But even with all of that this movie is not all that scary, and modern technology prevents a modern audience from relating as well. Internet and cell phones make the idea of isolation seem so foreign, even when stuck on a snowy mountain.

This is why I rated this section the lowest. 7 out of 10.

Final Grade:

Out of 40, I scored “The Shining” 35.5. This gives the film an 89%, or a B+ which I feel it richly deserves. Even though the film may not be all that scary, the cinematography and acting make it more than worth the dollar it takes to rent on Amazon.

[mrmichaelchadler]

Milos Forman: 1932-2018

Milos Forman, the Czech-born filmmaker who helped revolutionize cinema in his home country before moving to America and becoming one of its most celebrated directors as well, has died. The man behind such celebrated films as “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” (1975) and “Amadeus” (1984), both of which won Oscars for Best Picture and earned him prizes for Best Director, passed away from what was described as a short illness at the age of 86 at his home in Connecticut. Mixing together surreal humor, documentary techniques and an interesting blend of cynicism and affection, Forman helped put Czech cinema on the map. When he applied those same techniques to the projects produced in his adopted country, the result was some of the most incisive, knowing and most profoundly American films of his era.

He was born Jan Tomas Forman on February 18, 1932 in Caslav, Czechoslovakia. Both of his parents were killed at Auschwitz and he spent a large portion of his childhood in a boarding school for war orphans. (After the war, he would learn that his actual biological father had survived the way.) Having at one point thought to become a theatrical producer, Forman enrolled in the newly established Film Institute at the University of Prague in the early 1950s, a period that saw him working alongside such future names as director Ivan Passer and cinematographer Miroslav Ondricek (who would work with Forman on a number of films both in Czechoslovakia and America). After graduating, he began making short documentaries and first got some notice for “Audition” (1963), a film intertwining brass bands rehearsing for a contest and young people preparing for a theater audition.

In the early '60s, the Czech government began a series of cultural reforms aimed at easing controls over what artists could say and do in their work. Forman took full advantage of this by creating a series of films, beginning with “Black Peter” (1964), which commented on the lives of ordinary people with a filmmaking that combined a documentary-like style (including the use of improvisation and non-professional actors) with a biting and deeply anti-establishment sense of humor. His first great success was “Loves of a Blonde” (1965), which followed the story of a small town woman working at a shoe factory who shares a night with a soldier that she meets at a dance and then follows to Prague in the hopes of a longer-lasting relationship. The movie was a success around the world, earned an Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Language Film and helped launch the Czech New Wave. 

Forman's follow-up, “The Fireman’s Ball” (1967, pictured above), was even better—a brilliant satire of the Communist state in which a volunteer fire department attempts to throw a party for their one-time boss on his birthday with disastrous results. Although it hits its satiric targets with pinpoint accuracy, it is never cruel towards its characters and indeed, there is a certain sweetness and sympathy to Forman’s approach that prevents it from degenerating into a mere screed. While “The Fireman’s Ball” was another international success and received an Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Language Film, politicians in Czechoslovakia were not amused by the film and it would go on to be banned in the wake of the Soviet invasion of 1968. At that time, Forman happened to be in Paris in negotiations for his first U.S. production and after realizing that the artistic freedoms that he once had were no more, he elected to emigrate to America.

His first U.S. film, “Taking Off” (1971) was an extension of his Czech films, a counter-culture comedy about the generation gap centered on a middle-aged couple (Buck Henry and Lynn Carlin) whose search for their runaway daughter leads to hilarious efforts to understand both their child and themselves. Although not quite as funny as his previous efforts—and more than a little dated when seen today—it is an interesting attempt to transplant his style into an American context and he once again demonstrates a surprising degree of affection towards characters that others might have looked at only as a source of scorn and ridicule. While it good reviews, “Taking Off” was not a financial success. One person who did take notice of it, however, was actor Michael Douglas. For years, his father, Kirk, had owned the rights to Ken Kesey’s famous counter-cultural novel “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” and had struggled to make a film of it. After his father passed the rights on to him, he made a new effort to get the film made and felt that Forman’s humorous yet humane directorial voice was the right one to capture the book’s tricky tone. 

At this point I must confess that as a film, “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” has always left me somewhat cold. This is not to say that it is not a well-made film containing excellent performances from Jack Nicholson as Randall P. McMurphy, a rebellious criminal faking insanity in the hopes of serving time in a mental ward instead of prison, Louise Fletcher as Nurse Ratched, the autocratic head nurse that he bumps heads with and a supporting cast including such then-unknowns as Danny DeVito, Brad Dourif, Will Sampson and Christopher Lloyd. That said, the film went on to become a smash hit around the world, becoming the only the second of three films to date to win the top five Oscars (Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay) and is regularly enshrined in lists of the greatest American films of all time.

In a position where he could pretty much make any film that he wanted to as a follow-up, Forman raised eyebrows when it was announced that his next project would be a film version of the hit off-Broadway musical “Hair” (1979). In making a film of this particular show, Forman would be facing a number of unavoidable hurdles—the stage version was not exactly strong on narrative and the immediacy that it had for audiences during its initial stage run would inevitably be lost and transform any film version into a period piece. In bringing it to the screen, Forman and screenwriter Michael Weller made a number of significant changes that strengthened the story, in which a young man from Oklahoma (John Savage) visiting New York City for a couple of days before reporting for military duty falls in with a group of hippies led by the charismatic Berger (Treat Williams), while changing or omitting some of the songs. How one feels about the film depends largely on their feelings towards the original show. Many who loved it on stage felt that Forman missed the essence of the show and transformed it into a garishly overproduced dud that lacked any real connection to either the show or the movement that inspired it. On the other hand, while the film is undeniably uneven, Forman does indeed show some affinity for the counter-culture, no doubt inspired by his own youth living in an oppressive regime, and he presents the big musical numbers with a bold exuberance that extends far beyond the period trappings. 

For his next film, Forman signed on for another adaptation of a deeply American story that many felt simply could not be adequately brought to the screen. This was “Ragtime” (1981), the film version of E.L. Doctorow’s 1975 historical novel that weaved together a number of plot threads that mixed real and fictional characters together to create a panoramic view of life in New York City in the early years of the 20th century. For many observers, the only person who could possibly turn it into a film was Robert Altman, who was actually scheduled to do it until he was fired by producer Dino De Laurentis. Rather than try to juggle all the storylines, Forman, reuniting with Michael Weller, chose to focus on one key story—the tale of Coalhouse Walker Jr. (Howard Rollins Jr.), a piano player who is radicalized when the men working under a racist fire chief deliberately destroy his car and his attempts to seek justice are rebuffed—while reducing the others to bits and pieces in the background or eliminating them entirely.

The reaction to this film was mixed—it got good but not great reviews, it received eight Oscar nominations but no actual awards and it proved to be a non-starter at the box-office, at least in part because it had the misfortune to open at the same time as such other high-profile period pieces as “Chariots of Fire” and “Reds” and got lost in the shuffle. And yet, if I had to name one Forman film as my favorite, “Ragtime” might well be the one. Although it necessarily lacks the scope of the original novel, Forman nevertheless manages to distill the feel of the book into a narrative that allows him to fully explore, embrace and excoriate his new home in all of its aspects, good and bad. His recreation of turn-of-the-century New York is exquisite without being overwhelming and the score by Randy Newman is a thing of beauty. He also gets strong work from a massive cast that includes everyone from then-newcomers like Rollins, Elizabeth McGovern and Mandy Patinkin to legends like Donald O’Connor, Pat O’Brien and James Cagney, who came out of a 20-year retirement to portray the police commissioner desperately trying to bring the situation to a close. Largely forgotten today, this film is a genuine treasure and one that is ripe for rediscovery.

Forman had more success with his next project, the screen version of “Amadeus” (1984), his adaptation of the Peter Shaffer play that he had been enamored with after being invited to see what proved to be its first public preview. On paper, the story of Antonio Salieri (F. Murray Abraham), the technically proficient and duly celebrated Italian composer and member of the court of Emperor Joseph II, and the jealous rage that he develops towards Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Tom Hulce), a younger and far less refined rival who he recognizes as having been touched with the kind of genuine artistic genius that he himself has been denied, sounds like a dull bit of Oscar bait featuring a bunch of actors capering about in an array of elaborate wigs and costumes. Instead, Forman, who wound up filming most of it in Czechoslovakia, found the heart of the material—that Salieri is less a villain than a tragic figure in the way he is forced to recognize his own mediocrity in comparison to Mozart—and presented in a direct and straightforward manner that made it accessible to audiences of all stripes. The result was a worldwide hit that put Mozart back on the album charts, earned a slew of awards that included eight Oscars, including Best Director, Best Actor for Abraham (Hulce was one of his competitors in the category) and Best Picture, and is now considered to be one of the all-time great films.

His next film, “Valmont” (1989), was an adaptation of Choderlos de Laclos’s famous 1782 novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses. Unfortunately, his retelling of the story of a scheming widow (Annette Being) who bets her caddish lover (Colin Firth) that he cannot seduce a recently married and exceedingly virtuous woman (Meg Tilly) landed in theaters a few months after another version of the story, the hit 1988 film "Dangerous Liaisons." While Forman's version did deviate from both that film and the book in some key instances, it quickly disappeared from theaters. And though “Dangerous Liaisons” is definitely the better film, Forman’s take is not without interest as well, thanks to its more direct approach to the material, the sumptuous production design and a performance by Bening. 

For his next film, “The People Vs. Larry Flynt” (1996), Forman took one of the more potentially dubious cinematic concepts imaginable—a biopic of the controversial pornographer that chronicled his struggles with both the law and the religious right. Aided by a fantastic script by Larry Karaszewski & Scott Alexander and great performances by Woody Harrelson as Flynt, Edward Norton as his harried lawyer and rocker Courtney Love as his doomed love, Forman transformed it into a genuinely heartfelt celebration of the First Amendment and the right to free speech. It's a film that could have perhaps only been made by someone who knew what it was like to live in a world where such rights were not always a given. Controversial upon its release and not especially successful at the box office, it won the Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festival and earned Forman his third and final Oscar nomination. 

1999's “Man on the Moon” found Forman offering viewers another examination of American culture as seen through the eyes of one of its most unusual practitioners, surreal comedian Andy Kaufman. Working once again from a screenplay by Karaszewski & Alexander, Forman clearly sees Kaufman as a riff on Mozart, a genius whose artistic brilliance was largely misunderstood in its day, except only in its broadest and most obvious applications (such as his immaculate Elvis impression and his work as the adorable Latka on “Taxi”), and is still fresh, vital and controversial today. The film essentially winds up becoming a collection of bits that don’t quite add up, but those bits are entertaining enough to watch thanks to Jim Carrey’s incredible and eerily convincing transformation into Kaufman (not to mention alter ego Tony Clifton) and Forman’s obvious affection for Kaufman himself. (Be sure to check out “Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond,” a 2017 Netflix documentary that chronicles the behind-the-scenes chaos that went into the making of “Man on the Moon” that offers glimpses of Forman at work and trying to deal with his beyond-Method star.)

Forman's last movie was “Goya’s Ghosts” (2006), a not-entirely-successful historical drama involving painter Francisco Goya (Stellan Skarsgard) and his attempts to save a young woman (Natalie Portman) from the clutches of the Spanish Inquisition when she is arrested for heresy. There were other film projects over the years that were announced but never came to fruition but Forman always had something to do even when not working on his own projects. He was named a professor emeritus of film at Columbia University. In 1994, he published his autobiography, Turnaround, and it is a must-read for anyone interested in his career. He appeared before the camera in small roles in “Heartburn” (1986) and “Keeping the Faith” (2000) and there were also the usual array of accolades from around the world celebrating his life and work. Needless to say, Forman deserved all of them and many more for his artistic contributions to the country that he made his home. As anyone who watches his films can readily attest, we were lucky to have him.

from All Content https://ift.tt/2GYHPcq