30 Years in 30 Days - Cinema's personal impact

So for something overall a little different here on Cinebriated (being that I’m posting something unrelated to movies or spirits… let alone something at all), yet for me specifically, this exercise does indirectly relate to the movie subject matter.

Let’s just get this elephant out of the way:  I recently* turned 30!!! 

*recently apparently means 11 months ago… which arguably mean I’m now well into my thirties...

In anticipation of this milestone, I proceeded to embark on an exercise wherein each day for 30 days up ‪until August 24th (aka the big day) I wrote about a year of my life: what I remember, what I learned, and what I’ve recalled accomplishing overall.  This started with the year of my birth (Year 1) which you’d expect to be lacking in content, but it surprising set some standards I still see today.

As I got closer to the big day I started to lack in my efforts reporting on years 28, 29 and 30, but a few weeks after the milestone I finally caught up.  I've since reevaluated these notes/years in an effort to learn from them.

Two points that stuck out from the beginning that seem to be constants include:

• Travel: at age 0.95 there exists video footage taken by my folks of me in Pioneer Park in Walla Walla, WA, walking away from the camera.  As they continue recording and commenting on the marvel (“look at Ed go!”) they realize I’m getting further and further away from them. I think I just wanted to see what was going on downtown that day... and explore

• Cinema: I was supposedly a noisy kid and my parents usually just accepted it.  However after watching Back to the Future on Betamax, they noticed I was completely mesmerized.  After attempting to repeat the effect with other films, they realized only a time machine built out of a DeLorean would capture my imagination, at least at the time.  Nevertheless, this was I believe the starting point for my love affair with cinema

Now I was thinking I should put all my personal info in this post, but that could be utterly ridiculous as you would lack the context to understand all the details, be bored out of your minds and possible slightly disturbed by my ramblings.  Instead, I thought I would give you some general observations I had an maybe even convince you (Mom of the potential usefulness of the exercise).  I didn't anticipate this helping anyone besides myself, but thought it would be worth sharing as anyone at any age could try this in an effort to reflect on their life up until a certain point.  Also many of my contempararies are still going through the process of turning 30, so maybe this will assist.  I see it helping in the following ways:

• Guidance: providing an understanding of where you've been, and where you're going.  It can help to understand what you really appreciate, or what you should definitely avoid

• Personality: learn more about who you are from an outside perspective.  This can give you the chance to accentuate things you might like, or diminsh traits that aren't so welcome.  Of course, maybe you're the way you are for a reason and shouldn't jump to immedietly change necessarily 

• Growth: we all want growth in finances and wealth, but do we ever look at ourselves?  Sometimes they come together but not always.  If you haven’t been growing personally, what is the problem?

• Nostalgia: remembering old times isn’t so bad, and you may want to rekindle friendships or build your relationship with people currently active in your life

Out of all this, I’ve taken to heart that I should focus my endeavors on travel and cinema as best as possible.  

How will I use this...That year 1 constant has to be tested more: travel and cinema.  Better question: will you use it?

A Brief Treatise on the Aspect Ratios and Artistic Integrity of Film

The many different aspect ratios of film has always been one of my favorite “inside” knowledge things about movies. It's one of those things that if you're a casual movie goer you may notice but not really fixate on or really think about how that ratio may influence the film as a whole. Once you start to dissect, study and admire film more than the average person it will be one of the first things you'll notice upon watching a movie for the first time. The aspect ratio and format of a movie can tell you many things about what you're going to be watching such as when it was made, what cameras were used, what kind of movie it's going to be, what artistic vision the filmakers were shooting for and so much more.

Now this isn't as common of a problem as it was maybe five, ten or fifteen years ago but when coming a cross a movie on TV or picking out a DVD or good ol' VHS you'd often have to settle for watching a "full screen" version of the movie. Often times to fit a rectangle on your (then mostly) square TV they'd lop off the sides of the picture and use a process of pan-and-scan to essentially redirect the film. This clip from Turner Classic Movies should illustrate what I'm talking about:

I love this TCM video clip, I've used it before myself to illustrate to others the importance of seeing a film in its original aspect ratio as the filmmakers intended. While sometimes the aspect ratio may be a result of when the film was made and the technology involved it is becoming more prevalent for directors and cinematographers to play around with aspect ratios for aesthetic, artistic and storytelling purposes.  

A couple of recent examples that come to mind are director Christopher Nolan's two later Batman flicks, The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, in which he decided to shoot several action segments of the movies with IMAX cameras. IMAX cameras, if you aren't familiar with them, are made specifically for creating film to be used for IMAX theaters which have an absolutely massive screen and typically use a hearty 1:43:1 which means you are seeing an immersive 40% more than you would with a standard theater screen. It's kind of cool when you watch either of these two movies on DVD or Blu-ray on your HDTV at home and if you pay attention you'll notice the aspect ration actually change during the movie. The last James Bond movie, Skyfall, also had a special IMAX release as it was shot with a larger aspect ratio in mind than regular theaters use. While the IMAX version is the exact same movie that was shown in regular theaters there was an extra 20% of the picture added back in to the top and bottom of the frame, kind of imagine if you're watching a letterboxed movie and the black bars were actually just replaced with the rest of the picture. So you better believe I drove six hours round trip to an IMAX theater to get you this review from a couple years ago!

Those are contemporary examples that come to mind when I think about the importance of aspect ratios but in the case of older films I think it's a cinematic sin to go in an pan-and-scan in order to fit it on a tv screen. Like the TCM clip illustrates I can't imagine watching an epic like Lawrence of Arabia or a musical like Seven Brides for Seven Brothers just knowing that I'm not getting the full picture the original filmmakers intended. Rather than watching an essentially "redirected" movie, in which someone retroactively selected what is important in the frame and cut off the rest and in doing messed with the vision of the original filmmakers and wasn't thinking artistically but economically as they tried to resize a movie into a square space, you should always seek out that pure widescreened goodness. I understand the want to use the full screen of your TV, I also understand that this is slowly becoming an antiquated problem now that TVs come in a more cinematic friendly rectangle, but I'll always choose letterbox over pan-and-scan, I guess I'm kind of a sucker for artistic integrity. 

If you want a cool, more indepth, play-by-play look at the history and evolution of the aspect ratios in movies and have twenty minutes to kill I recommend checking out this video by FilmmakerIQ on the subject.

Too late ...

Watch Netflix's new original series "House of Cards" now!

So this new Netflix exclusive show "House of Cards" is pretty damn great, I'm seriously impressed. I suppose it was only a matter of time before Netflix cut out the middle man but they knocked it out of the park with this show. But besides being the flagship for Netflix exclusive content what is this show specifically about?

"House of Cards" is kind of like the intrigue of All the Presidents Men, the speed of "The West Wing" and a Shakespearean level of revenge had a love-child and somehow we find a gleefully vindictive Kevin Spacey at the center of an expanding web of political deceit and debauchery. Probably my favorite aspect of the show (a reimagining of the brilliant 1990 BBC mini-series of the same name) so far is how Spacey is constantly breaking the 4th wall with a level of smugness only he could pull off. You both want to punch him in the face and admire him, I'm hooked!

It's good, real good and I know I'm bordering on gushing now but bear with me a little longer. Netflix is so confident in this show that they are making the first episode available free online even if you're not already a subscriber (who isn't these days though?) but be careful, you'll want more.

~ Watch the first episode of "House of Cards" directed by David Fincher! ~

Oh, and if you do have Netflix all 13 episodes of the first season are available to watch right away! I really like this business model, screw waiting a week between episodes, that's sooooo TV. I'm already seven episodes into the first season and can't stop ... even if Netflix checks in and concernedly asks every couple of hours to see if I'm still alive and watching.

A Cinebriated Christmas Playlist

Ah December, the time of eggnog, eggnog with brandy, eggnog with tequila, mistletoe, family, friends, carols, and eggnog with Dr. Pepper and brandy (sounds sick, but don't knock it until you try it).  Despite all these fantastic traditions, one cannot (necessarily) transcend that of Christmas movies.  Everyone has their favorites (annoyingly almost always A Christmas Story, which I generally enjoy but have as of late been overexposed to it) while others have what they think are “favorites” but are truly terrible (I’m looking at you Deck the Halls).   In what I hope becomes a regular section on the site, we’ll look at my (the) playlist of top films related to a theme/idea/anything, as emulated by my not-so-vague title “Sugar On My Tongue” (another Talking Heads song). 

As you have hopefully deciphered by now, we’ll look at my (the) top 3 Christmas movies, especially relevant during the Holidays.

Qualifications:

• I personally had to appreciate, respect, and enjoy the film
• It had to revolve around the holiday of Christmas (not just take place around the period) and yet be more than just a movie about the holidays
• I appreciate viewing the film every year
• No two films would be alike except for the Christmas factor

There were quite a few films that came close to making the list including The Ice Harvest, Trapped In Paradise, and It’s A Wonderful Life, and Joyeux Noel, but the following are the key films for my playlist:

3.  Die Hard (1988)

Now right off the bat this may have some detractors. After all, how can one of the greatest American action pictures be a Christmas movie?  Besides the fact that the whole film takes place on Christmas Eve/Day, we hear musical inklings by the great Michael Kamen, Santa Clause symbolized by a dead terrorist, and Alan Rickman arguably channeling The Grinch (though… Rickman as Hans Gruber is actually likable, and The Grinch doesn’t die).  With hero John McClane reuniting with his estranged wife at the end, we see the positive message of family togetherness that every Christmas movie tries to relay.  As superbly entertaining as it is, Die Hard provides a much needed respite from the all too sentimental surroundings we are bombarded with over the holidays.  Come December 20^th, I need a little profanity.

2.  National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation (1987)

Probably seen by myself every holiday since the film’s inception, Christmas Vacation takes care of the necessary comedy fulfillment with humor at times utterly ridiculous and yet completely relatable.  Making the most realistic (also best in my humble opinion) Vacation movie in the series, John Hughes also succeeds by bringing his talented combination of wonderful hilarity and relatively reserved sappiness to the writing/production table.  Of course I’d be remiss without mentioning the creation of a fully memorable character roundup, with Cousin Eddie (Randy Quaid) stealing every scene he’s in.  Right around December 21^st to 22^nd, this brings the fun.   

1.  A Christmas Carol (1984) 

This is obviously a story that makes sense to be at number 1.  Specifically however, I’m naming the 1984 version starring George C. Scott as the clear victor among the plethora of interpretations of this Dickens novel.  With respect towards those film versions with Alastair Sims and the Muppets, Scott delivers the goods as a much more believable, less theatrical Ebenezer Scrooge.  Besides our lead, the story itself is presented in a wonderfully realistic and appropriately suspenseful manner, while maintaining the joy and catharsis delivered in this tale known by so many.  The direction is top notch, and the musical score makes you wonder how this could’ve only ever been a “Made-For-TV” movie.  Being the top film of my playlist, this is definitely meant to be viewed on the 23^rd, or Christmas Eve pending family/religious activities.

Drink of Choice:  Eggnog, Brandy, Eggnog with Brandy, or Mulled Wine.  Check the drinks page for more info!

"Speaking in Tongues" - HIGHLANDER

There can only be ONE Highlander!!!....by Toyota!

Going a little low brow for a change, I decided that I finally needed to watch the esteemed (misnomer?) classic, Highlander.  Only knowing there were some movies, a television series, and that “There Can Only Be One” (thanks Dane Cook), I ignorantly dived in head first.  I'll mainly focus on the first two in the series, both being directed by Russel Mulcahy, a prolific video/ad director from Australia.  While I was excited about the first film, I feared for the remainder of the series and its effects on me.

Fear was justified.

Highlander (1986)

Color me surprised to find this classic actually may be self-aware; Immortals fighting each other to the death, Queen pop music, Scotsman Sean Connery as a Spaniard (say “Mucho Gusto” in a Connery accent) and Christopher Lambert’s hilariously smart ass laugh (as seen here) make for a fairly fun time with what could amount to an overly serious existential crisis.  It is ridiculous enough that after the mysterious opening scene (not yet knowing about this awesome “Prize” everyone fights for) the only thing left in the movie is to take it for fun; there’s hardly any reality to it.  While at times there exists borderline terrible dialogue (Lambert’s Conner MacLeod wins here) and unique but misplaced camera work (constantly giving a fish eye lens effect) I couldn’t help but find this film to be a decent gem from the 80s (and it’s cleary dated as such, what with Director Mulcahy’s music video background). As much as I enjoyed it, the interesting premise could be even more interesting as the overly serious existential romp. 

Highlander II: The Quickening (1990)

Going into this film I had many colleagues warn me of the peril I was about to face.  However, the version that is supposedly worse than Gigli is the theatrical cut; I watched the “Renegade Cut” developed by Mulcahy in 1995 (apparently his “vision” was screwed with by greedy producers).  If perchance you haven’t ever viewed this piece of cinema, people loathe it because it seems to neglect any of the logic the first film presented: the Immortals are actually (arguable) aliens from another planet (though in this version they’re supposedly from a different time on Earth…shit be confusing) it takes place in a ridiculous future with a shield around the Earth (not really an issue related to the first film, but still) and if an Immortal get two kills within a span of a few minutes, Sean Connery can come back to life.  Even with a slightly incomprehensible plot (and a downright anticlimactic ending) I cannot deny I was more entertained than the first film.  I have no idea how this story was pitched, but props must be given to those that thought up the premise; it required quite an imagination.

Highlander III: The Final Dimension (1994)

Number three was supposed to be a return to form (it had a form?) for the Highlander series, completely ignoring what happened in the second film and only bringing Christopher Lambert back to the party (new director, no more Scottish-Egyptian-Spaniards).  “Grounded” is the first term that comes to mind regarding this film, as it does bring us back to a more relatable world.  The visuals and production design give us a believable setting, and the story of an ancient warlord Immortal who has been buried for centuries only to return now has its moments.  However, besides a few decent fight scenes, and the fact that the plot gives us a gorgeous yet believable archeologist (I dig Deborah Kara Unger) it’s fairly pointless, lacking in the vitality and fun departments.  Considering fun was one of the factors I enjoyed about the previous films, color me a sad panda face.

Tidbit: I’m positive there was no mention of a “Dimension”, let alone one that is “Final”, making the title the most fun aspect of this movie.

Highlander: Endgame (aka Why Didin’t I Stop Earlier?!?!?!)

Getting to the point in the series when roman numerals and numbers are no longer cool, we find the symbiosis (or lack there of) of the film franchise with the television series (almost forgot about this one) because well, Christopher Lambert was getting old (a guess, but it seems logical and I don’t really care either way).  Maybe I need to delve into some episodes to understand its mythology (I won’t have time to get my nails done though) but apparently it went in a different direction than the film franchise.  Basically we get Adrian Paul (Duncan MacLeod of the TV world) and Lambert’s MacLeod as buddies dealing with some asshole Immortal (like in every other film) who wants to take over the world.  Christopher Lambert is acting emo, Adrian Paul is a love struck fool…oh hell, need I say more?  Poor qualities including shoddy camera work, careless story development, horrid acting, and loose (if any) connections with the previous films make a dull non-entry in my opinion, completely lacking in fun. 

On a positive note, the music is interesting.  

This being the final film with Lambert’s character, I knew I could finally stop here (even though the series apparently lives on in the home video world).  Until the supposed remake with Ryan Reynolds (which I’m mildly excited for, due to the potential focus on existential angst) the only thing I’ll be missing is Lambert’s ridiculous laugh. 

Tidbit:  There are four damn movies; I thought “There Can Only Be One”?!