Sunday, December 20, 2009

Best Movie Posters of 2009


December has been interesting so far. There was a week of being sick. Then an especially crazy week of work. Then came 20 inches of snow, which delayed my trip west and led to nine hours on hold with airlines (no exaggeration), all but two of which turned out to be entirely unnecessary. And tomorrow I get to try traveling again, now with a connection through O'Hare. Put it all together and I feel I have quite a bit to rant about. But instead let's celebrate the best posters of 2009, which as a whole don't impress me as much as those of 2008, but there are some goodies in the bunch. Enjoy.










Saturday, December 12, 2009

Speed and Swagger: The U


From 1983 to 1991, no college football program was as dominant as the one at the University of Miami. Over nine seasons, the Hurricanes won four national titles – including two perfect seasons – and they were this close to two others. And yet what defined those Miami teams, even then, wasn’t all the winning so much as they way the Hurricanes won – with speed, intensity, relentlessness, intimidation and unrestrained swagger (read: showboating). It’s fitting then that Billy Corben’s documentary about the de facto "Team of the 80s" doesn’t just remember its subject but also resembles it. The U, the seventh entry in ESPN Films’ “30 for 30” series, is confident, unrelenting, overpowering and fast, fast, fast. How fast? The U was three quarters of the way through before I realized that it was going to wind up being twice the length of the other “30 for 30” films thus far.

Given that Corben’s documentary has more time in which to tell its story, it’s no surprise that The U is the most comprehensive film in the series. What is a surprise is that The U is so compelling despite resorting to the sports documentary equivalent of Student Body Right and Student Body Left. Corben’s film is little more than 101 minutes of archival sports highlights paired with recent talking-head interviews. There’s nothing fancy about its approach. But as so often happens on the playing field, speed wins the day. The U is as incessant as a no-huddle offense. One interview leads to the next, leads to the next, leads to the next. Boom, boom, boom. Most of the interview subjects are former Hurricanes players whose anecdotes and reminiscences flow together like song lyrics – without punctuation and as if they know the words by heart. The U isn’t notably cinematic, but it’s a triumph of film editing.

It’s also good solid journalism, authored by a reporter savvy enough to recognize the magnetism of his subjects stay the heck out of the way. When I say that one can’t detect Corben’s presence in the picture, I’m not simply referring to his lack of screen time. What I’m talking about is that not one of these interviews feels directed. In fact, they hardly feel like interviews, which require two active participants. More like confessionals. Some of the best journalism seems to write itself, and The U has a similar appeal. As eager as the Hurricanes were to detail their greatness back in the 80s, the former players and coaches captured here might be even more eager now. Each interview – and there are more than 20 subjects – is a solo, and yet The U feels like a reunion. The camaraderie of the men is felt in the way they seem to finish one another’s sentences.

You’ll find it hard not to like these guys, and that’s the biggest surprise of all. Because few, if any, college football teams have ever been as despised as the 80s-era Hurricanes. People hated them because they were dominant, because they were cocky, because they seemed to have no concept of sportsmanship, because they were always in fights, because their roster included guys with criminal records, because they were ferocious and, oh yeah, because they were mostly African-American. Not everyone hated them for all of those reasons, of course, but most sports fans outside of Miami loathed the Hurricanes for something. The Hurricanes knew this and embraced it, and it’s interesting to see just how much of their “us against the world” mentality came from the second coach of that era, Jimmy Johnson. Johnson says in The U that he identified with the Miami players, having been the first in his family to go to college, and maybe that’s true. But bank on this: Johnson identified that taunting, hard-hitting, mask-wearing black men scared the shit out of a lot of white folk. Competitively speaking, it was to the Hurricanes’ advantage to be despised.

That Johnson giggles while recalling the behavior of a team that engaged in a lot of unquestionably unsportsmanlike behavior, and that he indeed seems to have no remorse about actually encouraging such antics, will remind people why the Hurricanes were so genuinely contemptible. (And remember, Johnson wasn’t even the “players’ coach” of that era. That was his successor, Dennis Erickson.) But The U doesn’t have to work very hard to remind us how much of the anti-Miami sentiment was influenced by race. The clearest example comes from highlights of the Hurricanes’ 1985 matchup with Notre Dame. After getting out to an early lead, Miami never stopped passing, even when the reserves took the field. The final score was 58-7. Excessive? Sure. Unsportsmanlike? Maybe. Criminal? Hardly. The Hurricanes were playing mighty Notre Dame. If the score had been reversed, few would have cried for the ‘Canes. But when the largely black squad recruited from low-income neighborhoods took it to the white Catholic kids, the commentators on CBS acted like they were watching a grown man kicking a puppy down the street.

The U never pretends that some of the disdain for the Hurricanes wasn’t deserved, because it was. Where there were no rules, the ‘Canes made them necessary. Where there were rules, the ‘Canes broke them. Corben’s film confronts this. It goes into the famous fatigues incident prior to the 1987 Fiesta Bowl. It details 2 Live Crew rapper Luther Campbell giving money to players in violation of NCAA regulations. It even touches on some of the players’ criminal entanglements off the field. It does this openly and, because these stories often come from the transgressors themselves, somewhat lightheartedly. And that’s enough. These Miami teams have been condemned plenty. The U makes sure the Hurricanes get their just due. You needn’t embrace those teams to recognize that they sometimes got a raw deal. You needn’t condone their behavior to realize that maybe you kind of miss them. For better or worse, the 80s-era Hurricanes were undeniably compelling. Still are.


The U premieres tonight on ESPN at 9 pm ET, and will rerun frequently thereafter. The Cooler will be reviewing each film in the “30 for 30” series upon its release. The next "30 for 30" picture won't be released until March 14.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Where the Sun Don't Ever Shine: The Road


The Road begins where movies like Roland Emmerich’s 2012 leave off. Based on a novel by Cormac McCarthy, the film is set in a world of utter devastation. Skies are charcoal gray. Trees are bare and decaying. Ash covers the ground in many places and in others the few remaining bits of dry foliage wait to become tinder for the next wildfire. Earth as we know is falling apart – has fallen apart – and this time no near escapes, or cute remarks or fantastical CGI spectacles can distract from the ugly truth. Within this dreary landscape walk a father and son, defying the odds by scouring for their sustenance at a time when the best way to survive is to feast on other survivors. Together they roam, south by southeast, toward the sea, not because there’s any solid reason to think that things are better there but because things can only get worse where they are. Triumphantly, they are alive. But are they living?

That question seems to be the one at the heart of John Hillcoat’s film from a screenplay by Joe Penhall. Viggo Mortensen plays the father and Kodi Smit-McPhee the son and together they create a touching portrait of love, hope and dedication that burns like one of those wildfires. Alas, their bond is overshadowed by a deep seated sense of vulnerability – one so constant and palpable that it makes the father and son’s beacon of hope feel like a neon sign lighting the way for those who would do them harm. Whether this was Hillcoat’s (or McCarthy’s) intent, I cannot say (I haven’t read the novel). What I can say is that it took only one brush with a band of roving cannibals to make it darn near impossible for me to focus on anything else. In The Road, the land is barren but the unrelenting threat of human-induced atrocity is suffocating. If Hillcoat’s objective is to make the audience identify with a parent’s fear and sense of ultimate helplessness, he succeeds and then some.

Trouble is, I’m not convinced that’s Hillcoat’s objective. While the film’s air of peril never goes away, not even in the handful of scenes in which the father and son seem oblivious to it, The Road is more active in exploring the principles of living. Its implicit question goes something like this: At what point is your own life not worth saving? For the father, value in life can be traced back to one’s will to live – “carrying the fire,” he calls it. He tells his son that they must also remain among the “good guys,” meaning that they would never resort to hunting humans to survive, but by the end of the film you might question whether the father would keep from crossing that line if his son were dying in his arms. The Road reveals a man slowly but surely slipping toward desperation. With good reason. So committed is the man to protecting his child that he is willing to cut ties with his pre-catastrophe life, more than 10 years ago, lest the memories weigh him down like an anchor. Meanwhile, the son has higher standards. For him being one of the “good guys” means more than avoiding becoming one of the bad guys. It means actually being good and, even more, trusting that others are capable of good as well. At times the son’s stance seams not only idealistic but also imperative; there are too many dangers for two people to combat on their own. But the father’s skepticism isn’t without merit; if he were as trusting as his son suggests they should be, both of them would have been dead long ago.

The Road so convincingly evokes the importance of companionship in survival situations that it makes the sight of loners feel farfetched (not just because one of the loners is so old and frail that you’d figure the “bad guys” would have pounced on him like tigers on a turtle). The father and son don’t just help one another live, they give one another reason to live. Sometimes their bond is their only nourishment. Mortensen spends most of the film hidden behind a gnarly beard and in filthy, tattered clothes, and it’s to his tremendous credit that he’s content to stay there. This is not a performance that wows you, but it’s not a performance that should. The barely-surviving are rarely theatrical, and so Mortensen stays inward, trusting subtle vocal inflections and his soulful eyes to evoke the spiritual war inside the man. It works. Charlize Theron plays his wife in occasional flashbacks, but we learn more about the father’s feelings of sadness, loss and fear by watching him in the present. The scene in which the father stands on an elevated stretch of roadway nudging his wedding ring toward the edge of the barricade is the film’s most poignant moment. We ache for the man’s past, present and future all at once. It’s a small scene, as most in The Road seem to be, but it’s one of the best scenes in cinema this year. (The same could be said of the sequence in which the father and son enjoy long overdue baths.)

Alas, The Road isn’t an altogether memorable film, most likely because the story’s black clouds – digital and metaphorical – are too successful at blocking out the light. The compositions of cinematographer Javier Aguirresarobe are so dark that a Coca-Cola can pops off the screen like the little girl in the red coat walking through the otherwise black-and-white Schindler’s List. If you thought McCarthy creation Anton Chigurh was an unstoppable, omnipresent evil, you don’t know the half of it. In The Road, even cocoons of safety leave us preoccupied with the thin barrier between utopia and dystopia. Mortensen and Smit-McPhee have a tremendous chemistry that this film never quite allows us to appreciate. The suffering here is well earned, believable and never exploitive or vindictive. But it’s also unending, making The Road a difficult film to get close to. It provides a clear depiction of the worst tendencies of man, and it provides as much hope as one could expect to find while remaining true to this bleak premise. But more than anything, The Road provides a lot of gray.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Weekly Rant: Best Prop Blunder


When film fans argue about the worst movies to win an Academy Award for Best Picture, the debate rarely goes on for too long before someone mentions Chariots of Fire. About the only thing that’s memorable from the 1981 film – beyond its Best Picture win – is its synthesized Vangelis score, which seems as detrimentally anachronistic today as it was wildly popular at the time. What saves Chariots of Fire from even more derision, I suspect, is that the movie is hardly ever discussed. If it isn’t one of the least impressive movies to win Best Picture, it’s at least one of the most forgotten.

That said, today’s post isn’t about whether Chariots of Fire is Oscar-worthy. (At least On Golden Pond didn’t win, I say.) Today’s post is about a filmmaking blunder so significant that it deserves an award. If you’ve never seen Chariots of Fire and want to avoid spoilers, read no further. Otherwise …

To put it in a nutshell, Chariots of Fire is about running and religion. Its climactic moment finds Eric Liddell (Ian Charleson) running in the 400 meters at the Olympics because the finals of his best event, the 100 meters, will fall on Sunday. Liddell, a Christian, refuses to run on the Sabbath.

Just before the 400 is set to begin, American runner Jackson Scholz (Brad Davis) hands the British Liddell a note that reads: “It says in the Old Book, ‘He that honors me I will honor.’ Good luck.” Liddell smiles, crumples the note in his right hand and gets into his crouch for the start of the race, the letter sticking up from his right hand as if he’s carrying the Olympic torch.

For all intents and purposes, this moment is what Chariots of Fire is all about. The idea that Liddell is running to honor God, and that he’s gained the respect of others by doing so, is The Point, if you will, of the film. That’s why I find it absolutely stunning that at one point during the race – more specifically, from one camera angle – this letter magically disappears from Liddell’s hand.

Let’s go to the replay (click to enlarge as necessary):

Liddell gets ready for the race …


Scholz approaches and hands the note to Liddell …


Liddell reads it …


Crumples it …


There’s the note in his right hand …


Still there …


Still there …


Still there …


And oops …


Where did it go?


It’s back! In fact, now it sticks out of both sides of his hand like a relay baton …


But now it’s gone …


Like a magician Liddell opens his hand as if to prove it’s empty …


But when he crosses the finish line – victorious, of course – it’s back again …


I’m sure most films have at least one continuity error. But as prop blunders go, this one is especially glaring, precisely because the film has directed our attention to the note in Liddell's hand and because this is the film's Big Moment. To imagine an equivalent, picture Luke Skywalker’s confrontation with Darth Vader in The Empire Strikes Back and imagine if Luke’s hand suddenly reappeared after it had been sliced off. Think of the end of Die Hard and imagine John McClane firing three shots with his only two bullets. Or imagine a scene in True Grit in which Rooster Cogburn suddenly didn’t have an eye patch.

I ask you, Cooler readers, can you think of a more egregious prop error (or continuity error) in a movie?

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

The Conversations: Lawrence of Arabia


I’m pleased to announce that a new edition of The Conversations is live at The House Next Door. This time around, Ed Howard and I take on an established classic, David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia. Over the course of our conversation, Ed and I look at the ways the film is and isn’t a traditional epic, discuss the effect of the brownface performances, interpret the sexuality of the main character and try to decipher the film’s lasting political statement.

This post wraps up a year’s worth of The Conversations. I’ve enjoyed the heck out of this experience, and I hope you have too because Ed and I have already begun plotting the initial months of 2010, which will include a surprise. Many thanks to Ed, to Keith Uhlich at The House Next Door who approached us for this project (and edits our not-short debates) and to all of the readers and commenters. These conversations have made me a better moviegoer. I'm grateful for that.

As usual, Ed and I hope that our latest discussion leads to an even larger conversation among readers, so head on over to The House Next Door and join the conversation about Lawrence of Arabia.

Previous Editions of The Conversations:

David Fincher (January 2009)
Mulholland Dr. (February 2009)
Overlooked - Part I: Undertow (March 2009)
Overlooked - Part II: Solaris (March 2009)
Star Trek (May 2009)
Werner Herzog (May 2009)
Errol Morris (July 2009)
Michael Mann (August 2009)
Quentin Tarantino - Part I (August 2009)
Quentin Tarantino - Part II (September 2009)
Pixar (WALL-E) (October 2009)
Trouble Every Day (October 2009)