Herr Wozzeck Muses: Lingering Ideas...

Shame brought up a very interesting question for me, I think. Most of these questions were actually fairly critical to how I thought about the film, and it brought me to realize one of the great things about that movie.

My question was this:

Why does Steve McQueen linger on some things for a much longer period of time than others?

It was something I noticed a lot when I was watching Shame, that McQueen would tend to linger a lot on certain pieces of certain scenes. The camerawork tended to live in slightly longer cuts, particularly in Fassbender's scenes where he interacts with other characters. I will admit it was a little jarring to see that the director lingers a lot on the same motif for several minutes, staying on that for a while before something interesting happens. There's a date scene that goes on for a while, there's a scene of intimacy that goes on for a while, and there's an entire scene that messes with our perception of time that goes on for a while close to the end.

But at the end of the day, I think this works to its advantage. For when we get subjected to so much within a certain amount of time, it really jumps at us when something happens. The date scene is necessarily long for a reason that becomes clear later on: it serves as a characterization bit that lets us peer into Brandon's mind when he tries to have sex with her later and ultimately can't bring himself to go all the way with it. A long scene of Carey Mulligan singing focuses almost exclusively on her face, with only a brief glimpse of Brandon's face that tells us everything we need to know about what he's feeling.

But ultimately, I think the fact that McQueen lingers on the same topic for so many minutes is best demonstrated by the last sex scene that occurs in the movie. Let me relate the camera work of the final sex scene of the movie so you can see what I mean...

So the final sex scene is a threesome with Fassbender and two women. What entails is a bunch of extremely close shots of the sex, with some shots getting almost pornographic in how graphic they are. It always cuts to flashes of flesh, bare flesh and nothing but as these three people engage in the act. However, the scene ends not with a wide shot of the act itself, but with a close-up of Michael Fassbender's face as he orgasms. From his facial expression, however, we get the all-too-clear sense that this is an orgasm that is wrought with pain and anger and a great amount of sadness. While Fassbender's acting does so much for the shot, it's the fact that we've seen so much sexualized flesh in the preceeding two or so minutes that really makes the shot work. This is partly because it's the first full shot of Fassbender's face in such a scene, partly also because we don't see the other parties in the shot, and partly because seeing that expression in what's supposed to be the height of ecstasy is rather jarring for the audience, and casts the entire two or so scenes beforehand in a completely different light. It sums up everything about the events leading up to that point in a way that no other edit of the film could have, and it's a critical shot for a character-defining moment.

And in all honesty, that singular shot that lasts for about six or so seconds was literally the point where, at least for me, Shame took a step up from being just a really good movie, and became a movie that I can say is unforgettably great. If we had seen such a shot earlier, I doubt the impact would have been as great as it ultimately was. But thanks to the fact that he lingered on other things before presenting the shot was what ultimately contributes most to how powerful it is.

And that is why lingering on something can be a virtue in film making.

This is Herr Wozzeck Muses. I'll see you guys next time.

"Shame"

I think I'll start today by saying something about movies. Sometimes, a movie comes along, and you'll be so floored by it that literally, you find yourself at a loss to speak. Sometimes, a movie so incredibly good comes along, and it'll make you think about it for a long time. And sometimes, that movie is one that takes a lot of risks.

Today's movie is one of these movies.

Shame

Brandon (Michael Fassbender) is an office worker who has a bit of a problem: he's addicted to sex, to the point that he can form no personal attachments at all. Enter his sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan), who stays with Brandon at his apartment for a few days. His personal life from there begins to unravel, and he begins to question many things in his life.

I... This is one of those films that defies summaries, really. And I really don't know where to begin.

I guess... Yeah, I think I'll start at the NC-17 rating. Trust me, this movie earns its NC-17 rating, especially near the end when the sex scenes get really graphic, almost to the point of being pornographic in one or two shots. Trust me when I tell you, though, that this movie is so masterful that I don't think that it could've done without those shots I mention.

I think the best way to describe this movie is as a slow character study of sex obsession. There's something wonderful about the way Brandon's character develops: we see him as a man who is always having sex a lot of the time, but from what we see we're not sure why as he forms no personal connections, and love is the kind of thing he feels he has no use for. And then, when his sister Sissy comes along, we see some of his insecurities come about in some of her actions, and from there he just begins to question what the hell he is doing as a result. This shift in his character is key in this movie, and while it is very slow to develop, the viewer's patience is greatly rewarded.

With the wrong actors, it could've fallen apart. But the casting people did a wonderful job casting this. I was pretty convinced of Michael Fassbender's acting abilities from his portrayal of Magneto in X-Men: First Class. But here? After seeing him in this movie, I'm convinced that Fassbender can do no wrong. Fassbender's performance is spellbinding: Brandon's character is full of hidden rage and sorrow, and Fassbender's performance captures this perfectly, particularly when he lets it all out as the movie draws to its conclusion. This is to say nothing of a good supporting turn from Carey Mulligan, but Fassbender steals the show, and the movie just works incredibly well thanks to him. Academy, take note: if I don't see Michael Fassbender at the Oscars this year, there's gonna be hell to pay.

Director Steve McQueen, too, gives it his all here. I am at odds with some of his choices in the shakier camera work, but he makes some really smart decisions on where to train the camera in relation to the actors, and the shots he chooses say almost everything you need to know about what the characters are thinking most of the time. In many ways, the camera work tells the whole story for us, and it's wonderful to see a movie take such an approach to how it tells its story. Combine that with the incredible acting at work, and... well...

I... I've got nothing else to say here. Go see Shame right now. It's one of the best movies of the year, hands-down, and Fassbender has now made it perfectly clear that he's a force to be reckoned with. So go see this movie right now.

4/4

A must-see picture of the year.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

"Hugo"

And this review begins with the very appropriate phrase given to us by the credentials of this movie:

"Martin Scorcese is making a family movie."

And right there, you have all the impetus you need to see today's movie.

Oh, by the way, before I get to it... a spoiler warning:

In order to properly talk about the movie, I will have to spoil the plot. So here's a spoiler warning, and don't take it lightly, whatever you do.

Okay, with that out of the way, let's get to today's movie.

Hugo

Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) is a boy who lives alone in a train station managing all their clocks. Along the way, he attempts to fix an automaton that his father (Jude Law) found in a museum. However, when he comes across Georges Méliès (Ben Kingsley) at a toy shop in his train station, things suddenly happen, and then he finds himself going on an adventure with Georges' goddaughter Isabelle (Chloe Grace-Moretz) that leads him to many new places.

So, here are a couple things to note about this movie.

1) No, they don't mean that kind of adventure that so many movies these days try to force into their plots.
2) *here be spoilers* For those of you who know your film history backwards and forward, yes, this is that Georges Méliès.

Yes, this is a movie about movies, though more specifically, it's about other things pertaining to the movies. Don't trust the trailers here: the big whimsical stuff comes less from Hugo's escapades and more from what he and Isabelle discover on their little adventure: that Isabelle's godfather was once a great film-maker, was revolutionary for his time as being the godfather of special effects, and other things like that. *Here end the spoilers*

And honestly, there's something about that which comes across as a breath of fresh air in the family movie genre. Yes, there's the usual capery stuff that comes up with these movies, but they're not the main focus of the movie after a while. While it's a tonal shift that may surprise some, I found that it lent itself to a certain element of charm that I think is missing from the genre these days, and it becomes engaging for a totally different reason than you'd think.

And as well, the whole visual aesthetic works. I'll go out on a limb here and say that you definitely should see this movie in 3D: I'm not normally for the format, but this movie sports one of the best uses of 3D I've ever seen in a movie. The style is also incredibly vivid and quite pleasing to look at.

So overall? I suggest you all go see Hugo. It's a very charming, engaging movie that does things differently. And the things it does differently work really well for the movie, and so it becomes a fresh new experience for everyone. Go take your kids to see this over the Holiday season. Trust me, you won't regret it.

4/4

A must-see picture of the year.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

"The Muppets"

So... these days a lot of cultural icons have been coming back into the fold in the form of reboots by various major film studios. So far, we've had Alvin and the Chipmunks being among the more successful properties returning to the fold, and... well, now we have a cultural icon returning.

And boy, have we missed the guys in today's movie...

The Muppets

Gary (Jason Siegel) and Walter (Peter Linz) are both brothers, with Walter being a huge fan of the Muppets. On a trip to LA to celebrate the anniversary of Gary and his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams), however, Walter uncovers a nefarious plot by Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) to destroy the Muppet Theater to get at some oil on the property. Thus, the three of them recruit Kermit, Ms. Piggy, Gonzo, Fozzie, and all of the other favorites of the old gang to put on a last show to raise the ten million dollars that will save the theater.

And from there, we get things going.

Now, I'll make something clear. I'm not a fan of the Muppets, but this is more on account of being sorely unfamiliar with the property, except for maybe a couple of points when I've stumbled upon clips of the Muppet Show as part of music-related searches (more especially sketches with Victor Borge). So going in, I wasn't quite sure what to expect, except from tidbits I've heard from other people who like the Muppets.

But when I sat there? I was really quite charmed by everything this movie has. It's funny, it's got very catchy tunes, it has a major heaping of optimistic heart, and the whole thing just comes together at the end of the day. Everybody involved in this movie gets a chance to shine, even with the cameo appearances made by way too many celebrities to count.

And ultimately? I was charmged by The Muppets, as I had a lot of fun watching this movie? Is it the greatest thing ever? I think that the humor could have been a little more constant, with all the lampshade hanging and fourth wall destruction this movie has. But at the end of the day, it's a charming movie with charming characters that is a great time for both kids and adults.

3.5/4

Most definitely worth checking out.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

Flashback Reviews: The Fall

Okay, so last weekend, we managed to review a movie directed by Tarsem. We found distinct visual flair, and we found that while the story was pretty lacking, the visuals more than made up for it. So overall, it ended up being very fun.

But what about the rest of Tarsem's filmography? Well... The Cell is reportedly pretty bad, and we still have Mirror, Mirror to look forward to next year, so... we'll not touch on those. Yet. But there is another movie...

And this one, is actually really good.

The Fall (2006)

Roy (Lee Pace) is a movie stuntman who winds up paralyzed in a hospital. He gets frequently visited by the curious Alexandria (Catinca Untaru), a girl who is there for a broken arm. When Roy begins telling Alexandria a very long fantasy, story, however, he begins to weave the tale of the Black Bandit and the Governor Odius, in exchange for favors from Alexandria that involve her stealing the hospital's supply of morphine.

And things get rather trippy from there.

So again, Tarsem's visual flair comes to the movie's aid a lot. There are some shots of the movie that would be considered works of art in their own right, though the fantasy sequences all tend to have this rather grand air about them that steals the show every time it cuts to them.

Of course, though, one thing I find striking about the story is how deliberately paced it is. It's a very slow-paced story that builds up gradually, but as the story of the movie goes on, it reveals an incredibly tragic dychotomy at its heart. Slowly, the tale Roy tells begins to show parallels to the hospital around them, and Tarsem is extremely careful in choosing which details are filled in as parallels. And the last fifteen or so minutes of the movie? They have to be some of the most heartbreaking fifteen minutes I've ever seen in a movie, as we've seen the fairy tale get progressively darker to reflect Roy's character. These parallels add enough richness to the story, that we don't watch the movie soley for the visual style.

And that is a strength that suits The Fall very well. It has an engaging storyline, as well as having the great visual style. Thus, as a whole, the movie works on just about every level, even if some of the acting is a little stilted.

So at the end of the day?

3.5/4

Most definitely worth checking out.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

"Immortals"

Okay, so… Sorry about last week. Again. It happened again where I was way too busy to be able to go to the movies. You’d be surprised how much stuff I have to do right at the moment.

But rest assured guys, I have not forgotten about you! So here I am to provide another little review on something.

And we get right to today’s movie with a bang.

Immortals

Theseus (Henry Cavill) is a peasant boy who finds himself entangled in a larger than life quest. His mother is killed in front of him by the evil King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke), who seeks to unleash the titans on the Earth after the Gods abandon his family. Thus, Theseus, with the indirect guidance of Zeus (Luke Evans) and the oracle Phaedra (Freida Pinto), goes to defeat Hyperion.

So in other words, it’s a huge Greek Mythological story… if it decided to give actual Greek myth a historic middle finger. That, however, is unrelated to the point, and another story entirely.

So let’s get down to business. What this movie doesn’t quite have in its favor… it suffers mildly from a rather turgid script that more or less goes through the motions and has the same kind of “Greek-ish epic” dialogue that you’d expect that goes along the lines of “honor honor the other guys are evil blah blah blah”. There’s also a rather large part of the second act which drags quite a bit in the action as there really isn’t that much that is interesting about it.

What it does have in its favor, though? It’s got one heck of a visual style behind it. Director Tarsem brings a ridiculous amount of visual pizazz to the action, and every scene in the movie is clear, easy to see, and—surprisingly—quite brutal. It also features some truly wild set and costume design, and the whole aesthetic works really beautifully in combination with everything. So if nothing else, we have a really wonderful aesthetic that works incredibly well. The actors too all try their best to make the script they have work, though it’s not entirely successful at a few points.

So overall? Well, there’s not much to say about Immortals. It has exciting action, one incredible visual style, and a rather poor script. If you’re into these kinds of movies, well… this movie is quite definitely for you.

2.5/4

If you want to go see it, go see it. If you don’t want to go see it, don’t.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I’ll see you guys next time.

Herr Wozzeck Goes To The Opera!

Hi guys. Yes, I know I didn't have a review for a new release last week. Well... to be honest, none of the new releases were terribly interesting to me at all. Most of the hold-overs were stuff I really didn't have time for, and the only thing I could've found intriguing about the new movies this past weekend was Gabourey Sidibe finally getting herself into a big Hollywood movie, although the fact that her part is an incredibly tiny part wasn't enough to convince me to see said movie.

Besides, I had other plans. Why?

Well, for those of you who follow Fathom Events, then you'll know that the Metropolitan Opera broadcasted a production of Richard Wagner's Siegfried last Saturday at around 12:00 EST. What's even better is that the Regal multiplex I go to for a vast majority of my film reviews was one of the locations of the broadcast. So I attempted to make my way to that to see the opera at the movies.

So I thought that today I'd comment on the experience, and my impressions of the production from one average every-day moviegoer to the next.

So, the experience? Well, it's Wagner opera, so I was there for a long time. If you thought Avatar was a long movie? Forget it: the broadcast of Siegfried lasted about five hours and twenty minutes, including the intermission features the Met broadcasts usually include. So that's a long time to be sitting in the theater: thankfully, also due to the fact that it was opera, we didn't have to stay in the theater for the whole five and a half hours. At the intermissions, there were fifteen minutes between the ends of each act and the intermission feature that would play before the start of the next act, so we all had fifteen minutes to walk around and do stuff between acts. Good thing, too.

It was also a fairly strange experience: literally, I think I was the youngest person at that theater for the broadcast. Being a frequent opera-goer at one time in my life, I can tell you that it's nothing unusual if you're at the opera in a theater or an opera house, but if you're in the opera at the movies where you've been used to seeing young people all the time? Now that is surreal. Though it's also funny that going to the opera at the movies has been the only time I've been able to get away with drinking Orange Fanta in the theater while the show is going on, but that is another story entirely.

As for the production itself? Well... putting on my critical hat for a second, I can tell you that the broadcast itself was excellent. The singing was excellent (especially from Jay Hunter Morris as the title role, who stepped into one of opera's most difficult roles at basically the last minute (Which, oddly enough, is a lot more common for the Met than you'd think. And not just recently, either: its entire history is filled with mishaps that occurred at some point or another.) and still managed to sing and act as an incredibly convincing Siegfried), and everyone involved brought their best to the table. I wish the projection hadn't been as dark as it was in the broadcast I saw it at, as there were a few times when it was needlessly difficult to tell what was set up in the set from time to time. However, I can also tell you that Robert LaPage's production is something you have to see, even if you're not an opera buff. Most productions of any of the operas in Wagner's Ring tend to fall victim to the fact that they are typically operas in which things are incredibly dynamic as far as stage directions go, but LaPage's production is both visually stunning and brings an element of dynamism into the operas that very few productions have ever managed to do. Overall, it was an excellent broadcast all around.

And it was a great time, for me being an opera-goer who went to the movies for this one.

So... that's that. I went to the opera, and crazy times were had for all.